Poll: UK Gun Laws

[413x]

If you're going to kill someone with a knife you're going to do it.

A gun makes it easier. Way easier.
There will be scenarios where someone would with a gun but without it they couldn't do it.

So the gun/knife analogy doesn't work for me. They are not the same.

 

[NVP]

It's nothing to do with 'quick wins' - it's just reading through what has been an interesting discussion it's reaching an obvious point of stalemate because you "feel the severity outweighs the rarity, regardless of the statistics you attempt to reason with".

There's no real discussion to be had beyond that - you even follow that up with "I didn't wish to delve deeper into his use of statistics".

There's nothing wrong with having a feelings based position on a subject, particularly so a relatively emotive topic like this, but that isn't going to make for a productive discussion for anyone else participating or reading because it's clearly going to go nowhere - everything will just be met with "but I don't feel the same".

Exactly why it was a short, summary post and why I didn't engage further. I thought it was self explanatory, but I can see I've not worded it too completely.


Edit: you say it's not about a quick win, however you don't appear to want to reply to my posts that are direct replies to yours, only nitpick out of context.

 

[Kenai]

He decided to use a gun, something that I assume he had to go and get from his cabinet, load it and then go and find his victims. He didn’t use a knife as it wasn’t a random, spur of the moment attack. The gun was the unique thing here which allowed the death of these people. I suspect if he didn’t have a gun, he wouldn’t have killed these people.

Equally, if it wasn't a random spur of the moment attack you could argue that the gun wasn't the thing that caused the killing and in it's absence he would have simply planned a different way to do things - poisoning a family meal or something for example.

 

[Ahleckz]

Equally, if it wasn't a random spur of the moment attack you could argue that the gun wasn't the thing that caused the killing and in it's absence he would have simply planned a different way to do things - poisoning a family meal or something for example.

Oh right. Let’s not make people safer from one type of threat and weapon because they’ll only get hurt in other ways.

Rollseyes.jpg

 

[Kenai]

Oh right. Let’s not make people safer from one type of threat and weapon because they’ll only get hurt in other ways.

Nearly.

Lets not go overboard reacting to something as if it was the cause, if it might have only been a method.

You'll expend large amounts of efforts trying to control X, Y and Z and see people turn to A, B and C instead if you're just addressing symptoms and not problems.

If someone has reached the point where they've decided, in a planned manner as you suggest, to kill their own family - it's not a gun that's taken them to that place. Taking the gun away doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the category of weapon that'll be listed on the reports.

Our controls are in a good enough place that we're not seeing USA style mass shootings of schoolkids every other week etc. where that sort of problem absolutely can be argued to be either partly or wholly enabled by gun access.

 

[Ahleckz]

If someone has reached the point where they've decided, in a planned manner as you suggest, to kill their own family - it's not a gun that's taken them to that place. Taking the gun away doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the category of weapon that'll be listed on the reports.

This is the impasse I’m afraid. I think that the gun made this more likely. It’s harder to kill with a knife/hammer, and it’s more dangerous to the killer. Therefore I think having a gun makes it more likely the attack will be fatal. You disagree and seem to think this guy would have killed with any weapon. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Plus, if they did use a different weapon the likelihood of the victim getting away alive is higher.

There’s not really anyway to get past this as the killer killed the selves so we won’t know why the gun was used over some poison as you suggest.

 

[Luckystrike123]

I have previously held a shotgun certificate, which I did not renew as I stopped recreational shooting.

I found that the vetting process was thorough and adequate at stopping unsuitable people getting access to shotguns.

I know people who were refused due to minor criminal convictions, another who had been in a drunken fight who had his guns confiscated.

A friend who was in poor mental health (bereavement) was visited by a firearms officer for a welfare check - although imo this did take too long to happen (guns had already been removed by a concerned friend).

Ultimately you cannot factor for an ordinary person who is seen as upstanding/trust worthy from going off the deep end and using a weapon that they have access too.

I am however fully behind the restrictions for hand guns, rifles etc. So that when disaster does strike the damage is 'limited', unlike America were mass shootings are common.

 

[Rroff]

This is the impasse I’m afraid. I think that the gun made this more likely. It’s harder to kill with a knife/hammer, and it’s more dangerous to the killer. Therefore I think having a gun makes it more likely the attack will be fatal. You disagree and seem to think this guy would have killed with any weapon. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Plus, if they did use a different weapon the likelihood of the victim getting away alive is higher.

There’s not really anyway to get past this as the killer killed the selves so we won’t know why the gun was used over some poison as you suggest.

There are other methods - while fortunately not common a few instances of people intentionally driving their vehicle into the path of a lorry or off a cliff, etc. in other instances the use of poison and so on.

Given the gun laws in this country and relatively low crossover of people both owning firearms and disturbed enough to kill their family changes to gun laws isn't going to make much difference.

 

[Gaygle]

I think that the gun made this more likely.

I'd probably disagree with that in this instance, in terms of likelihood

It’s harder to kill with a knife/hammer, and it’s more dangerous to the killer.

Generally, I would absolutely agree with you, which is why the whole "don't ban guns because someone could use a knife instead" argument is fundamentally flawed - however, in this instance, a grown man in the same house as a woman and a young child with them likely to be completely unaware they were about to be attacked - I'd say due to the element of surprise and within a confined environment, 99% of the time, he could have got a kitchen knife and killed her and his daughter whilst she was asleep upstairs. In fact, it would have been easier for him to get a knife and do it without alarming them than it would have been him cracking open the shotgun cabinet and start loading the gun!

Therefore I think having a gun makes it more likely the attack will be fatal.

Again, strictly within this scenario, I think it's debatable. What you'd gain in ultimate devastation with a shotgun, you'd lose in terms of the other party being able to grab it, just plain missing and the other person running for their life, the gun misfiring etc etc

You disagree and seem to think this guy would have killed with any weapon. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Plus, if they did use a different weapon the likelihood of the victim getting away alive is higher.

In this instance, I'd have to say that I think Kenai is right. If you've got yourself into the mindset where you're going to do something so horrific as to what he did and you didn't have a gun, you'd use a knife. The reason I think it'd go this way is that numerous people who don't have a shotgun and get into this mindset simply use a knife instead and the key issue here is that the victims are all unsuspecting.

There’s not really anyway to get past this as the killer killed the selves so we won’t know why the gun was used over some poison as you suggest.

Poison or something is way different.

 

[jaybee]

Regarding the poll added, what counts as a "professional user" ? Is a farmer a professional?

 

[gingergundog]

This is the impasse I’m afraid. I think that the gun made this more likely. It’s harder to kill with a knife/hammer, and it’s more dangerous to the killer. Therefore I think having a gun makes it more likely the attack will be fatal. You disagree and seem to think this guy would have killed with any weapon. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Plus, if they did use a different weapon the likelihood of the victim getting away alive is higher.

There’s not really anyway to get past this as the killer killed the selves so we won’t know why the gun was used over some poison as you suggest.

Using a knife would not have been more dangerous for him to stab his unsuspecting wife and child.

 

[Rroff]

Regarding the poll added, what counts as a "professional user" ? Is a farmer a professional?

I would say a professional user is someone who has to use something as part of their occupation (or professional sports) and subjected to a higher level of training and scrutiny than the every day person.

 

[Rroff]

I agree that was crossing a line... however the point was legitimate (just should not have been made personal)

alcohol can and does harm some people, it is completely unnecessary from any objective view point...... and yet millions of people consume it responsibly without issue

should society ban something from the millions to protect the 0.01% of people who can't act responsibly with it

Completely off-topic but I find your sig depressing every time I see it - having a Qashqai (mine) sitting in the space I'd like to have something more interesting, the 370Z being one I've considered from time to time but need the practicality of an SUV.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Completely off-topic but I find your sig depressing every time I see it - having a Qashqai (mine) sitting in the space I'd like to have something more interesting, the 370Z being one I've considered from time to time but need the practicality of an SUV.

indeed. before having a child I had anticipated getting a 370z one day. all that changed however.
and now in general my priorities are different anyway and I am now more interested in minimising my carbon footprint.
I hope my next vehicle will be something far more efficient...... but I totally digress (unless we want to consider a car being a potentially lethal weapon that we should ban

 

[Rroff]

unless we want to consider a car being a potentially lethal weapon that we should ban

I mean does anyone actually need to go anywhere by car at speeds which are capable of of lethality? :s like your point there is only so far we should regulate things due to a tiny fraction of a percent of mad people.

 

[Maple Leaf]

I’ve asked a few times, why did an accountant need a loaded shotgun in a school house on school grounds? No one can answer that.

An accountant is a professional person educated to postgraduate level who is regarded as trustworthy by the state. Presumably, he had no previous criminal record or history of mental illness which is why he was granted a SGC. As for why he 'needed' to have it in a house on school grounds, well, it was his personal property and in the absence of an alternative convenient secure storage place then it was the logical place to keep it. The Police would have been out to inspect that house and make sure he had a shotgun cabinet/clamp bolted to the wall or floor and if they thought the house was insecure/unsuitable then they would have required him to store it somewhere else.

This is the impasse I’m afraid. I think that the gun made this more likely. It’s harder to kill with a knife/hammer, and it’s more dangerous to the killer. Therefore I think having a gun makes it more likely the attack will be fatal.

I don't agree in a family homicide case. Think about how traumatic it would be to kill a family member you love/loved with a shotgun at very close range. You'd have to be very disturbed to do it. If you get it wrong you could blow their arm or leg off and then you'd have to shoot them again to kill them fast. The amount of blood, gore and brain matter etc from a head shot would be absolutely horrendous, you'd be emotionally scarred for life by it. Just hitting them hard on the head with a club hammer when their back is turned to you or stabbing them in the heart with a kitchen knife when they are not expecting it would be far less traumatic for you. If they suspect nothing then you could kill them while they are asleep so that they don't suffer and there isn't a bloodbath. Shotguns at close range make a terrible mess.

 

[BUDFORCE]

I drink and own guns.

 

[Freakbro]

An accountant is a professional person educated to postgraduate level

Its not actually. Its not a regulated term so anyone can call themselves an accountant. I mean, in this case he was charted but there's no requirement for any level of qualifications.

 

[Caracus2k]

I drink and own guns.

And the question is to what degree the state should be able to interfere in either of those decisions.

We have very stringent gun laws and not so stringent alcohol laws

 

[BUDFORCE]

I did ask about getting a bar put in at the rifle range.

The idea was shot down.