Poll: UK Gun Laws

[NVP]

:facepalm: does the nature of rural areas also need spelling out to you?

You're doing a lot of this, posting without actually saying anything. It would be more helpful if you provided explanations.

 

[NVP]

I work with OOH(Out of ours) contractors from all industries, Infrastructure engineers (all the sub divisions that may include electricians and the like).
I also work with pest controllers/hunters etc and people who attend sights to deal with animals.

It is not that simple and your idea wont work based on the needs of said industries, it will be TOO SLOW.

Thanks for at least providing your reasoning.

I think the volume of farmers in comparison would help facilitate a workable solution, as well as having localised services in most farming areas etc.

 

[NVP]

I never had you down as being this illogical and obtuse

Then perhaps don't be so quick to dismiss my comments.

 

[NVP]

Farming areas usually are quite remote and spread out over a large area, sometimes without great transport infrastructure (despite the use of whacking great lorries and trucks) it shouldn't need spelling out how this makes a problem for your idea and there are plenty of genuine reasons why the likes of farmers need ready and quick access to firearms which also shouldn't need spelling out.

Surely by now you'll realise that perhaps they do need spelling out? As that way, solutions can be thought of etc. rather than "nope, not gonna happen".

Yes, farming areas are large and provide a number of challenges, but farmers don't require their guns on every part of their land. Where do they require them? What is the frequency they require them? How does the farmer traverse the land where they need their gun etc.

Nothing could not be overcome.

As I already said I see no reason why farmers couldn't be given a choice. They either train to be a professional or they hire a professional. I think most would train. But that would be more heavily regulated than it is now.

Exactly, I stated earlier farmers could retain them if they were part of these professional services.

 

[NVP]

As above doesn't really solve anything - you'd still have a roughly same number of people, maybe with a slightly improved approach to safety, with access to firearms.

This is where we disagree, as under the controls of a professional service regulation should be higher, vetting should be more frequent, I don't know much about guns but potentially constraints can be put on gun types/ ammunition types etc.

And it may not be the same number, if implemented successfully, as the farming community share a lot of services already.

What do you think would be different between farmers having guns and shooting pests now and farmers having guns and shooting pests after they've got a ticket to say they are now a 'professional pests shooter'?

See above.

 

[NVP]

Well IMO higher regulation (within reason) and more frequent vetting should be a thing professional service or not. The rest doesn't actually stand up to the needs of real farming and similar environments, for the most part they are already at the level where it is practical to share services in that respect.

Sorry but given some of your past posts I really can't take you seriously on this.

Was it that pick-up jab?

If you encompass their use under a regulated, professional service, then it will aid higher regulation etc.

Also, what doesn't stand up to the needs of farmers?

I still don't see any discernable difference, they will still have access to a gun and ammo at home.

What problem are you trying to solve?

But there is a difference. Yes, they will still have access, but potentially not at home.


It all depends on how it would be implemented, it's not an impossible feat as some appear to think.

But you want them banned anyway. lol

Do you have a point?

 

[NVP]

No just the most recent to mind of your posts which make it difficult to believe you are posting genuinely when not understanding the difficulties with what you are suggesting.

Firstly, it took a million posts for you to actually "spell out" said difficulties.

Secondly, I've never claimed to not understand them, however I feel solutions could be found to negate these difficulties.

Unfortunately, you seem hesitant to discuss in any real detail so I'm inclined to think you've already noticed some holes...

One of the reasons I have very low tolerances when it comes to this subject - so many people just want them banned without a care as to anyone else's enjoyment but are also the first to cry when the boot is on the other foot.

Reminds me of Eve Online with all the HTFU posts when people complained about changes but then a couple of years down the line those HTFU people were the first ones complaining when changes came along which heavily impacted their area of the game.

How does this situation remind you of that? You appear to have made a scenario up in your head. May I remind you of the incident which sparked this thread.

 

[NVP]

Now trying to turn it around...

lol turn what around? You're not actually helping this debate with these random, non-informative posts.

Please spell it out to me, as you say.


I've responded to all your posts and questions, you've ignored quite of few of my questions and resort to your rhetoric of 'dumb poster don't know how much fun guns are'.

 

[NVP]

If you had any kind of understanding at all you'd realise the problems with your own suggestions and not waste ours and your time with them, and it is hard to believe given your general posting history you are that ignorant of the problems... the issues really aren't even that difficult to comprehend unless you've really lived an incredibly sheltered life - which your posting history goes against.

So basically you seem like a huge time waster.

So basically, no you won't/can't spell it out... so why are you engaging me? You state your position but don't provide reasoning. OK, cool.

 

[NVP]

No, this appears to be more of an 'I'm right, don't debate me' type of scenario. I must have hurt him, Rroff, I love your pick-up really

 

[NVP]

The irony is NVP was doing the LOL city folk thing a few posts ago.

I think you're confusing threads, that was in the pick-up thread

so I can't believe they are posting genuinely.

Believe it. Entertain me.

 

[NVP]

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 makes it hard to take you seriously.

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.

 

[NVP]

As an MP said in the debate on the 1996 firearms bill (following Dunblane); "you cannot legislate for the actions of a lunatic"

It's not simply legislation, but stricter regulation, more frequent and deeper vetting etc. can easily be facilitated.

 

[NVP]

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.

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.

Is it not your concern about the related deaths?

If you compare the deaths from guns and the deaths from legal drugs, one is more lethal than the other so it's a reasonable comparison due to lethality.

He only mentioned alcohol and tobacco, neither of which are instant killers.

 

[NVP]

My example was just to illustrate that, even in a heavily regulated sector, it's difficult to identify potentially harmful behaviour changes.

I don't have any objections to changing regulations about storage.

Point taken, but few domestic murders are committed using firearms, so there's little, if anything, to gain here. That's assuming these people wouldn't just go to a claw hammer instead.

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.

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 ....

Yes, but these could be replaced by a regulated service, where strict controls are in place around central storage, frequent vetting etc.

Isn't OP the guy who served time for getting a bit stabby? I'm being slightly hyperbolic there... but knives were involed.

Relevance? Or is this an 'attack their reputation' type thing

 

[NVP]

Well dodged. As you seem to not care as to how/why people die, then I'd say that an instant death is preferable over a long drawn out death. Firearms related deaths in the UK are nearly insignificant in comparison. So if death is not your concern, what about the cost to the tax payer. If you prefer long drawn out deaths to instant deaths, are you OK with the cost of those deaths?

You infer quite a lot in this post.

Your argument was obvious from your first post, so I assumed my reference 'instant killer' in relation to alcohol and tobacco would highlight that the issue in this instance isn't simply the number of deaths, but the nature of them.

Hopefully this helps you see how your inferences above are misguided.

 

[NVP]

Like you say, those inconveniences can be overcome.

You're right, it does highlight transportation risk etc. but these could potentially be negated with regulated/fitted lock boxes or travel cases etc.

Or if that isn't viable then the individual is not allowed, and required culling etc. would only be performed by regulated servicemen.


It's not impossible as people would like to believe, just annoying for some.

 

[NVP]

thy cant tho.... you are essentially just banning by proxy. how does culling performed by regulated servicemen equate to me going on an early morning shoot (which is when a lot of them happen).

You want to ban the entire industry / hobby of wildfouling. which you are entitled to that opinion but dont try and dress it up like you are not.

I don't see where I've "dressed" anything up, perhaps you've misread my post?

 

[NVP]

That wasn't my point.

It was that even a highly regulated service with regular contact does not reliably identify potential harmful behaviour. In short, people lie and that makes it difficult.

I'm not against more regular/ stringent checks on firearm owners/ applicants, but it will not stop these incidents. They are such low volume, the money would probably be better spent elsewhere- general mental health services, for example.

That's a fair point. Using a blade requires a lot of commitment.

Oh I see, yes that would be hard to regulate against, but perhaps with an increased frequency and tighter thresholds the potential risk could be reduced slightly.

In addition to just commitment, it isn't thought of as a weapon initially, its thought of as a utensil present in all households. A gun, however, is thought of as a weapon, and knowing you have it to hand could enable unimaginable thoughts to some who are mentally unstable.

 

[NVP]

please don't add me to your hit list

I apologise if people think I'm attacking anyone, I don't mean to. I know I may come across as abrupt or even condescending, but I honestly try to be nice with a bit of humour now and then. However, I will be the first to admit that since all my recent personal troubles I have lost patience and empathy, I'm working on it. So please don't take anything I say personally, I'm just another noise on the internet