Your views on gun laws in the UK

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
WHAT!

So it's o.k for the odd massacre to happen just so that a minority of people like you can shoot guns in your back garden :confused: :rolleyes:

Like I said, utterly cold and selfish!!
Click to expand...

Yes, to put it bluntly.

You can't legislate for the majority based on the activities of a single crazy individual and still claim to be a fair, free and Liberal society.
 
Dolph said:
I disagree, especially with your comparison of guns and child porn. child porn is rightly illegal because it cannot be made consensually (ignoring the bizarre prohibitions on cartoons etc).

By contrast, guns can be used for various, legal purposes, including recreation, hunting, self defence and so on. It is entirely possible to own and use firearms without violating the rights of others (which is, incidentally, why a line can be drawn around nuclear weapons and the like in civilian hands). The fact that this can be done makes the situation incomparable to child porn, and comparable with other balanced rights.
Click to expand...

We're never going to agree on the gun ownership, but in relation to the child porn example, it's irrelevant that the act of making it is illegal. If you were to be the sort of grim and despicable person to own such material (a photo) then all they are actually doing is owning a photo. That's a completely separate act from actually raping a child. It's like banning pictures of somebody carrying drugs.

I concede that there are a limited number of legitimate gun uses.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
You can't legislate for the majority based on the activities of a single crazy individual and still claim to be a fair, free and Libertarian society.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you Dolph. :D

Anyways where did that Anders Breivik chap get his gun from criminal gangs or was it just a normal household implement. Just out of interest.
 
Dolph said:
I disagree, especially with your comparison of guns and child porn. child porn is rightly illegal because it cannot be made consensually (ignoring the bizarre prohibitions on cartoons etc).

By contrast, guns can be used for various, legal purposes, including recreation, hunting, self defence and so on. It is entirely possible to own and use firearms without violating the rights of others (which is, incidentally, why a line can be drawn around nuclear weapons and the like in civilian hands). The fact that this can be done makes the situation incomparable to child porn, and comparable with other balanced rights.
Click to expand...

What the hell would you hunt in this country Dolph?
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Michael Robert Ryan ?

Basically your saying your hobby is more important than the 34 human lives taken by licensed firearms
Click to expand...

Basically you are saying that 34 lives in 20+ years are enough to strip rights from 62 million people (whether they choose to use them or not is irrelevant)

care to apply that logic to anything else, or is it just guns? after all, cars, kitchen knives, swimming pools, horse racing and just about every human activity in the modern world had higher death rates than that....
 
Xordium said:
I reckon supporting McChrystal we were closer to the action than 99% of armed forces ever get tbh. See you missed all that fun. Teaching Americans how to climb mountains I expect.
Click to expand...

First ones on the ground as usual......poxy Americans were still trying to figure out whether they should bring shorts or not and the NA were trying to decide whether we to kill us or kiss us........the normal ****.
 
Last edited:
@Dolph

Surveyor said:
So we shouldn't have the law and accept that by not having it these events will occur even if infrequently?
Click to expand...

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
WHAT!

So it's o.k for the odd massacre to happen just so that a minority of people like you can shoot guns in your back garden :confused: :rolleyes:

Like I said, utterly cold and selfish!!
Click to expand...

I take it from your lack of response that your consider these events to be some form of "acceptable loss"?
 
Castiel said:
how many people were killed in firearms related murders prior to the ban, how many after?

Can you also guarantee that increasing gun ownership would not have added to that murder total, and lets not forget the potential for increased incidents of gun related accidents.

I see nothing wrong with gun ownership as long as the weapon is secured within the facility ofthe sports/gun club where it is used.

There is no need to have open gun ownership solely for the purpose of self-protection.....unless you can supply solid evidence why gun ownership would in fact lower the incidence of crimes on the person?
Click to expand...

Regarding the text in bold - that's all fine and dandy, but there's a couple of shooting clubs near me that have had their club facilities raided by thieves who stole all of the kit, rammed the building with a truck and used acetylene cutters to gain access to the secure areas. Same went for a well known manufacturer/gunsmith not too long ago - the thieves took all of his kit, including rifles that were in for servicing and repairs - that was not a simple job or a random break-in.

Centralising firearms storage at clubs raises its own difficulties, not least the cost of making small clubs facilities secure to the point of effectiveness against a determined thief.
Having those firearms spread out makes them more difficult to steal; unless I publicised it, who would know I had a gun safe hidden away in my house? The chances of a random burglary turning up a correctly secured firearm are slim, as the potential thief is not out for anything other than valuables and cash and a quick getaway.

More legislation against that small percentage of dangerously unstable individuals might attempt to prevent loss of life after the event. I'd argue for better and more thorough enforcement of existing laws and regulations. Everyone who knew michael ryan knew he was not all there (therefore not a suitable person to have a licensed firearm); and thomas hamilton had involvement with police that should have warranted removal of his firearms as a necessary precaution. In both cases there were questions that should have been asked regarding their being granted firearms licenses and suspension of said licenses.
Had either of those two been appropriately dealt with by local police and FLO's beforehand regarding their firearms, they would not have had the means to do what they did. In effect they became somebody else's problem, by that time it was too late.

I don't think we need firearms for defence in this country, but it would be nice to have more of a choice when it comes to sporting shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom