/ Farage wants to amend law on hand guns

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Tall Clare - on 28 May 2014
It's from the Telegraph, before anyone levels any Guardianista accusations at me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10595087/Hand-guns-should-be-legalised-and-licensed-Ni...

Personally I'm happy for the laws to remain as strict as they currently are. Anyone else got any (more informed!) thoughts on this?
Dave Garnett - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

Jesus, he's even more barking than I realised.
MG - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

I think it's a bad idea, based on seeing what happens when people have guns without good reason from family in the US.

Another, more UKC typical, thought is that the Telegraph Political correspondent put an s in licence used as a noun.
Postmanpat on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

Well it all depends on the details of the licensing system. It seems ludicrous that olympic pistol competitors have to train in France (that notorious haven of gun crime) but then again we don't want every scrote in the country replacing his knife with a Smith and Whesson.
toad - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

I feel sorry for the minority of legitimate target shooters, but I'll happily sacrifice a gold medal or two to maintain the status quo. I've seen a few attempts at sailing close to the wind with demountable stocks and long barrels - these don't look like competition guns to me, they look like willy waving by people who wear cammo to Morrisons
Sir Chasm - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare: I guess it'll be ok as long as it's British people with handguns, rather than foreigners.

wintertree - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

The current legal state was a knee-jerk reaction IMO. We have an Olympic pistol shooting team who have to train abroad FFS. You could imagine a middle ground where hand guns must be stored on licensed premises only, and use/ownership are subject to strict licensing and evaluation. Oh, and people should pay the full cost of their own licensing.

If it is correctly regulated and controlled, then the only reason to want to prevent people enjoying a hobby is spite. Of course one may question the ability of some police forces to do this correctly (Peterlee, I'm looking at you...)

Mind you I also think that discussion of gun licensing in the UK often detracts from the totally separate issue of unlicensed guns in the hands of criminals. I recall that after the 2004 fatal drive-by shooting in Birmingham some of those affected went on to call for tougher regulation of air rifles. It remains unclear to me how that is going to stop people gong out an buying a MAC-10 machine gun for 50 from some fella in Moss Side or wherever.

Tangentially related, there was a worrying news story in Scotland last week about armed response police in the highlands having moved to carry their weapons by default, not requiring per-incident authorisation to access them from their vehicles, and about them attending regular callouts. This tacit move towards regular, armed policing worries me more than the current restrictive legislation or our very low level of gun crime.
MG - on 28 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:


out an buying a MAC-10 machine gun for 50 from some fella in Moss Side or wherever.

Apparently this is also rather tricky nowadays too. There was a story a while back about some criminal tit-for-tat shootings where the same gun had been used by both sides, the implication being getting hold of illegal guns is difficult so everyone has to "rent" one from the same source.
Kemics - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

He really is a tool. In a round about way I reckon the next general election will see a improved turn out.

No one should have hand guns. Hand guns are for shooting people. That's it. If you want to in the uk you can get a shotgun or a rifle.

America is a great country but there's two examples we should never follow

1. Gun control
2. Health care
Timmd on 28 May 2014
In reply to MG:
> out an buying a MAC-10 machine gun for 50 from some fella in Moss Side or wherever.

> Apparently this is also rather tricky nowadays too. There was a story a while back about some criminal tit-for-tat shootings where the same gun had been used by both sides, the implication being getting hold of illegal guns is difficult so everyone has to "rent" one from the same source.

Yes I've heard that too, that the same guns circulate between different groups.

We can't let Farage get into power. :-(
Post edited at 11:51
Tree on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

The number or severity of gun crimes didn't improve when guns were banned. If statistics are to be believed, they have continued to worsen, with the banning of legal firearms making no impact, for good or ill.
At least in the past we could teach safe use of weaponry.
GrahamD - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tree:

> The number or severity of gun crimes didn't improve when guns were banned.

That is pretty much inevitable. banning guns does not take existing ones out of circulation, it merely reduces the rate at which gun stocks increase. That's a problem with guns - they have a long life span and more are being produced all the time !

Its a damage limitation exercise.
Bob on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tree:

If you take away "inter gang" murders how many gun related killings are there in this country? A genuine question as I really don't know.

I suspect that the number is very few (I think it would also be true for murder as a whole) so any "fear" of gun crime is disproportionate to the actual risk for most people. The number of murders involving firearms in Manchester dropped dramatically a few years ago when just one small gang was finally convicted and put behind bars.
wintertree - on 28 May 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

> That is pretty much inevitable.

Yes, but not because...

> banning guns does not take existing ones out of circulation, it merely reduces the rate at which gun stocks increase.

A lot of the guns used in crime never were legal for private ownership, or were never legally owned or imported. Banning legally held semi-automatic weapons has zero effect on the supply of machine guns to teenagers for cycle by shoot ups etc. It never did, and it never will. It may have made it easier to obtain ammunition, but I suspect that is not the problem.

I think it is disingenuous to mix the two areas. I also think a controlled middle ground exists where access is available within strictly controlled premises for people with a hobby interest.
biped - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It seems ludicrous that olympic pistol competitors have to train in France (that notorious haven of gun crime) but then again we don't want every scrote in the country replacing his knife with a Smith and Whesson.

Agreed. However it doesn't take a genius to see that this is another headline grabbing populist/controversial soundbite to get any attention whatsoever while deflecting attention from anyone who might ask him questions on trivia such as the economy, education, the environment (excuse me while I allow myself a snigger) health, etc..
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to Kemics:

Apart from muzzle loading target pistols that you have to put another round in each time and are normally fairly conspicuous due to those big competition style bodies they have, and would have a similar rate of fire to a sawn off shotgun and far less power.

But I'm sure you'd thought about that before you made a broad sweeping statement about every single type of handgun. A bit like me saying you should never lead with a rope because every single one ever made is only static.

No semi auto pistols shouldn't be legal, semi auto .22 target rifles are pushing it but are apparently useful for pest control and I cant see why someone would need a semi auto shotgun.

I enjoy target shooting, I mainly use air rifles but have used a lot of full bore and small bore target rifles in the past. And do want stricter controls on airguns providing shooting at targets on your own property is recognised as legitimate, and I am am avid supporter of gun control, so no I'm not a gun toting crazy person who wants to go on a rampage, I just want to be left in peace to put little holes in bits of paper.
999thAndy on 28 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

Just a thought re the supply of guns, if lots of homes had handguns, then following every theft from a house a scrote would either be tooled up or in a position to sell his newly nicked shooter to his scrotey pals.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to 999thAndy:

Under the license that's in now if it wasn't locked in the gun safe, that only the registered owner of the weapon had access and knowledge of location of the key, or the registered weapon was not with the registered owner being used for one of a very strict set of uses in a very strict set of places then they'd be likely to be having a holiday at her majesties pleasure.

Also remember the safe is meant to be in an inconspicuous place and secured to either a wall or the floor i believe so its not like they could walk off with it and break into it at a different time.
wintertree - on 28 May 2014
In reply to 999thAndy:
> Just a thought re the supply of guns, if lots of homes had handguns, then following every theft from a house a scrote would either be tooled up or in a position to sell his newly nicked shooter to his scrotey pals.

To quote myself

> I also think a controlled middle ground exists where access is available within strictly controlled premises for people with a hobby interest.

Said scrote isn't going to be able to steal something that isn't in a house now, is (s)he? There are buildings dotted around the UK with stores of fully automatic weapons (armed forces bases), large quantities of explosives (quarry industry warehouses), rifles (gun ranges) etc. These basically do not get broken in to, and if they do the armed response teams know in minutes.

There is no reason why a pistol range can't be suitably secured, with guns forbidden from leaving the premises.
Post edited at 12:57
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm ambivalent - I've been shooting game for over 35 years and own a shotgun (well two actually). I used to own rifles but decided not to renew my firearms cert after the Derek Bird shootings in West Cumbria (we're overrun with rabbits as a consequence but thats another issue).

Handguns have no real use as a hunting weapon (I know there are a few professional stalkers with them allowed on their licence but that's very exceptional), they're entirely used for personnal defence (or offence depending on your point of view). Would the country be a better place with more hand guns in circulation - I just don't see it. Farage is wrong and whilst I have sympathy for the pistol shooting community, I have more for the widr community who wouldn't benefit in the slightest by a change to the current law.

So actually I'm not ambivalent at all - I'm dead set against it.
dissonance - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tree:

> At least in the past we could teach safe use of weaponry.

Why would this be needed if firearms arent available?
Rob Exile Ward on 28 May 2014
In reply to dissonance:

Presumably 'safe use of weaponry' means killing the person you mean to kill rather than a random stranger.

It's oxymoronic.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Or possibly don't try to kill people and don't point it at yourself and others even if you think its unloaded/a laugh/your a hard man. You get the point.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 28 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Yes, but not because...

>

> A lot of the guns used in crime never were legal for private ownership, or were never legally owned or imported. Banning legally held semi-automatic weapons has zero effect on the supply of machine guns to teenagers for cycle by shoot ups etc. It never did, and it never will. It may have made it easier to obtain ammunition, but I suspect that is not the problem.

That's bullshit. Look at the massacres in the U.S with legal weapons. More guns (legal or not) = more ease of obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes.

> I think it is disingenuous to mix the two areas. I also think a controlled middle ground exists where access is available within strictly controlled premises for people with a hobby interest.

? Why do we really need guns. As someone pointed out shotguns and rifles can be owned. Why so eager to get your hands on a handgun?

Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

The only people who are affected by banning hand guns (though not strictly true, the ones you're thinking of have been moved from Section 1 to Section 5 firearms, you can still readily own black powder pistols and revolvers legally as they are Section 1) are those people who are legal firearms owners. Criminals who owned hand guns illegally before 1997, guess what, still own hand guns illegally.

Generally speaking firearm certificate holders are just about the most law abiding people you're likely to meet as any breach in the conditions of your certificate and you'll have it removed. To get a certificate in the first place you have to proove you have good reason to possess specific firearms, you have to ask for exactly what you want and demonstrate where you want to use it. For example, I own two .22 rifles, one is conditioned for pest control, the other is conditioned for target shooting, despite them both being the same caliber, both bolt action etc if I were to take my target rifle out and shoot rabbits with it I would be breaking the conditions on my licence and would have my certificate revoked. Hopefully this gives you an idea of how tight the hoops are that firearms owners in this country have to jump through are?

What about those high profile shootings with legally held firearms you may ask. Good point, these do happen sporadically and it's devastating when it does, however these incidents are always jumped upon by the media and blown out of proportion. Knee jerk legislation, like the handgun 'ban', in these instances is not productive as you cannot legislate against nutcases, if people suddenly flip they'll do so with whatever they can lay their hands on. What is more pertinent is that the police do their job thoroughly, Derrick Bird who went on the shooting spree in Cumbria a few years ago was previously in hospital for his mental state, the police did not remove his firearms at this point and they should have. I'm not pointing fingers, the police generally do a good job at this, I know people who have had their firearms removed when going through divorces for instance but each constabulary has their own firearms licencing team and they're not all of the same standard (or reading from the same book but that's another issue entirely).

Wintertree mentioned that firearm certificate holders should pay the full cost of licencing - firstly, I would gladly pay more if the 'service' the police provided was efficient in any way shape or form. They need to overhaul their own procedures and get rid of efficiencies before they demand more money from licence holders. Secondly, the licences were introduced for the safety of the public, not for the convenience of firearms holders, so it is only right that this public service is partly funded by the taxpayer who reaps the benefit and incurs none of the inconvenience.

Mad hatter 1988 - I'm suprised at your comment as to not seeing the point in semi automatic shotguns given you say you target shoot competitively. Semi auto shotguns are very useful for pest control, eg you see half a dozen rabbits in a field or a group of corvids and you can get several shots of quickly before they all disappear. For those who aren't aware semi automatic shotguns held on a shotgun certificate are limited to 3 shots, those held on a firearms certificate are not limited but generally hold 5-9 cartridges and are much harder to gain authority to possess since you have to demonstrate good reason in order to be authorised to own one (as previously discussed). You may also want a semi automatic shotgun for practical shotgun shooting and competitions, as a competetive target shooter presumably you can see how someone would be an avid practical shotgun shooter?
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:


> Handguns have no real use as a hunting weapon (I know there are a few professional stalkers with them allowed on their licence but that's very exceptional), they're entirely used for personnal defence (or offence depending on your point of view).

You're conveniently forgetting legitimate target shooting.
toad - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:
> (In reply to 999thAndy)

>
> Also remember the safe is meant to be in an inconspicuous place and secured to either a wall or the floor i believe so its not like they could walk off with it and break into it at a different time.

What happened to my dad was they found it on the first "visit" and then watched the house until they could have some quality time alone and took the safe plus significant portion of wall (plus front door).

myserable old git - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:
If Farrage thinks it's a good idea then unless your are a total halfwit you must know it's wrong!
All he really wants to do is keep his name and face in the paper to prolong his moment of fame and his future career on game shows.
Post edited at 14:11
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

Unfortunately haven't shot competitively in a few years but still do a bit of shooting for fun, again only paper punching.

I am and always have been a target shooter and in all the times a did shoot clays they only came in two's, not sure on the rules competitively but would a 3 shot be usable? Granted I can see advantages for pest control but not in a practical sense when on a shotgun license as you only get one extra cartridge for a lot more complexity.
wintertree - on 28 May 2014
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

>> A lot of the guns used in crime never were legal for private ownership, or were never legally owned or imported. Banning legally held semi-automatic weapons has zero effect on the supply of machine guns to teenagers for cycle by shoot ups etc. It never did, and it never will. It may have made it easier to obtain ammunition, but I suspect that is not the problem.

> That's bullshit. Look at the massacres in the U.S with legal weapons. More guns (legal or not) = more ease of obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes.

Jesus wept. Are you saying that legalising semi-automatic weapons would increase the prevalence of machine guns? Because that is what I said, and what you are calling bullshit. Let's assume for the sakes of common sense that semi-automatic weapons that can be easily modified into full-auto are not legalised.

Would you also claim that the heroin on our streets is there because of legalised opitates in our hospitals? As far as I am aware they come from totally different sources, and are almost totally unrelated.

> ? Why do we really need guns. As someone pointed out shotguns and rifles can be owned. Why so eager to get your hands on a handgun?

If it's held within a controlled premises what business of yours is it what someone else wants to do? Some people enjoy pistol shooting, for the same reasons some people enjoy a wide variety of target shooting sports, including rifles and archery.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to toad:

That's a fair bit of effort went into that tbf. Were they just after the gun safe or did they take anything else on the return trip?
MG - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

Handgun target shooters are unfortunate losers from the legislation and if there was a practical means of allowing them to shoot while not jeopardizing the general benefits of restricting gun ownership, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I suspect though there isn't really, or not one that doesn't cost a lot.

Overall though guns are dangerous (if occasionally useful) things and like most dangerous things (e.g. many chemicals, cars, knives) restricting people from owning and using them so that only those with a genuine need are allowed to seems a positive thing. It's not solely about crime but discouraging "gun culture", preventing accidents so on.
toad - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:
> (In reply to toad)
>
> That's a fair bit of effort went into that tbf. Were they just after the gun safe or did they take anything else on the return trip?

They took a couple of clocks and some other stuff on the first trip. Don't think he had much left in the way of nickables,tbh. It was a good while ago - it was the catalyst that got him out of the farm house and into a bungalow in town.
Clarence - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

They should only legalise muzzle-loading black powder flintlock pistols and anyone who has a license must wear a tricorne hat, periwig and frilly shirt at all times.

That should be suitably English and archaic enough to be a UKIP vote winner.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Clarence:

> They should only legalise muzzle-loading black powder flintlock pistols

I know your response is flippant but they already are legal. You can hold muzzle loading black powder pistols and revolvers on a firearms certificate, they're Section 1 firearms so being a member of a target shooting club is sufficient reason to own one.

Mad hatter - I don't like semi autos at clay grounds as not everyone uses breach flags with them. A general rule is that semis only have 2 cartridges loaded at clay grounds. Practical shotgun shooting doesn't use clays by the way, they shoot static targets dotted round a range within a set time limit hence needing more than 3 shots. Also, when the legislation was changed it is thought that they slipped up with the wording as you can have shotguns which 'do not hold more than 2 cartridges in the magazine' (words to that effect) but they did not mention anything about not having one in the breach at the same time hence three shot semis on SGC.

MG - the legislation prior to 1997 was sufficient enough and would not really cost any money to re-enact (conversly it cost a load to implement in the first place as the goverment had to compensate all the owners of legally held hand guns). It was knee jerk legislation and was not needed.
MG - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

It was knee jerk legislation and was not needed.

A bit of difficult claim given Dunblane!
PeterM - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:


> so no I'm not a gun toting crazy person who wants to go on a rampage, I just want to be left in peace to put little holes in bits of paper.

That's just hilarious! Worthy of a Hollywood script involving gun-toting crazy-people militia's in the US mid-west somewhere....
dissonance - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Clarence:

> They should only legalise muzzle-loading black powder flintlock pistols and anyone who has a license must wear a tricorne hat, periwig and frilly shirt at all times.

Bit modern for my tastes. Lets get back to the longbow and 2 hours practice every sunday.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to toad:

It does sound like they were just after the guns then tbf, I wonder if the rural setting played any part in it.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

> The only people who are affected by banning hand guns ... are those people who are legal firearms owners.

Well, them and anyone who might have been shot by them, and anyone they mattered to.

Thomas Hamilton massacred a primary 1 class in Dunblane with guns he held quite legally.

Would he have managed something similar without? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine something on this scale being done without the use of a gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

I accept that it's difficult to be objective about something as horrific as the mass-murder of primary kids, but I'm inclined to err on the side of inconveniencing hobbyists rather than arming people like him.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

Ah ok, essentially the shotgun version of HFT in the air rifle world. Tbh I never even knew such a discipline existed, but I've never really been a shotgun shooter.
999thAndy on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

" if people suddenly flip they'll do so with whatever they can lay their hands on. "

The really important fact is, a nutter with a gun can do far more damage than one without.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to PeterM:

I cant see there being a script about people shooting bits of paper personally, I cant even stand watching and I still coach people occasionally.
PeterM - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

Ok I wasn't being serious about the paper bit, but there have been a number of militias/gunmen that have gone a bit mental precisely because the govt wouldn't just let them be...
In reply to Timmd:

> Yes I've heard that too,

Probably because I wrote it here having just read it in the Economist! ;)

The Economists had another article recently, about Moss Side - I can't remember the details but basically there has been a murder in the area for quite a long time and guns have basically been removed.

I think the very low levels of gun crime in the UK suggest the ban has worked well. Of course its a shame for target pistol shooters, but other hobbyists also lose out on various things for a wider social good.
deepsoup - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Kemics:
> America is a great country but there's two examples we should never follow
> 1. Gun control
> 2. Health care

Well you don't need UKIP for the second one, we're well on the way already. With a further huge boot in that direction looming with the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

(On the subject of which, enormous threat to threat to national sovereignty that it is, UKIP have been strangely silent.)
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

No I'm not, I've always considered target shooting practice for what weapons are actually for, I don't see it as an end in itself. Weapons: rifles, shotguns and pistols have a function and it's not shooting targets.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

Unless they're specifically designed for target shooting because that would be there function. Or are you one of those people that uses a wood chisel to make a hole in brick?
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to PeterM:
Yes you're right there. Unfortunately the government seems happy enough to leave me alone atm, its random people who think because i have a couple of air rifles and air pistols I'm going to go in a rampage or shoot their cat or some other utterly stupid thing that irritate me.
Post edited at 15:40
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

Its anything... anything we do now is wrong.. he's just barking and going for the populist right wing vote..

I was going to say I expect them to come out in support of the death penalty.. and hey presto.. just googled and they have..

Immigration, death penalty, anti-EU, guns... hunting will be next.. probably already been raised... then ...
rousse - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander: I own a 0.177 air pistol and I'm not sure what else you'd use it for apart from target shooting - it's not exactly powerful. A paper target is about its limit...

I'm interested, do you feel the same about archery? (Not meant in an antagonistic way, just some people seem to have a strong aversion to guns but not to other weapons).

Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

He's not just barking, he's dangerously barking. I expect public floggings and the stocks will be next.
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

Re the target shooting.. why can't that just be on military bases? Guns and ammunition held there, only purchased by them. They have the guns there, obviously it would be different but they would have the infrastructure.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

So effectively only someone who is in the military would be able to target shoot, that would create the exact situation that cander thinks it is now.
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

No, you just need access to the base.. which can be arranged. I've shot at bases in the past. Non-military personel on a military base isn't impossible.
Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:
> Personally I'm happy for the laws to remain as strict as they currently are.

I think I'm correct in saying that the police have issued gun licences to children as young as 10.

I'm happy that UK gun laws are strict in the sense that you can't walk into a gun shop and walk out with any manner of automatic weapons but I do think that there is a massive over reaction to gun ownership in the UK. Its very "I don't want a gun so why would anyone else".

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns as the saying goes.
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to rousse:

I have no antagonism towards weapons (guns, if you like), I've owned them for a long time, but I don't pretend they're for anything other than killing. Target shooters seem to think theres an end in accurate placement of shots on a target - I think it's only got reason if it's practice for the real purpose of guns - Hunting if your a civilian, and the application of lethal force if your not.

Weapons are hard to get legally and rightly so, you have to demonstrate a need for a firearm, and shooting targets doesn't qualify in my book.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

No non military personnel on bases isn't impossible but it gets very difficult trying to get weapons and ammo from the armoury, or finding someone to do that, as well as run the range.

Not to mention the fact that most active bases don't have that many .22 rifles lying around, they tend to stock things like assault rifle's and machine guns.

And then there's the point of who pays for all this and how.
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns as the saying goes.

Which is fine by me,... that argument is used by the 'Guns on Campuses'

http://concealedcampus.org

I think the hand gun ban is fine, I was against it at first but I was 14-15 or so IIRC.. I'm generally against banning things, but having spent an increasing amount of time in the states, now living here, I'm just against them..

Kids shoot themselves on a daily basis.. the risk to your family of a gun being in your house is greater than the risk of someone shooting you.
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> No non military personnel on bases isn't impossible but it gets very difficult trying to get weapons and ammo from the armoury, or finding someone to do that, as well as run the range.

> Not to mention the fact that most active bases don't have that many .22 rifles lying around, they tend to stock things like assault rifle's and machine guns.

> And then there's the point of who pays for all this and how.

It would be user pays... thats the modern way. If its a shooting team, Olympic level, than grants could be available.
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

If you are not going to hunt, or protect the country - why would you want to use a weapon - or more importantly why should you be allowed to use a weapon?
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns as the saying goes.

Outlaws, the army, the armed police, and a few others that genuinely need them.

Which is a good thing - the alternative is those people having guns, plus other people having them too.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> No I'm not, I've always considered target shooting practice for what weapons are actually for, I don't see it as an end in itself. Weapons: rifles, shotguns and pistols have a function and it's not shooting targets.

That's a shame, thousands of competitive target shooters all over the country would disagree with you.

IainRUK - because it's impractical and an unnecessary inconvenince to thousands of law abiding citizens going about their lawful business. I used to shoot on military ranges when I shot .308 target rifles competitively, we used to have to book the range months in advance and got messed about by the MOD with last minute cancellations, personnel not showing up to let us on site etc. Not to mention military bases (ie manned locations) are even fewer and far between than military ranges (ie unmanned locations owned by the MOD), the nearest MOD ranges to me would be Yoxter and Langport both 15-20 miles away, the nearest military base would probably be over towards Salisbury 30ish miles away whereas the nearest civilian range (which I will be going to after work tonight) is less than 2 miles away.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> If you are not going to hunt, or protect the country - why would you want to use a weapon - or more importantly why should you be allowed to use a weapon?

I don't, I use firearms.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> Unfortunately the government seems happy enough to leave me alone atm, its random people who think because i have a couple of air rifles and air pistols I'm going to go in a rampage or shoot their cat or some other utterly stupid thing that irritate me.

Do they not maybe just think that, of all the people who have guns, some of them will do regrettable things with them?
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

So the equivalent of making all climbers pay extra to only be able to use hire gear from climbing centres because at occasionally some of them do things that get people hurt or killed.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

And some people who drive cars will intentionally run someone over, that doesn't mean we should treat everyone with one like a baby easting b@stard from hell.
rousse - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

That's interesting - I've only really got an interest in shooting a pistol at a target - same as most archers, I would guess. It's a very interesting sport, very challenging and to me, about controlling emotion and adrenaline.

It's a good sport for non-traditional-sporty types, and there's also a lot of support for disabled shooters. I used to shoot with a guy with cerebral palsy who was aiming for (if you'll pardon the pun) the Paralympics.
PeterM - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:


It has dawned on me that teasing people with guns with 'Mad..' as the first part of their name is possibly not the wisest move... :-)
wintertree - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:
> So the equivalent of making all climbers pay extra to only be able to use hire gear from climbing centres because at occasionally some of them do things that get people hurt or killed.

I was going to say that it's far from ideal, but perhaps controlled access at the shooters expense is a compromise that could restore access for people who wish to enjoy target shooting.

Then I re-read comments in this thread and it is clear that many people have zero interest in any compromise what-so-ever, because either they don't have the imagination to see a compromise, or because they have an unstated belief that no compromise can be made to work, or because they're just spiteful towards other's pursuits because they themselves don't understand them.
Post edited at 16:42
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> So the equivalent of making all climbers pay extra to only be able to use hire gear from climbing centres because at occasionally some of them do things that get people hurt or killed.

yes... but climbing gear isn't used to kill people.. guns were rightly banned, if you want to do target practice thats the only way i could see it happening.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

Cars are primarily for transport, but can be used for killing.

Guns are primarily for killing, but can be used for hobbies. Most of us simply don't need them.


Back in 1996, my then-girlfriend was at Stirling University. One of her lecturers had suffered a tragedy - his wife had died of cancer, leaving him to care for their daughter, Sophie.

He must have been so proud when she started at Dunblane Primary.

She was murdered in her first year there, aged five, by Thomas Hamilton, using a legally held gun.

This is, of course, just one story of many from that massacre.

This right of yours - to use a lethal weapon to put holes in bits of paper - I'm afraid I don't see it as a huge priority.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> guns were rightly banned

You know people still shoot pistols, right? I have shot a legally held 6 shot black powder Colt Army and Navy revolver, should these be banned too? How about the flint lock pistol I have also shot, should that be banned too? They're both currently still legal to own for target shooting, you can still even own a cartridge fed pistol if you have it for humane dispatch eg deer stalkers, vets, knackersmen etc. So legally held handguns haven't vanished, the only thing they did was remove 'target shooting' from the list of reasonable justifications for owning a cartridge fed handgun.
Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

I too have spent quite a bit of time in the US and to compare US gun control in the same sentence as UK control is just plain silly. To illustrate the point you can wander into a Wal-Mart and buy an ArmaLite AR-15 automatic assault rifle. I don't remember seeing one on the shelves of Wal-Marts UK branded stores Asda the last time I visited.

As has already been pointed out its a requirement of the firearm licensing system to have a safe place of storage for all firearms when not in use.

As long as firearms are properly regulated then I have no problem with them.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to PeterM:

I shoot air rifles now, I haven't shot any rifles that would require a fire arms certificate in a long time tbf.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

I'm sure that no one has ever been killed with climbing gear ever.

Guns weren't banned, pistols for target shooting were, and if you read one of my first comments I don't think semi auto pistols should be legal, which is what im assuming you are referring to with your blanket label of "guns".
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

They weren't though.. and you do exaggerate about Walmarts.. Dicks Sporting Goods maybe.. and no, its not.. you still get guns in the wrong hands. It doesn't matter if the Dad buys it from walmart or a gun shop... the chance of a gun in the wrong hands is too high..

But the real issue is mental health in the US..

Ashey, so its very tightly controlled.. I'm fine with that, I just don't think we should just have 'target shooting' as a valid reason.. anyone can claim they need one for that.
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

I'm using guns, to mean handguns.. we're talking about those that were banned..
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

And that was a deeply saddening event, one which I certainly wouldn't want to see happen ever again, and like I've said to other people on this thread, I don't support semi auto pistols, I don't really see a need for semi auto rifles in the uk and Im not the biggest fan of hunting. I only shoot air rifles now and I only shoot them at paper.

The only point I'm trying to put across to you is I am a responsible shooter, who only shoots targets and has never massacred anyone so why should I be treated the same as someone who has.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> Back in 1996, my then-girlfriend was at Stirling University. One of her lecturers had suffered a tragedy - his wife had died of cancer, leaving him to care for their daughter, Sophie.

> He must have been so proud when she started at Dunblane Primary.

> She was murdered in her first year there, aged five, by Thomas Hamilton, using a legally held gun.

> This is, of course, just one story of many from that massacre.

> This right of yours - to use a lethal weapon to put holes in bits of paper - I'm afraid I don't see it as a huge priority.


"There were no complaints to police regarding Hamilton's behaviour towards the young boys who attended the youth clubs he directed. Complaints had been made of his having taken photographs of semi-naked boys without parental consent.[7]

Hamilton had briefly been a Scout leader - initially, in July 1973, he was appointed assistant leader with the 4th/6th Stirling of the Scout Association. In the autumn of that year, he was seconded as leader to the 24th Stirlingshire troop, which was being revived. However, several complaints were made about his leadership, including two occasions when Scouts were forced to sleep with Hamilton in his van during hill-walking expeditions. Within months, on 13 May 1974, Hamilton's Scout Warrant was withdrawn, with the County Commissioner stating that he was "suspicious of his moral intentions towards boys". He was blacklisted by the Association and thus thwarted in a later attempt he made to become a Scout leader in Clackmannanshire. [8]

He claimed in letters that rumours about him led to the failure of his shop business in 1993, and in the last months of his life he complained again that his attempts to organise a boys' club were subject to persecution by local police and the scout movement. Among those to whom he complained were the Queen and the local Member of Parliament, Michael Forsyth. In the 1980s, another MP, George Robertson, who lived in Dunblane, had complained to Forsyth about Hamilton's local boys' club, which his son had attended. On the day following the massacre, Robertson spoke of having argued with Hamilton "in my own home".[9]"

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

Doesn't sound like the police background checks were done thoroughly (again - see one of my previous messages about Derrick Bird).
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

And i support the ban on semi auto hand guns, I'm not even sure why revolver's weren't in the ban as well tbf.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> And i support the ban on semi auto hand guns, I'm not even sure why revolver's weren't in the ban as well tbf.

Cartridge firing ones ie breach loading are Section 5, muzzle loading ones ie where you load each of the chambers with black powder/pyrodex, wadding, a projectile and a firing cap on each of the nipples are still Section 1.
Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:
if your argument for the banning of weapons is based on emotion then lets ban alcohol because drunk drivers have wrecked more lives in there UK than guns ever have.
Post edited at 17:12
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to rousse:

I'm sorry but to use disability to support pistol shooting beggars belief. As a grandfather of a child with four limb cerebral palsy (amongst plenty of other disabilities) I'm pretty much unconvinced by that particular arguement.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> The only point I'm trying to put across to you is I am a responsible shooter, who only shoots targets and has never massacred anyone so why should I be treated the same as someone who has.

Because it isn't about you!

And that should read 'someone who might', not 'someone who has' - identifying them is the problem.

I'm not talking about air rifles, by the way, that's a separate argument.
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> if your argument for the banning of weapons is based on emotion then lets ban alcohol because drunk drivers have wrecked more lives in there UK than guns ever have.

They say if alcohol was a new drug it would not be legalised.. but we just cannot criminalise it now. For a start we would lose billions in tax, but it would also just open up a black market over night.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

You're right, we really should ban drunk driving.
rousse - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander: It beggars belief to say I know disabled people who enjoy a (legal) sport? Really?

My friend has hemiplegic cp, and can only use one side of his body with any control, so pistol shooting (and we are talking .177 air pistols here, not semi-automatics) is ideal for him. There are several disabled shooters at the club, some wheelchair-bound. It doesn't require much strength (or both arms) like archery, and is non-contact and doesn't require mobility (some couldn't push themselves around).

Just to be clear, I don't support ownership of handguns at home, I'd be happy to see all target pistols kept securely at a club. But it *is* a valid and enjoyable sport done by a wide variety of ages and abilities.



Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

I'm not calling for alcohol to be banned I'm just point out the silliness in appealing to emotions in an effort to ban something.

There's currently a big black market for guns in the UK so if your a criminal wanting to kill somebody or get into armed robbery then fine have a gun. If on the other hand your a law abiding citizen wanting to shoot recreationally and within the law then tough crap you can't have a gun or its made so difficult its effectively banned.
David Martin - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:
> When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns as the saying goes.

Or perhaps more accurately, "...only outlaws will have guns, and fewer of them"

> There's currently a big black market for guns in the UK so if your a criminal wanting to kill somebody or get into armed robbery then fine have a gun.

Is there though? I hear this. But perhaps there is only a black market because it is illegal. If it was legal there would just be a larger market. I suspect the average punter wanting to hold up a chip shop of blow their own brains out has such a suitably difficult time sourcing a piece that they simply don't bother.

While its a shame that the shooting team can't train in the UK, and no doubt some inventive change to the law could resolve that, it doesn't seem a worthwhile reason for wholesale softening of firearm laws. Their inconvenience is likely a price most are willing to pay for safer streets.

I understand a lot of firearms in use by gangs have been re-purposed. I'm not sure if that means they are knock-off replicas of original weapons or if they are altered versions of weapons designed to no longer be dangerous. But if the later, it strikes me a softening of laws would possibly make this re-purposing easier and lead to more weapons in circulation.

It should be possible to create more intelligent laws though. There is clearly no need for anyone to own a gun, and going down the road of keeping weapons for self-defense seems both abhorrent and a recipe for an arms race. Perhaps though all privately owned firearms, or at least their working parts, could be kept either in gun-club's safe and not in the home. Any who lose or have a weapon stolen would face custodial sentences (with strict sentences where a gun was found to have been used in a crime without notification of it having been stolen)
Post edited at 17:51
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

Then who is it about? You seem to have all the answers. To me when its about ME and to ME its say its pretty much about ME.

No it reads exactly how it should. But I do agree its about spotting these people hence the background checks.

Actually if you'd looked at what your talking about air rifles aren't a different argument as they're covered by fire arms law.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> You seem to have all the answers.

I have one answer: Minimise access to all weapons that facilitate mass murders, where possible and practical, as it is not always possible to know who might crack.

> To me when its about ME and to ME its say its pretty much about ME.

You seem to have quite an ego!

Laws have to be general, not targeted at individuals.

> Actually if you'd looked at what your talking about air rifles aren't a different argument as they're covered by fire arms law.

Air rifles aren't going to be used for mass murders, as far as I can see. I'm not arguing to stop them being banned, mind, if you feel they're the same.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> I'm just point out the silliness in appealing to emotions in an effort to ban something.

To be honest, I appealed to emotions because you didn't respond when I tried reason.

I'm curious what your motivation for wanting to carry on with your hobby is, though. Is it not emotional?
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

> That is pretty much inevitable. banning guns does not take existing ones out of circulation

Yes it does. When hand guns were banned in this country all licenced gun users were required to turn their guns in under an "amnesty" no re-reimbursement mind.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> And that should read 'someone who might', not 'someone who has' - identifying them is the problem.

Hungerford - "Dr John Hamilton of Broadmoor Hospital and Dr Jim Higgins, a consultant forensic psychiatrist for Mersey Regional Health Authority, both thought he was schizophrenic and psychotic. Hamilton stated "Ryan was most likely to be suffering from acute schizophrenia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

Dunblane - "The released documents revealed that in 1991, following Hamilton's Loch Lomond summer camp, complaints were made to Central Scotland Police and were investigated by the Child Protection Unit. Hamilton was reported to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration of ten charges, including assault, obstructing police and contravention of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937. No action was taken."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

Cumbria - "There are unconfirmed reports that he had previously sought help from a local hospital due to his fragile mental state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

How much more identification of unsuitable firearms owners would you like?
Bruce Hooker - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > that notorious haven of gun crime

Well it is actually, partly because of the number of hunters here and the lax gun laws, partly due to drug trafficking, especially in Marseilles where kids frequently kill each other with kalashnikovs. You can buy ammunition for rifles, not just shotguns, in Decathalon in France!

Here are some facts and figures about firearm deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

You will notice than France is one of the highest European countries in terms of deaths and overall 12 times more people die by firearms there than in Britain... So well done, when you said "that notorious haven of gun crime" concerning France you hit the nail on the head once more!
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> No I'm not, I've always considered target shooting practice for what weapons are actually for, I don't see it as an end in itself. Weapons: rifles, shotguns and pistols have a function and it's not shooting targets.

Gosh I never realised I was doing it wrong all those years. There I was taking out paper targets when I should have been taking out members of the public DOH!

Shotguns I might agree with you there. I always used them for hunting.
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to rousse:

Just to be clear - I don't support ownership of hand guns anywhere except for the military and police, and your use of disability to try and justify something else it is pretty dark.
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

You shouldn't have been using rifles or pistols - if you don't shot foxes and deer why should you have access to a rifle (forces and police apart) there's no reason for you to have apart from your self gratification - and thats not a good reason.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> You shouldn't have been using rifles or pistols - if you don't shot foxes and deer why should you have access to a rifle (forces and police apart) there's no reason for you to have apart from your self gratification - and thats not a good reason.

Try shooting a rabbit with a shotgun at 100 yards then you'll see why you might need a rifle for something other than fox or deer.
ads.ukclimbing.com
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

You've just listed three cases where unsuitable firearms owners were NOT identified and restricted before they committed massacres.
wintertree - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> Just to be clear - I don't support ownership of hand guns anywhere except for the military and police, and your use of disability to try and justify something else it is pretty dark.

Ahh, the thought police.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> You've just listed three cases where unsuitable firearms owners were NOT identified and restricted before they committed massacres.

I've just listed three cases where the police either did or could have known about the persons change in mental health but did not act. Not too dissimilar to the situation in the states with the shooting in Santa Barbara last week.
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

Not really - but as someone who lives with disability and has extensive experience of fire arms and shot guns I'm entitled to have my say when I see some trying to score a rather pathetic point by quoting cerebral palsy at me.
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

point taken, add rabbits to the list - just don't ask for a centre fire - you won't get it.
MG - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

Which is good reason to not risk people's lives and restrict gun ownership as much as practicable.
IainRUK - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

You are right, SB was the latest in a long line where mental health provision was lacking.. Suicide is a huge issue in much of the developed world, in the US its also murder suicide, so I do agree we need to not get too distracted, but thats no argument for legalising guns.

rockjedi12345 - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

Acording to the poll on the link about 75,000 were in favour of licencing handguns where as about 35000 were against. From this it woukd appear that a lot of the people would agree.

Personaly I see a firearm as a tool, landowners/farmers have them for pest control they are not toys. Handguns are for personal defance/offence they serve no purpose in our society. Yes people use them for sport but this seems like a fair sacrifice.

Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

May be he just wants to carry on with his hobby because he enjoys it and believes it to be no harm to anyone.

My old firearm teacher said to me that every idiot who does something wrong or every accident that occurs puts a nail in the coffin of our freedom to choose.

Sure we are safer from maniacs with legal guns and there are less gun related suicides even though gun crime as a whole has gone up. I just think that we are an increasingly risk averse society.

The ban no longer bothers me though. Guess I'm going soft ;-)
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> You shouldn't have been using rifles or pistols - if you don't shot foxes and deer why should you have access to a rifle

Because it was fun

apart from your self gratification - and thats not a good reason.

Best reason there is. You can't beat a bit of self gratification I wasn't doing it for anyone elses gratification

you go climbing for the sake of humanity I suppose?
Nigel Modern on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

I recently spent some time in the US and while I was there shot a .22 semi-automatic hand gun and an AR-15 'assault rifle'. I was staying with people who shoot competitively.

The AR-15 particularly is a ferocious weapon and I can see no reason on earth why anyone other than in the armed forces should be able to own one...fun as it was to shoot with.

I'd trust my friends and most of the people I met in Florida with any gun...however...let's stop Pandora from opening the box...Pandora Farage...probably the most polite name I can think of for him.

As far as Olympic shooting goes, the law should change and our lads and lasses should have access...I don't think it is a slippery slope.





MG - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> Sure we are safer from maniacs with legal guns and there are less gun related suicides even though gun crime as a whole has gone up

It's falling rapidly


http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&source=android-browser&q=gun+crime+stat...


. I just think that we are an increasingly risk averse society

There's a difference between choosing risk (eg climbing) and having it imposed on you by others (widespread gun ownership)

skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

> I've just listed three cases where the police either did or could have known about the persons change in mental health but did not act.

So, people messed up. Yup, that's one of the reasons why problems aren't always spotted in advance.
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> You shouldn't have been using rifles or pistols

To be honest I find that a hugely condescending statement. Which is why I replied with humour.
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to MG:

> It's falling rapidly

good to hear. Though I would put that down to better policing

> . I just think that we are an increasingly risk averse society

> There's a difference between choosing risk (eg climbing) and having it imposed on you by others (widespread gun ownership)

Quite agree but when gun ownership was wide spread it was never that much of a problem
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I don't care if you find it condesending - it's what I and the government believe and it's the law - try getting a firearms certificate for the reason of "it's fun".
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

So we should definitely ban axes and machetes.

And you seem to quite the moron, that was in relation to you telling me comments people have made to me not being about me, nothing to do with the law. You clearly read posts as well as laws relating to things you want to ban.

Your right they aren't the same mechanically but any air rifle over 12 ftib of pressure with any weight pellet is classed as a section one fire arm and can only be legally owned if it is on a fire arms certificate and any pistol over 6 is classified as a section 5 fire arm i believe and will be confiscated and destroyed as well as landing you a fair bit of prison time.

But you didn't know that because you haven't actually looked at it.
rockjedi12345 - on 28 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

Do armed police not already carry their handguns overtly? Or is it diffrent in scotland.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> So, people messed up.

That's a nonchalant way to put it, funny how you're not that chilled when it comes for firearms owners.

To get my FAC and SGC the police looking into anything they had on file about me ie criminal history (lack of I should add), I also had to sign to say I gave them permission to access my medical details from my doctor (who's name and contact details I had to give them). I was then interviewed in person at my home by the local firearms liason officer. That's standard practice. Now, if the police type my name into the Police National Computer it flags up that I am an FAC and SGC owner so hypothetically speaking if they pull me over when I'm driving my car they could potentially already know this information. When people file for divorce they often come to remove firearms from the house. When people's kids get in trouble with the law they have been known to remove firearms from the house. Why is it beyond the realms of expectation for them to have acted on the cases in my previous message? I certainly don't see them as just 'people messed up'.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to rockjedi12345:

> Do armed police not already carry their handguns overtly? Or is it diffrent in scotland.

Yes they do, when I moved house and had my cabinet checked I had an armed response officer turn up on my door step to check my cabinet and serial numbers of my firearms, he turned up with his pistol on his hip.
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

> I've just listed three cases where the police either did or could have known about the persons change in mental health but did not act. Not too dissimilar to the situation in the states with the shooting in Santa Barbara last week.

No, you've listed 2 cases where post hoc justification is being wheeled out to say they "should have known it" - Ryan and Bird, and one case (Hamilton) where it is possible that a decision could have been made to remove his firearms licence - though it depends on your criteria for refusing a licence? Allegations 20 years ago that resulted in no charge?

Personally I'm quite happy that if you are walking around carrying a handgun then it is almost certainly illegal and you are looking at a 5 year sentence. Proof of the pudding can be seen in the lengths Hutchinson-Foster and Duggan went to in order to ensure that they weren't caught in possession of a hand gun.
Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to MG:

> There's a difference between choosing risk (eg climbing) and having it imposed on you by others (widespread gun ownership)

Thats a rather odd way of looking at it.
MG - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

Why? Fairly normal view of things,.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> So we should definitely ban axes and machetes.

Machetes, probably, for anyone who doesn't have a good reason for owning one.

> And you seem to quite the moron, that was in relation to you telling me comments people have made to me not being about me, nothing to do with the law. You clearly read posts as well as laws relating to things you want to ban.

I'm not sure I follow, but it gives me a warm feeling inside that you think I'm a moron. :-)

So, when you say you really did mean "I am a responsible shooter, who only shoots targets and has never massacred anyone so why should I be treated the same as someone who has", are you on the run just now, or posting from jail?

> But you didn't know that because you haven't actually looked at it.

I didn't know that because I'm not the least bit interested. It isn't at all relevant to what weapons should or shouldn't be allowed in the hands of the population in general.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

I'm not chilled about people messing up in those cases either - it's the fact that it will sometimes happen which matters.
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> I don't care if you find it condesending so there ner ner it's what I and the government believe and it's the law - try getting a firearms certificate for the reason of "it's fun".

Well when the police gave me mine all those years ago it seemed to be very much within the law to hold one.

Reason for owning gun "to shoot targets" was a perfectly legal reason for ownership back then
off-duty - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tree:

> The number or severity of gun crimes didn't improve when guns were banned. If statistics are to be believed, they have continued to worsen, with the banning of legal firearms making no impact, for good or ill.

> At least in the past we could teach safe use of weaponry.

Really? "Gun related" covers a wide range with imitation firearms being used in robberies etc.
I'm fairly confident that murders by firearm have decreased over the last 20 years or so, or certainly not increased.
Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> To be honest, I appealed to emotions because you didn't respond when I tried reason.

> I'm curious what your motivation for wanting to carry on with your hobby is, though. Is it not emotional?

But I don't think that your argument is reasonable because if you compare the number of people killed by people with legally held guns last year to the number of people killed by cars with your thinking you'd ban cars. But cars aren't banned.

I shoot because I enjoy it in the same way I climb because I enjoy it. Some people have tried to condemn climbing as selfish due to the risk. Should climbing be banned?
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

You'll get further with the car argument than the climbing one - unless you're climbing loose rubble above a crowd.

People should be free to take risks if they want; putting others at risk is quite different.

Cars - it's an interesting point. I don't think it's practical to ban them, though - they're just too useful.
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Actually gun crime peaked in 2003 from an all time high it is now slightly below the level it was in 1996 just after Dunblaine. It seems to show that in the wake of Dunblaine the ban did not immediately affect gun crime.
However there is no denying that it is on the way down at last
cander - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

when was back then - because you have to renew it every 5 years
off-duty - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

> But I don't think that your argument is reasonable because if you compare the number of people killed by people with legally held guns last year to the number of people killed by cars with your thinking you'd ban cars. But cars aren't banned.

Perhaps because people don't generally use cars to deliberately kill other people - though it does happen. The vast majority of "deaths by car" are accidents.
That has to be weighed up against the benefit that cars give to everyone that possesses them - which is quite substantially more than just "I enjoy it".

> I shoot because I enjoy it in the same way I climb because I enjoy it. Some people have tried to condemn climbing as selfish due to the risk. Should climbing be banned?

When a climber goes on a spree using "climbing" to kill other people maybe it will be...
off-duty - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> Actually gun crime peaked in 2003 from an all time high it is now slightly below the level it was in 1996 just after Dunblaine. It seems to show that in the wake of Dunblaine the ban did not immediately affect gun crime.

> However there is no denying that it is on the way down at last

IS that gun crime as in "firearms discharged" or gun crime as in "something that looks like a firearm seen"?
Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to MG:

>Fairly normal view of things,.

No doubt but should we ban driving because it increases risk to cyclists and pedestrians crossing the road?

There isn't a problem in the UK of people that legally own guns going on the rampage so it seems odd that the anti-gun lobby seem to try and use it as a way to ban gun ownership.

I'm fully for very strict rules surrounding gun ownership i.e the banning of automatic weapons but the general demonisation that goes on is in my view wrong.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

Well at least your consistent regarding machetes fair play with that one.

No I mean I've had people actually become quite aggressive with me about me shooting targets because someone else has done something basically evil. I've had people bring up Dunblane to me before without even stopping to think at the time I was about the same age as those children, yet I'm still treated like the devil incarnate by people who barely know me.

It probably is relevant especially when it already states what weapons already are and aren't available to the public, and the fact that it states specific uses.

Also its handy to actually know about what your arguing about, for example I know next to nothing about the bible, because I'm not interested, so I don't argue with Christians about Christianity.
baron - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:
We've made some big changes to firearms ownership in the last 100 or so years.
This article gives something of an overview -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7056245.stm

While I have no wish to see a repeat of previous gun massacres I do wonder if England is any safer now than it was in the past and not being able to own a toy gun unless it's painted blue or orange does seem to be going too far.

Pmc
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> No I mean I've had people actually become quite aggressive with me about me shooting targets because someone else has done something basically evil.

Well, they shouldn't be doing that! They sound like nutters.

> Also its handy to actually know about what your arguing about

Again, I'm only really interested in restricting weapons that facilitate mass murder. If someone wants to kill an individual, thay can find a way to do it - but we should make it as hard as possible for someone to go on a killing rampage.
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

Could it not be said that by climbing you are encouraging others to take part in high risk activity?
I am playing devil's advocate here. I think that when we say that an activity like target shooting is putting people at risk because the guns may be used to kill, even though that is not the intention of the majority who use them then there is no reason not to broaden the scope of that risk.
In that category one would have to include
smoking - a no brainer really
Alcohol - one only has to look at the statistics for alcohol related crime to realise that this is an obvious one.
shotguns - yup
motorbikes - highly dangerous and unnecessary when you can have cars
chainsaws - no reason for them not to be used by trained specialist only
Any activity that glamorises risk climbing, skiing, motorsport etc.

It is good to have a society where you can wander round relatively safely and if the ban on hand guns was a price to pay for that then I am all in favour. But guns are an easy target and when we ban things, whatever the are we should think long and hard about it.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 28 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Jesus wept. Are you saying that legalising semi-automatic weapons would increase the prevalence of machine guns? Because that is what I said, and what you are calling bullshit. Let's assume for the sakes of common sense that semi-automatic weapons that can be easily modified into full-auto are not legal

No, I am saying that semi automatic weapons increase the amount of.... semi automatic weapons. I was calling bullshit on the 'legal weapons do not kill people' because they certainly do.

> Would you also claim that the heroin on our streets is there because of legalised opitates in our hospitals? As far as I am aware they come from totally different sources, and are almost totally unrelated.

I see what you're saying. Legalise heroin? Okay.

> If it's held within a controlled premises what business of yours is it what someone else wants to do? Some people enjoy pistol shooting, for the same reasons some people enjoy a wide variety of target shooting sports, including rifles and archery.

I don't care what anyone wants to do. What is the point of importing guns so the 20 people who want to 'shoot holes' in paper targets can do so with a handgun as opposed to a rifle.
Jim Fraser - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Tree:

> The number or severity of gun crimes didn't improve when guns were banned. If statistics are to be believed, they have continued to worsen, with the banning of legal firearms making no impact, for good or ill.

> At least in the past we could teach safe use of weaponry.


These are reasonable points.

I am particularly keen that some portion of the population other than police and military learn about firearms and understand that it's not like the movies. A few years of ACF will create a tighter grip on reality than playing online shoot-em-ups.

UK firearm legislation has always given the appearance of being quite successful. That appearance is based on the lack of routine arming of police and low rate of armed criminality.

I don't think the legislation, including the handgun ban, is actually successful. I think the apparent success is actually a result of the overwhelming majority of British being essential decent folk, relatively free from paranoia and having little or no desire to destroy each other.

If you examine the history of UK firearm legislation then it makes very limited sense. Historically, shotguns were the criminals first choice yet we have never come down hard on shotguns. The reason for that of course is that self-important rich toffs use them who, like most criminals, couldn't hit a barn door at 50 feet with any other kind of firearm.

Does that mean I support UKIP's approach on handguns. NO THANK YOU.

What I would like is for our firearm legislation to make sense and for firearm licence checks to be meaningful instead of a box-ticking exercise. We don't need or want firearms to be widespread in our society. In spite of that, it is important not to end up with a situation where only the bad guys have firearms. Also worth avoiding is the mere sight of a toy gun causing widespread panic. There needs to be national defence, there needs to be reasonable police access to firearms for specific purposes and the general population needs to maintain a realistic approach.

I have signed Danny Alexander's petition against routine use of armed police in the Highlands.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HighlandPolicing
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

it was from "Offences in which firearm use was reported England and wales 1969 - 2011" it does not differentiate as to whether the firearm was real or not where the firearm was not recovered by police.
It also includes air weapon use.
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:

> when was back then - because you have to renew it every 5 years

and with that you show your general ignorance. How can you renew something that is now illegal eh?
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

There is a middle ground between an outright ban and what we currently have.

Legally there are only a couple of categories of fire arm that would actually facilitate mass murders like the ones seen in America.

A breach loading, bolt action .22 rifle without a magazine is probably the worst fire arm you could use in a spree short of a musket. They take far to long to reload to make it more viable than a knife or a machete in all honest.

if you proposed a ban on semi auto weapons and magazine fed weapons I personally wouldn't see a problem with that.
Ashley - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> if you proposed a ban on semi auto weapons and magazine fed weapons I personally wouldn't see a problem with that.

That's because you don't do any pest control, imagine fumbling individual 22 rounds into the breach in the dark with cold fingers in winter while lamping rabbits. Not to mention the ability to get off a quick second, third or fourth shot before the rabbits have realised whats going on. A magazine is a must.

Semi auto *firearms* also have their place in pest control.
Ridge - on 28 May 2014
In reply to cander:
> If you are not going to hunt, or protect the country - why would you want to use a weapon - or more importantly why should you be allowed to use a weapon?

If you're not going to assault a cliff top gun emplacement or steal eagles eggs, why should you be allowed to climb on rocks? ;-)
Post edited at 20:02
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

Yes that's very true, I can see exactly where you are coming from and your right it is because I don't do any pest control, im sure if id think differently.

That is a major problem with this hole debate, its all subjective to different people and what they think is to much.
Gordon Stainforth - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Ridge:

> If you're not going to assault a cliff top gun emplacement or steal eagles eggs, why should you be allowed to climb on rocks? ;-)

I've seen some bad analogies in my time, but that really has to take the biscuit.

skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> There is a middle ground between an outright ban and what we currently have.

There might be. Unless it can be shown to reliably prevent handguns getting into the hands of people who might misuse them, I wouldn't support it.

> Legally there are only a couple of categories of fire arm that would actually facilitate mass murders like the ones seen in America.

I'm curious, why America? It happens in the UK.
SethChili - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:



> A breach loading, bolt action .22 rifle without a magazine is probably the worst fire arm you could use in a spree short of a musket. They take far to long to reload to make it more viable than a knife or a machete in all honest.

I am an RAF Air Cadet . We are trained to fire bolt action .22 rifles , which although heavy crude instruments are pretty good in the hands of a capable user . For example we are given 35 seconds to shoot 7 rounds and a decent cadet can easily fire 7 in 25 seconds . Admittedly the chances of a rouge cadet stealing a weapon and opening fire on a member of the public are low , but thousands of kids from age 13 up are being trained on firearms every week pretty much every town and city in the UK .

skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> Could it not be said that by climbing you are encouraging others to take part in high risk activity?

What's wrong with that? As long as you aren't forcing them, or giving a false impression of the risks, anyway.

> I am playing devil's advocate here. I think that when we say that an activity like target shooting is putting people at risk because the guns may be used to kill

The point is that they have been used to kill, repeatedly.

> In that category one would have to include
> shotguns - yup
> chainsaws - no reason for them not to be used by trained specialist only

Agreed. Though both are necessary for a subset of the population - strict licensing seems best.

> smoking - a no brainer really
> motorbikes - highly dangerous and unnecessary when you can have cars
> Any activity that glamorises risk climbing, skiing, motorsport etc.

Nope. These are about personal risk, as with climbing.

> Alcohol - one only has to look at the statistics for alcohol related crime to realise that this is an obvious one.

Yeah. You can't really ban alcohol, though - anyone can make it at home.

> It is good to have a society where you can wander round relatively safely and if the ban on hand guns was a price to pay for that then I am all in favour. But guns are an easy target and when we ban things, whatever the are we should think long and hard about it.

Sure, but they're an easy target because they're an obvious problem. Being an easy target doesn't make them a bad target.
skog - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Another thing about chainsaws - how often are they actually used in mass murders?

If there isn't any evidence that they're a problem, there's no need to get banning...
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to SethChili:

Yes I remember them fondly, and with diopter sights they are far better than pretty good, along with the L98A1 (before it got gas parts.

I spent 9 years in the air cadets and by the time i left i was a weapons instructor and a coach, i shot every rifle i could get my hands on from .22 to 7.62, at ranges from 25m to 500m.

You are right there are probably thousands of kids being taught how to shoot ever week, however they are also being taught how to handle the weapons responsibly and how dangerous they are.

It is possible to get rounds off quickly with one of those rifles, but its a royal pain in the arse in all fairness.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

What we already have doesnt allow the type of handguns that are used in those sorts of crimes to legally get into the hands of criminals, they are illegal and they should stay that way. Legalising semi auto handgun i think would be a very bad idea.

But thats the problem, they majority of these crimes are committed with illegal weapons not legally help ones.

Because it happens far more often in America, generally because they have retarded gun laws and wont learn, and because in nearly all of them the weapons used have either been held legally by the person committing the crime or someone they know that has let them have free access to them, which in the uk is illegal.

I'm not saying it doesnt happen in the UK, I'm just saying it doesnt happen anywhere near as much, especially with legally held weapons.
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:
> What's wrong with that? As long as you aren't forcing them, or giving a false impression of the risks, anyway.

You are glamourising risk?

> The point is that they have been used to kill, repeatedly.

But not by everyone


> Nope. These are about personal risk, as with climbing.

Disagree there. Passive smoking, alcohol fuelled violence, especially domestic, drunk driving, a motorbike crash is highly likely to take out an innocent bystander

> Yeah. You can't really ban alcohol, though - anyone can make it at home.

But by that argument home made guns are ok?
It is not the ease of obtaining but the harm caused. Muslim countries have no problem with banning alcohol so why shouldn't we?

> Sure, but they're an easy target because they're an obvious problem. Being an easy target doesn't make them a bad target.

But again they are not an obvious problem. Gun crime is minuscule compared to alcohol related crime.
Your argument runs because a thing is unnecessary and because it has potential to cause harm it should be banned. Alcohol is unnecessary and has the potential to cause harm.
Post edited at 20:55
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:
Have you never seen Texas chainsaw massacre?


mbh - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Oh come on, how many kids would Breivik or Hamilton been able to murder if they'd been armed only with chain saws?
Bruce Hooker - on 28 May 2014
In reply to baron:

> While I have no wish to see a repeat of previous gun massacres I do wonder if England is any safer now than it was in the past

If you look at the figures it's one of the safest countries in the World concerning gun deaths. If you also look at the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths it seems pretty clear that more guns means more deaths and less guns less deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> The point is that they have been used to kill, repeatedly.

If you were posting on UKflowerarranging.com I'd understand your terror at the thought of becoming a gun crime statistic.

From what I can tell your actual risk of being a victim of a legally held gun is vanishingly small. In the last 27 years there have been a total of 45 deaths (yes, 45 too many) in mass killings by people who used legally held firearms. Contrast that with the USA where in the last 7 years the figure is over 900. I think the current figure is 1 mass killing every 2 weeks on average.

A sense of perspective maybe?
MG - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> Disagree there. Passive smoking, alcohol fuelled violence, especially domestic, drunk driving, a motorbike crash is highly likely to take out an innocent bystander

Which is why there are strict restrictions around all those things, as with guns, which is how it should be.
Antigua - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> If you also look at the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths it seems pretty clear that more guns means more deaths and less guns less deaths.

A check of a few countries shows your assumption to be in tenuous at the least.

USA gun ownership 89% deaths per 100k = 10.3
Argentina gun ownership 10% deaths per 100k = 10.05
Serbia Gun ownership 58.2 deaths per 100k = 3.9

The above gun ownership stats are guns per capita. Guns/population
Post edited at 21:44
ads.ukclimbing.com
baron - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Certainly wouldn't disagree with the stats but given that firearms were previously more easily accessed in the past should there not have been far more gun related deaths?
I can vaguely remember gun amnesties in the 60s and 70s when all sorts of weapons many WW2 related were handed in but it seemed that gun crime especially actual shootings were always headline news whereas there seems to be a casual acceptance that this is the way things are.
Maybe i'm just being nostalgic or time has blurred my memories, I guess it's often about perceptions rather than actual events.

Pmc
Nigel R Lewis - on 28 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

>

> > there was a worrying news story in Scotland last week about armed response police in the highlands having moved to carry their weapons by default, not requiring per-incident authorisation to access them from their vehicles, and about them attending regular callouts. This tacit move towards regular, armed policing worries me more than the current restrictive legislation or our very low level of gun crime.

This is already the case for most UK Police forces today and has been for at least 10 years or so. They carry their side arm at all times, with long barrel weapons in the boot. At airports and other higher profile locations they routinely carry the long barrels as well.

Of course they attend regular non firearms incidents. People are way too expensive not to employ all the time.

N
Bruce Hooker - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Antigua:

It's not the only factor - some countries clearly don't have gun deaths because of their poverty so few guns and the Americas seem to have more deaths than E Asia but if you compare Europe for example it seems to hold. Take Switzerland, not a country you'd consider to be full of particularly nutty unstable people but it's 3rd highest in Europe for gun related deaths... The explanation is there are a lot of firearms floating about as all Swiss men have their rifle at home as part of their national service. Another country with a lot of firearms is France, since the Revolution every Frenchmen cherishes the right to hunt which beforehand only the aristocrats had the right to do, and lo and behold in the gun deaths table France is high for Europe - 12 times worse than Britain.

So not simple correlation and lots of exceptions but plotted on graph paper you'd see that more guns means more deaths, on average.
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to mbh:

Didn't realise it was a numbers game. Is it less serious if you only kill one person then?
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to MG:

I agree but are there enough restrictions. Guns are banned if we did the same with smoking, alcohol & motorbikes then there would be even fewer deaths
Duncan Bourne - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You raise some good points there Bruce.
I think that the main problem with high gun ownership is not so much the danger of someone doing a Hungerford but the greater possibility of guns being used in domestic incidents. Suicides, spouse homicide etc. not to mention accident
Nigel R Lewis - on 28 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> Is it less serious if you only kill one person then?

Far less serious for the person you don't kill, yes.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to MG:
> . It's not solely about crime but discouraging "gun culture", preventing accidents so on

I know a few people with firearms licences and they couldn't be further removed from "gun culture", because their livelihood and/or hobby depends 100% upon them being sequeaky clean.

One person I know let themselves be punched repeatedly by scum because they were worried that if they threw one punch in self defense that they would loose their firearms certificate.
Post edited at 00:23
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> No, I am saying that semi automatic weapons increase the amount of.... semi automatic weapons. I was calling bullshit on the 'legal weapons do not kill people' because they certainly do.

Do legal weapons impored or manufactured for the armed for forces or the police kill people, beyond in the line of duty? Not that we ever hear of.

So, the point I have consistently made stands unchallenged. Firearms legally held within a controlled environment, from which they may not be removed, may be used by suitably regulated and licences individuals under controlled conditions.

Arguments about this leading to many more guns coming into the UK are utter crap, the number would be small compared to our armed forces and police.

With suitable monitoring, certification and control, paid for by those who wish to engage in the recreational activity, you will not be able to have an incident like dunblane.
Worst case is a magazine being emptied into those present at the range, and that is a risk anyone engaging in any activity involving weapons accepts. Most activities don't have the level of regulation and licensing this would have. Hell, fit the guns with interlocks that only allow them to fire when pointed at a target on the range via coded IR beacons, and require the shooter to be wearing a coded signet ring that required re-authorising with every magazine. Both are within the scope of existing technologies.

No anti firearms person on this thread has yet demonstrated a good reason why this is a problem. It is accepted without question that we can control firearms access to the military and the police, but it is somehow inconceivable that we could do the same for civilians.

It's the politics of spite. Ironic considering how many people are encouraged into climbing by existing climbers, and then go on to suffer death or serious injury. Neither hobby is free of moral implications, but one is hip/cool/free and the other is antisocial and evil.
Post edited at 00:34
MG - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

Good, so the approach works. You couldn't say Ryan or Hamilton weren't though
MG - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

They aren't banned, though, just restricted, like cars. You can't drive an F1 car on the road.
Duncan Bourne - on 29 May 2014
In reply to MG:

I seem to recall that handguns, rifles etc were banned. If this is not the case I would be interested to hear how one can own one?
dissonance - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Do legal weapons impored or manufactured for the armed for forces or the police kill people, beyond in the line of duty? Not that we ever hear of.

WPC Rachel Bown.
There was also a gang in Liverpool who ended up with a few L85s although dont know if they were ever used (beyond intimidation).

> So, the point I have consistently made stands unchallenged. Firearms legally held within a controlled environment, from which they may not be removed, may be used by suitably regulated and licences individuals under controlled conditions.

Very few cops get permission to use firearms and have lots of profiling first.
As for the military, so anyone caught pissing around will end up in the glasshouse?

> Arguments about this leading to many more guns coming into the UK are utter crap, the number would be small compared to our armed forces and police.

The difference being if I was going to go nicking something to take the nearest options.
Police: mildly tricky. Armed by default.
16 Air mobile: 24 hour guard. Often armed.
Some civilian place: often empty.

Looks tempting.

> Worst case is a magazine being emptied into those present at the range, and that is a risk anyone engaging in any activity involving weapons accepts.

Or wait till a quiet time. Shoot the person managing the range and then head out.


> Most activities don't have the level of regulation and licensing this would have.

Your confidence in procedure is impressive.


> No anti firearms person on this thread has yet demonstrated a good reason why this is a problem. It is accepted without question that we can control firearms access to the military and the police, but it is somehow inconceivable that we could do the same for civilians.

It has been demonstrated we cant even within those highly controlled environments. The more you widen access the more risk you would normally incur as well. For example both police and military armouries have very limited access. The average bod cant just wander down and see what toys they have.


> It's the politics of spite.

I have come to think that anything starting with "politics of" will be bollox. This continues to reinforce that perception.
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> A breach loading, bolt action .22 rifle without a magazine is probably the worst fire arm you could use in a spree short of a musket.

A guy not far up the road from me had a go with a .22 and .308 rifle two years ago. I haven't been able to confirm if the .22 was breach loading but wiki states the .308 was. There's a good chance it would have been as that's what lots of people seem to have around here for hunting.

He killed two and seriously wounded another 8 but who fortunately all surived. He didn't kill as many as the two recent school shootings here, but it shows that most fire arms can still be rather dangerous if you pick the right 'tactics' (he went up on to a roof top and shot at people in the street from cover).
Ashley - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> So, the point I have consistently made stands unchallenged. Firearms legally held within a controlled environment, from which they may not be removed, may be used by suitably regulated and licences individuals under controlled conditions.

Two words - 'pest control'. How does this fit into your grand scheme? You can't control pest species on farms from the confines of your controlled environment. By which I presume you mean army base?
DubyaJamesDubya - on 29 May 2014
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

> Two words - 'pest control'. How does this fit into your grand scheme? You can't control pest species on farms from the confines of your controlled environment. By which I presume you mean army base?

My "grand scheme" is only to allow controlled access to handguns on top of existing regulated use. So pest control carries on as is.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


Read my post.

Controlled access to a weapon that ls designed to only fire when pointed down range via the use of a coded infrared beacon. Used by people subject to strict regulation.

If you're going to argue that someone flips out, disables this control on site without being noticed, shoots everyone present, breaks in to the alarmed ammo ammo store, takes more, goes away and commits a massacre, all without the police noticing, you are really grasping at straws.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> Your confidence in procedure is impressive.

I don't believe anything can stop things totally but of the number of deaths can be controlled to a level far below those associated with driving, climbing or even going to the toilet (several a year, pins and needles causing a fall down stairs) it starts to seem like a pure vendetta against firearms.

I did also suggest weapons coded to only fire down range. The already small odds of a person with onsite only controlled access to both the gun and ammunition having an opportunity to do anything now start to fade beyond belief. You could come back saying I have an impressive belief in technology, but is it so hard to believe that a set of controlled conditions can be created where people can enjoy a hobby without the risks of the past? Progress should be entirely possible.
Rampikino - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

Frankly I have no intention of getting into a debate about whether or not firearms should be put into the hands of the public.

My simple point is this - I would happily give up a few olympic medals if that meant tighter restriction on who can get hold of firearms.

You can't take back what happened at Dunblane, and no amount of whining by the pro-guns group will ever be able to find a reasoned argument that somehow "deals with" what happened there.
ads.ukclimbing.com
DubyaJamesDubya - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

If you really 'need' to fire pieces of lead at a target, with a hand gun rather than a rifle no less, use an air pistol.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> If you really 'need' to fire pieces of lead at a target, with a hand gun rather than a rifle no less, use an air pistol.

Of you feel the 'need' to drive a car, get out and walk.

Which one of those actions is going to save 2,000 lives per year in the UK?

Answer the question - what is the problem with a pistol that only works when pointed down range, being used in a monitored environment? Let's say an alarm goes of automatically if a tamper proof door housing the downrange interlock is removed. Your air pistol is now considerably more dangerous - they can and do take eyes out, all someone can do with the interlocked gun is smack somebody about the head with it.
Ashley - on 29 May 2014
I've just looked up how much the government paid in compensation to handgun owners, 89,000,000.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/9507.htm

Plus the cost of implementation, legal fees, transportation and destruction costs... I hope those who are anti-firearms feel you got your money's worth and feel proportionally safer than pre 1997.

By the way, the definition of a handgun that was affected by the legislation is that is cartridge firing, has an overall length of less than 24" and a barrel length of less than 12". Which means that cartridge firing long barrelled revolvers like this one for sale are still legal:

http://www.gunstar.co.uk/taurus-lbp-45-pistol-hand-guns-for-sale-in-south-yorkshire/Other-Military-G...

Someone down the club I'm a member of was shooting one of these last night.

Still feel you got your money's worth from the demonisation of a small section of the legally held firearm owning population? It's a farcical law.
Rampikino - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

To paraphrase Cairngorm John;

For those who need to question, there is no answer. For those who don't, there is no question.


89,000,000?

I would happily pay 10 times that to bring back the 16 children shot dead at Dunblane by a nutcase who legally held firearms.

As a former member of the RAF (so fired at least 3 different firearms) and a former gun club member I'm afriad I just can't get myself excited about this so-called injustice.

I look at my 17 month old daughter instead and ask myself whether I feel that as a nation we should take all steps possible to take firearms out of the hands of as many people as possible including those who fancy popping shots at tin-cans and calling it sport.
Bruce Hooker - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> It's the politics of spite.

I don't think so, I used to shoot on indoor and outdoor ranges when at school and found it quite fun but since I grew up I have never continued, I'm sure it would still be fun but accept that such things need to be controlled, so weighing the two up haven't bothered. If access was freer I might have just bought a second hand rifle and used it from time to time until, most likely, I moved on to something else and it just got left in a cupboard, locked of course, but that would be another lethal firearm lurking around waiting to be stolen and used by someone for less pleasant things.

I did know someone who was a bit of a firearms geek, mostly legal AFAIK, but I always found him slightly scary... the sort you wondered if they might not go berserk one day, or blow their own head off. There's something about the phallic danger of guns that brings out the worst in people, best to limit their possession and accept a very slight limitation of our freedom for the greater good.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> best to limit their possession and accept a very slight limitation of our freedom for the greater good.

Indeed. I have been making the case for limited ownership and controlled access, as well as "range only interlocks". I'm not suggesting that they are allowed of site, or that they can be removed from the site without an alarm, or that people be allowed to collect them whilst sat at home going berserk.

That is still not acceptable to some however and I struggle to find any rational reason.
dissonance - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> That is still not acceptable to some however and I struggle to find any rational reason.

Come up with the technology, test it and price it and then might be worth discussing.
Until then you might as well be saying "have magic bullets which turn to flowers when shot at people".
andreas on 29 May 2014 - host-92-30-180-81.as13285.net
In reply to Tall Clare:

The best reason I can think of for owning a gun atm is UKIP getting into power.
In reply to wintertree:

> Indeed. I have been making the case for limited ownership and controlled access, as well as "range only interlocks". I'm not suggesting that they are allowed of site,

I remember there was a case when I first lived in Finland of someone killing others at pistol range http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanna_Sillanp%C3%A4%C3%A4 - weird case, although most people seemed mainly interested in the fact that it was a woman killer which is rare I guess.
rousse - on 29 May 2014
In reply to cander:

Er, I didn't think I was, sorry. I was trying to counter your argument that target shooting isn't a legitimate sport, and is only practice for killing things.

I was trying (and failing, it seems) to point out that target pistol shooting is an enjoyable and legal sport, suitable for people who may not be able or want to do other sports.

If that gave the appearance of trying to justify private ownership of handguns (which I previously stated I'm against), then I'm sorry.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to TobyA:

Yes, and people also die on archery ranges, and javelin pitches and that possibility exists and happens in many other weapon derived sports. You accept that risk every time you attend. I actually think there exists the potential for pistol shooting can be better controlled.

Interlocked guns - to coded signet rings - have been demonstrated. It's not technologically hard to extend that to a down range interlock which would have prevented the case you linked to.

I can't, as another poster suggested, build or demonstrate this because I am not allowed to own or access the key component. I could build a water pistol that only works when pointed down range with parts found in an average car and house, although it's harder than 15 years ago when TVs had discrete IR decoder chips for the remotes.

You really could have the magic bullets that turn to flowers as suggested elsewhere and people will still take a moralistic judgemental view that pistol shooting is inherently bad. That's what I've been driving at.
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

> Still feel you got your money's worth from the demonisation of a small section of the legally held firearm owning population? It's a farcical law.

Who's been "demonised"? No-one has made any personal criticism of those who want to carry out shoot handguns for a sport.
Society has decided that the benefit to a very small section of the population in being able to carry out their hobby for no purpose other than fun, is outweighed to the harm and risk involved in having these weapons available to the public.

It happens all the time for all sorts of sports.
"you can't ride your off-road bike there"
"you can't climb there"
"you can't drive like that"

off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Yes, and people also die on archery ranges, and javelin pitches and that possibility exists and happens in many other weapon derived sports. You accept that risk every time you attend. I actually think there exists the potential for pistol shooting can be better controlled.

Try committing a gangland murders with a javelin or a bow and arrow and you might have a point. Even crossbows are not as easily concealed as handguns, and aren't capable of repeated shots.

> Interlocked guns - to coded signet rings - have been demonstrated. It's not technologically hard to extend that to a down range interlock which would have prevented the case you linked to.

> I can't, as another poster suggested, build or demonstrate this because I am not allowed to own or access the key component. I could build a water pistol that only works when pointed down range with parts found in an average car and house, although it's harder than 15 years ago when TVs had discrete IR decoder chips for the remotes.

And how hard would it be to unbuild these components...


> You really could have the magic bullets that turn to flowers as suggested elsewhere and people will still take a moralistic judgemental view that pistol shooting is inherently bad. That's what I've been driving at.

You have yet to explain why pistol shooting is inherently good either. What is it about firing a pistol that means that you "should" have the right to shoot one?
Ashley - on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Who's been "demonised"?

There's been plenty that's been implied.

> It happens all the time for all sorts of sports.

> "you can't ride your off-road bike there"

> "you can't climb there"

> "you can't drive like that"

The examples you list relate to restrictions on common land, land the general public have access to or land owned by other people. A closer simile would be 'you can't ride your off road bike on that bit of land that you own/have full permission to use, where the general public has been restricted and safety measures are in place'.
skog - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

I have to say, you sound quite reasonable about this.

I don't, in theory, see why what you propose should be illegal, but I'm far from convinced that such devices can be made so that they can't just be re-altered to work anywhere again.

And if it was possible, I don't have a problem with people choosing to take the risk to go to these ranges, with the tiny chance that they'd get shot there - that's their own choice.

It's when someone can take their weapon, saunter off to a school or public space, and start slaughtering en-masse, that it's unacceptable.

The talk from a couple of others about them feeling demonised and persecuted is quite frightening, given the context.
skog - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> You are glamourising risk?

If you're glamourising risk, you're giving a false impression of the risks vs benefits. That's something I certainly try to avoid. Again, I have no problem with people making informed decisions to take risks (and you've pretty much said you don't, either - why are you pursuing this line?)

> But not by everyone

Are you deliberately missing the point?

> Disagree there. Passive smoking, alcohol fuelled violence, especially domestic, drunk driving, a motorbike crash is highly likely to take out an innocent bystander

Passive smoking is rightly restricted, and a pretty selfish thing to inflict on anyone on a regular basis.

Vehicles, I think, bring more benefits than disadvantages, and are integral to our society; I'm pretty confident that third parties are safer from motorbikes than from cars, do you disagree?

You have a good point re alcohol abuse.

> But by that argument home made guns are ok?

Not OK, but probably impossible to prevent. Though I suspect it's pretty hard to make a good one.

> Your argument runs because a thing is unnecessary and because it has potential to cause harm it should be banned.

That's my argument distorted to its worst possible representation, have you considered taking up politics?
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:



> The examples you list relate to restrictions on common land, land the general public have access to or land owned by other people. A closer simile would be 'you can't ride your off road bike on that bit of land that you own/have full permission to use, where the general public has been restricted and safety measures are in place'.

Unfortunately all analogies become strained due to the specific nature of handguns, compared to pretty much any other piece of "sporting equipment".
One of the issues also being the associated supply chain and the simple availability of these weapons.
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> The talk from a couple of others about them feeling demonised and persecuted is quite frightening, given the context.

^^This^^
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> Try committing a gangland murders with a javelin or a bow and arrow and you might have a point. Even crossbows are not as easily concealed as handguns, and aren't capable of repeated shots.

As most gangland murders are not committed with range only, legally held weapons but various illegal stuff, much of which was never legal, is that not a bit irrelevant?

> And how hard would it be to unbuild these components...

That could be why I suggest it as part of a controlled environment. Tamper with gun, alarm goes off. Don't return the same coded gun before exiting, alarm off. Range safety oficer sees you unscrewing the acces panel on the range, alarm goes off.


> You have yet to explain why pistol shooting is inherently good either. What is it about firing a pistol that means that you "should" have the right to shoot one?

What gives joe public the right to own pointy knives? Or to drive cars? I suspect it is this total control freak approach from some authority figures that leads to people feeling so persecuted. As far as I am aware, even under UK regimes much less controlled than my suggestion, gun crime has always been a minor contribution to deaths.. Excluding the police shooting dead unarmed people whilst they sleep in their beds etc.

Why should anyone have the right to drive a car? In my lifetime that has directly killed perhaps 80,000 people in the UK and contributed indirectly to another 50,000 early deaths from air pollution. Nobody seems to care about that.
Post edited at 11:48
dissonance - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> What gives joe public the right to own pointy knives?

Because it would be rather hard to cook etc without them. You would also need to ban woodworking etc.
So somewhat tricky to do since the practical uses of knives are rather high as compared to pistols

> Or to drive cars?

Again they have practical uses and the expense of reworking out infrastructure so we dont need them would be a tad high. Of course this question may become more relevant as self driving cars become more feasible.

> I suspect it is this total control freak approach from some authority figures that leads to people feeling so persecuted.

You seem to be redefining control freak alongside your rather strange comparisons.

> As far as I am aware, even under UK regimes much less controlled than my suggestion, gun crime has always been a minor contribution to deaths..

> Excluding the police shooting dead unarmed people whilst they sleep in their beds etc.

A quick check shows the cops shot 33 people from 1985-2010. In the same time frame just two men, using legally held firearms killed 28.

> Nobody seems to care about that.

Incorrect. Plenty of people do. However the options currently are limited since it is integral to our infrastructure in a way a hobby isnt.
ads.ukclimbing.com
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to skog:
> I have to say, you sound quite reasonable about this.

Thanks. I just feel positive that a middle ground could exist.

> The talk from a couple of others about them feeling demonised and persecuted is quite frightening, given the context.

I can see that, but I can also see people being told that their hobby is never acceptable and that they are effectively "bad" for wanting to do it in any way. That is persecution. I don't see people asking to keep a loaded cabinet at home, just to enjoy a sport.

No other weaponised sport is used as training for real life hunting and killing in the UK, so it seems insulting to me to suggest that that is the only purpose for a target shooting with a pistol. The purpose is exactly the same as target shooting with a long bow.

Now the materials and methods need more control, but that is no excuse for some of the hints and suggestions that there is something more morally wrong about target shooting with a pistol. That, archery and javelin and some body combat sports are all derived from base killing and distilled down to a sport based on precision, control and judgement. It is ironic to me to see that point being missed by climbers.

By all means control the materials and the methods - up to outlawing them fully if society so deems - but to basically question people's integrity for wishing to engage in a sport is to me wel overstepping the mark.
Post edited at 12:04
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:
> As most gangland murders are not committed with range only, legally held weapons but various illegal stuff, much of which was never legal, is that not a bit irrelevant?

Putting a massive restriction on the supply of weapons ensures that gangland weapons remain a rarity, difficult to get hold of and repeatedly used. As a result they are often linked to multiple incidents. This coupled with the severe penalties for possession means that as a gangster you really, really don't want to get caught with a firearm.

> That could be why I suggest it as part of a controlled environment. Tamper with gun, alarm goes off. Don't return the same coded gun before exiting, alarm off. Range safety oficer sees you unscrewing the acces panel on the range, alarm goes off.

So, the only access to the venue is when there are multiple people there at all tims. Modifications to weapons to "make them safe" to take place at the factory or at the range?

> What gives joe public the right to own pointy knives? Or to drive cars? I suspect it is this total control freak approach from some authority figures that leads to people feeling so persecuted. As far as I am aware, even under UK regimes much less controlled than my suggestion, gun crime has always been a minor contribution to deaths.. Excluding the police shooting dead unarmed people whilst they sleep in their beds etc.

Pointy knives are restricted and laws govern their possession in public. I've yet to find an alternative way to cut my bread though.
Yep gun crime is relatively low in the UK. Great, isn't it.

"Excluding the police shooting dead unarmed people whilst they sleep in their beds etc."
I'm assuming this is some kind of joke, given that you are the one complaining about personalisation of the debate against those trying to enjoy their sport.

> Why should anyone have the right to drive a car? In my lifetime that has directly killed perhaps 80,000 people in the UK and contributed indirectly to another 50,000 early deaths from air pollution. Nobody seems to care about that.

The benefits of the car (and anything else) have to be weighed up against the risks. Maybe you should be lobbying against pollution, for public transport or against road traffic accidents if you feel that strongly.
To argue the principle that because people are allowed to do one thing that you think is dangerous they should be allowed to do another doesn't make sense.
Post edited at 12:12
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> So, the only access to the venue is when there are multiple people there at all tims.

Correct.

> Modifications to weapons to "make them safe" to take place at the factory or at the range?

Not modifications but integral to the manufacture. Interlocked weapons have been designed and built before, e.g. to render an officers weapon inert if a perp gets hold of it.

You seem to be arguing that the supply chain for this is going to result in weapons ending up in the wrong hands. Within our borders at least this does not seem to happen with military assault rifles or quary blasting materials etc. Rifles are secured in facilities across the country and I am not aware of this leading to any US style sniping sprees, although I could be wrong.

Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I think the two of you may be seeing actually persecution as perceived persecution.

Take this sentence, which has been said to me:

"You shoot! I don't think that's right at all, I don't think i want to be around you, you might flip out or something and kill me!"

Now replace you shoot with, your black, your muslim, your a climber, your whatever other minority is in favor.

Is that still acceptable?
Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

And yes I know im about to get a storm of shit for that, and yes I know that's not exactly the same thing, although its probably happened.

My point is don't dismiss something as not happening because you haven't seen it, I've never seen a tornado but in sure as shit that theyre real.
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:


> You seem to be arguing that the supply chain for this is going to result in weapons ending up in the wrong hands. Within our borders at least this does not seem to happen with military assault rifles or quary blasting materials etc.

Are military assault rifles available to the hobbyist sportsman? Do quarry blasting materials get used in spree-killings? They were certainly targetted by terrorist organisation at the height of the troubles in northern Ireland. (Blastin materials also being rather essential for being able to carry out quarrying.)


Rifles are secured in facilities across the country and I am not aware of this leading to any US style sniping sprees, although I could be wrong.

The closest being the previously quoted Derrick Bird :-(
999thAndy on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

Would these black muslim climbers be carrying handguns?
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> I think the two of you may be seeing actually persecution as perceived persecution.

> Take this sentence, which has been said to me:

> "You shoot! I don't think that's right at all, I don't think i want to be around you, you might flip out or something and kill me!"

That is pretty bonkers behaviour - and I certainly don't agree with it.

> Now replace you shoot with, your black, your muslim, your a climber, your whatever other minority is in favor.

> Is that still acceptable?

Err, I'm not sure that equating bad behaviour towards someone who has a hobby - be that shooting or climbing, with racist behaviour based on your race or religion is a particularly strong argument.
But no - neither behaviour is intelligent.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to 999thAndy:

Don't forget an RPG on their way to a terrorist training camp.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Are military assault rifles available to the hobbyist sportsman? Do quarry blasting materials get used in spree-killings? They were certainly targetted by terrorist organisation at the height of the troubles in northern Ireland. (Blastin materials also being rather essential for being able to carry out quarrying.)

That could be why I am *not* asking for them to be available to sportsmen. I am asking for them to be available to licenced regulated facilities only. I am giving the other examples to show we can control distribution of munitions to licenced facilities. I had thought all this was clear.

If your out and out view is that there exists no way, period, in which individuals can have safe access to pistol shooting, and you are not willing to try and imagine a way in which this can be achieved, then I'll just pack it in.

Personally I'm looking forwards to using a range interlocked quenching gauss gun in 20 years, with pistols being left to antique buffs. I doubt it will happen in the UK.
dissonance - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Not modifications but integral to the manufacture. Interlocked weapons have been designed and built before, e.g. to render an officers weapon inert if a perp gets hold of it.

So how exactly would this work if I want to swap clubs?

> You seem to be arguing that the supply chain for this is going to result in weapons ending up in the wrong hands. Within our borders at least this does not seem to happen with military assault rifles

Yes it has. Several British army weapons have ended up in criminal hands including assault rifles plus a pistol used to shoot a police officer.

Thats despite them normally living in a secure building which only a handful of people have keys too and which in turn sits in an secure area patrolled by armed guards.
Which I dont think is really feasible for a civilian club.

> or quary blasting materials etc.

These need rather specialist training and are limited in use. However terrorists have stolen them in the past (from memory the Madrid bombing used stolen explosives from quarries). Also used by criminals during the 1960s for safe cracking

> Rifles are secured in facilities across the country and I am not aware of this leading to any US style sniping sprees, although I could be wrong.

you are.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

The only point in doing that was to point out that persecution based on any factor is still persecution.
elsewhere on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:
My hobby is blowing stuff up, but it's banned. Boo hoo. I'm persecuted.

My hobby is cooking up my own crystal meth, but it's banned. Boo hoo. I'm persecuted.

My hobby is driving after 8 pints, but it's banned. Boo hoo. I'm persecuted.

If you portray yourself as persecuted you undermine your argument by making yourself look mad as a hatter.


wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to dissonance:

Swapping clubs - yes let's focus on imaginary details instead if deciding if the concept is acceptable. Let's pick a random method, say guns are owned by the club, and access to them comes with membership. That wasn't hard, was it?

If you're going to argue all this can be circumvented you might as well argue that someone with a CNC mill in their garage can make and sell firearms as it starts to become more probable. Plenty of ammo already in circulation for legally held weapons, a few more clubs aren't going to change that.
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> That could be why I am *not* asking for them to be available to sportsmen. I am asking for them to be available to licenced regulated facilities only. I am giving the other examples to show we can control distribution of munitions to licenced facilities. I had thought all this was clear.

> If your out and out view is that there exists no way, period, in which individuals can have safe access to pistol shooting, and you are not willing to try and imagine a way in which this can be achieved, then I'll just pack it in.

I think it is possible that it might be achieved. Off the top of my head some hurdles for me would be - access and staffing of controlled facilities on military bases, supply and transport of pre-modified weapons to those facilities, transport of weaponry between venues for any events (or other reasons) - I'm assuming that there would be some intention to compete. I just see it as being prohibitively expensive with a number of opportunities for exploitation.

I am just happy that when we have dysfunctional youth on trial like Michale Piggin, we can be confident that there is no way he can have legitimate access to any easily concealable weapons capable of rapid firing to lethal effect.
I'd rather be engaged in a debate about an unfair prosecution than picking through childrens bodies and getting blamed for allowing someone to have a firearms certificate.
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> The only point in doing that was to point out that persecution based on any factor is still persecution.

I'm not sure there are many parallels between being racially abused/discriminated against for being black and being slagged off for having an "odd" hobby.
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Swapping clubs - yes let's focus on imaginary details instead if deciding if the concept is acceptable. Let's pick a random method, say guns are owned by the club, and access to them comes with membership. That wasn't hard, was it?

So all club members will be happy to use the same "off the shelf" weapons without personalisation?
Rampikino - on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:


> I am just happy that when we have dysfunctional youth on trial like Michale Piggin, we can be confident that there is no way he can have legitimate access to any easily concealable weapons capable of rapid firing to lethal effect.

> I'd rather be engaged in a debate about an unfair prosecution than picking through childrens bodies and getting blamed for allowing someone to have a firearms certificate.

^This
Moley on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

I have always felt the "ban" (though not actually a total ban) was bad legislation, leading up to an election the situation was used by the opposing parties to try and score votes off each other, at a time when feelings were high. It wasn't well thought out in parliament.

So I would like to see a repeal to allow target shooting again. This would include the guns being held in secure facilities (the range facilities, secure to a high standard), which would also not involve them being frequently transported, unless for repair, sale etc.

If anyone wants to find gun owners and steal guns it is very, very easy. The fact that more don't go missing already makes me think that there is not a great amount of interest from criminals wanting to steal legally held guns. Good.

If you so wish, you go to a target range, clay ground, game shoot, (having decided what type of weapon you require) follow a car home and note where they live. Do this 10 times and you have those addresses to work on when the house is empty. Hardly rocket science for a criminal, hence I would like to see some different security arrangements for handguns. Apart from that - let them shoot targets.
Ashley - on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> I am just happy that when we have dysfunctional youth on trial like Michale Piggin, we can be confident that there is no way he can have legitimate access to any easily concealable weapons capable of rapid firing to lethal effect.

He'd not get issued a certificate for any firearm so this is a moot point.
ads.ukclimbing.com
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:
Fair dos. I accept this would be expensive, perhaps there isn't enough interest to make a business case, and having almost no other countries with such restrictive laws it would be hard to engage a manufacturer. Perhaps that will change with time. If the UK led a move to range interlocked weapons and could push that out to other nations we could achieve something positive both financially and in human terms. Imagine if Americans were offers the chance to buy range interlocked weapons. It would not help the home defence brigade, but even if you swayed a few percent of owners lives would be saved.
Post edited at 13:00
Ashley - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Moley:

> I have always felt the "ban" (though not actually a total ban) was bad legislation, leading up to an election the situation was used by the opposing parties to try and score votes off each other, at a time when feelings were high. It wasn't well thought out in parliament.

Hit the nail on the head there.
dissonance - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Swapping clubs - yes let's focus on imaginary details instead if deciding if the concept is acceptable.

The details are rather important for the concept.

> Let's pick a random method, say guns are owned by the club, and access to them comes with membership. That wasn't hard, was it?

Doesnt work for cross club competition does it. Unless you take time to zero them each time?

> If you're going to argue all this can be circumvented you might as well argue that someone with a CNC mill in their garage can make and sell firearms as it starts to become more probable.

Yes people can make their own weapons or convert deactivated ones. This has already been mentioned. However to make good weapons you need decent gear and a lot of skill all of which takes time and money.
You might feel differently but if I am using something which is intended to go bang in a controlled manner I would prefer it to be made in factory with a good QC method as opposed to by dodgy dave who failed his design and technology gcse but fancies a go.
Post edited at 13:05
Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

You'd make a lot more sense if any of my hobbies WERE banned or if I hadn't already said that I DIDN'T support legalising hand guns again. But don't let either of those stop you.

And there's a distinct difference between portraying myself as being persecuted and saying that it does actually happen.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Are you missing the point in that entire sentence, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT HAS ANY PARALLELS TO ANYTHING ELSE ITS STILL PERSECUTION.

Now your either skipping around that point neatly or your genuinely stupid enough to miss it, I'm going to hope its just skipping around it.
Tangler - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

> He'd not get issued a certificate for any firearm so this is a moot point.

Why not?
Tangler - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> Are you missing the point in that entire sentence, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT HAS ANY PARALLELS TO ANYTHING ELSE ITS STILL PERSECUTION.

> Now your either skipping around that point neatly or your genuinely stupid enough to miss it, I'm going to hope its just skipping around it.

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD STOP TRYING TO DRAW PARALLELS THAT EXAGGERATE THE "persecution" YOU SUFFER, if you want to be taken seriously.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to dissonance:
> The details are rather important for the concept.

Yes, and you can go on picking holes, and myself and others could continue finding solutions until the cows come home. Pointless, ey?

> Doesnt work for cross club competition does it. Unless you take time to zero them each time?

We transport high explosives and medical opiates and all sorts of nasties safely, we can have a protocol for hand guns. How about they use an uncommon electrically fired round - that would integrate well with an interlock - and that it is prohibited to transport munitions with the guns. Local munition, transported guns. Guns are transported I a live, tracked container. They are anyway interlocked to the ranges only. So if someone steals them, no firing pin (electric fire) and not compatible with accessible ammo. Great, a paperweight.

> Yes people can make their own weapons or convert deactivated ones. This has already been mentioned. However to make good weapons you need decent gear and a lot of skill all of which takes time and money.

A lot of people have that as hobbyists in their garages you know. If we're grasping at shrinking straws, they are in. People make al sorts of devices more complex than guns.

> You might feel differently but if I am using something which is intended to go bang in a controlled manner I would prefer it to be made in factory with a good QC method as opposed to by dodgy dave who failed his design and technology gcse but fancies a go.

I feel the same as you. I'm not an armed bandit however, not sure they're always the brightest, look at some of the conversions...
Post edited at 13:30
Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tangler:

Again missing the point!

It doesn't matter how much different it is, it is still persecution.

If you have two forks, and one has 4 prongs and the other has 3 they are still both a fork aren't they, or does it magically change like this does? Is that unexaggerated enough?
elsewhere on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:
> You'd make a lot more sense if any of my hobbies WERE banned or if I hadn't already said that I DIDN'T support legalising hand guns again. But don't let either of those stop you.

So if your hobbies aren't banned how are you persecuted? Are you prevented from getting employment, kept in a ghetto, prevented from worship, are you censored, do black helicopters follow you or is it something else?

> And there's a distinct difference between portraying myself as being persecuted and saying that it does actually happen.

Can you give us some examples of this persecution? Is it some nasty comments or is it something more?

People who think they are persecuted when they aren't shouldn't have guns.
999thAndy on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/persecution?q=persecution

Maybe instead of "persecution" you could use the more accurate "inconvenienced, and therefore a bit annoyed".
Ashley - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tangler:

> Why not?

Because of the licensing procedures.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/11/michael-piggin-columbine-style-terror-attack-denial-l...

From that, he has aspergers meaning he's unlikely to be considered medically fit to own firearms, based on that his doctors may well be consulted by the firearms licensing team.

"Piggin, who described himself as a social outcast in a text message read out in court, was arrested last February after threatening other teenagers with a knife"

Arrested for a violent crime, wouldn't be allowed a license.

Also, for a firearms certificate you have to have 2 referees who independantly fill in forms that ask questions about the applicant and their suitability to own firearms. The referees have to be people 'of good standing' and their responses are posted directly to the police so people can be as honest as they like, the applicant won't see what they've written.

Additionally, the firearms licensing officer will interview applicants in their home before judging whether they think they are a suitable character to own firearms.
dissonance - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> Pointless, ey?

yes it is. Since you are just trying to use it to prove your persecution complex.
Come up with a working design, get support from some firearm manufacturers and get the law passed.

> Great, a paperweight.

Again you are dealing with fantasy.

> A lot of people have that as hobbyists in their garages you know. If we're grasping at shrinking straws, they are in. People make al sorts of devices more complex than guns.

Did you fail to read what I said?
Some people will have the skill, the materials and the tools but not a lot of people, of those most will be restricted to Stens or similar.
You then also need to remove the ones who really dont want a 4am wake up call by, at best, the cops and at worse some criminals wanting free toys.
Which reduces the numbers greatly.
This can be seen by the fact that all these people arent turning out firearms by the wagonload.

> I feel the same as you. I'm not an armed bandit however, not sure they're always the brightest, look at some of the conversions...

Well if you dont have a choice then you take what you are given. Have a decent supply of modern pistols and they will go shopping there.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 29 May 2014
Note to self:

Mad Hatter has access to firearms and suffers from feelings of persecution.
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to dissonance:
> yes it is. Since you are just trying to use it to prove your persecution complex.

I don't have a persecution complex and have never claimed that I am being persecuted. I don't know what motivates your barbed comment. I am not bothered about pistol shooting myself, but I don't see why others should be prevented from it based on an unmoving mentality that there is no way it can be safely managed. (Except for the London Olympics)

> Come up with a working design, get support from some firearm manufacturers and get the law passed.

I am looking to see if you support the concept, not trying to go into business. You seem intent on denying the concept, so what is the point in furthering a conversation? You seem unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of a concept, which is all I am interested in. If the concept is acceptable, the technology can be made to work. You keep picking holes in the technology - if it worked would you support the concept? If yes, then say so. If no, then say so. To try and pick holes in concrete implantation that doesn't exist is a pointless waste of all our time.
Post edited at 14:17
In reply to wintertree:

> Yes, and people also die on archery ranges, and javelin pitches

Do they?! I remember reading about a judge hit by javelin in a competition - could have even been at the olympics, but a long time ago. Do people really get killed doing archery!? Gosh, didn't realise that happens? Does it happen often? And how?
Tangler - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

It's all a bit "wisdom of hindsight" isn't it. I am glad he only threatened them with a knife rather than a gun.

Picture the scenario - young 16 year old lad, applies to join firearms club as a junior member. He's very keen, and interested in the workings of the hand weapons (perhaps in an obsessive attention to detail manner that exists in some of those with Aspergers).
Obviously he is not going to have a firearms license refused, or be turned down from membership of the gun club because of a non violent mental health issue - that would be discrimination. Any obsessive fascination with weapons revealed on a police interview may well be a symptom if his Aspergers.

Then one day it all goes terribly wrong, parents realise that perhaps they could/should have been forthcoming with more info but they saw the sport as a healthy outlet.

Then we can start blaming people, probably him, the police, maybe his parents. Remember it's not guns that kill people it's people that kill people .... (and similar NRA sloganeering)
dissonance - on 29 May 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> I don't have a persecution complex and have never claimed that I am being persecuted. I don't know what motivates your barbed comment.

Your bizarre comments about politics of spite.

> You seem intent on denying the concept, so what is the point in furthering a conversation?

The problem is the concept is meaningless without detail. Its no more of a concept than saying the bullets will turn into flowers. Absolutely meaningless.

> If the concept is acceptable, the technology can be made to work.

Are you a sales bod?
myserable old git - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:
What good would it do society if more guns became available no matter how stringent the licensing rules?
Post edited at 15:08
wintertree - on 29 May 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> Your bizarre comments about politics of spite.

It's not so bizarre when you see the view some poster hold of people who wish to engage in pistol shooting. It seems utterly irrational to me, and it's hard to see what else motivates it.

> The problem is the concept is meaningless without detail. Its no more of a concept than saying the bullets will turn into flowers. Absolutely meaningless

Really? So all the times people have a concept, they should do it all before asking if the concept is worthwhile or useful or dangerous or bad? That would be the end of invention. I guess we are not going to meet in the middle here.

> Are you a sales bod?

Obviously not given my failure to sell a concept. I do however think the problem is addressable with technology, and have a good concept of what it would look like to implement, tempered by a lack of familiarity with or access to firearms, baring an old foreign vacation long ago.
Moley on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tangler:

I think he probably would be turned down for a firearm certificate if he had mental health issues, even non-violent.
Ultimately he would have to have the support of his GP or whomever experts were involved with his conditions and then the approval of a police force medical officer.
These people would be putting their necks on the line by approving his application for starters, not something they would do lightly. Nor the force medical officer, nor the head of the firearm department, nor the chief constable for the force, all of whom would need to approve the application.

It is not a matter of individual discrimination it's a matter of public safety which is more important.
Ashley - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Moley:

> I think he probably would be turned down for a firearm certificate if he had mental health issues, even non-violent.

> Ultimately he would have to have the support of his GP or whomever experts were involved with his conditions and then the approval of a police force medical officer.

> These people would be putting their necks on the line by approving his application for starters, not something they would do lightly. Nor the force medical officer, nor the head of the firearm department, nor the chief constable for the force, all of whom would need to approve the application.

> It is not a matter of individual discrimination it's a matter of public safety which is more important.


Moley - correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall you used to work in firearms licensing? Is that correct?
Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

I'm going to go ahead and apologise for being an antagonistic c0ck.

I have had people become really quite aggressive with me when I've said I shoot. And I have only shot air guns for a number of years now, and tbh I'm not sure whether i would apply for an FAC.

999thAndy: Yes a better term could probably and should probably have been used that more accurately described what I meant, but it wasn't "inconvenienced therefore a bit annoyed".

monkey puzzles: While technically correct you are wrong, I only have access to air guns although they are covered by fire arms laws and are treated as such by me.

Again I support a ban on semi auto pistols, they aren't ever going to lead to anything good, I support stricter licencing as well as at least some form of licencing for airgun and I believe that target shooting is a legitimate use. I am a responsible air gun user.

So there we go.
Mad Hatter 1988 on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Off duty id day i definitely owe you a separate apology for me being a c0ck, so im sorry.
IainRUK - on 29 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> Really? "Gun related" covers a wide range with imitation firearms being used in robberies etc.

> I'm fairly confident that murders by firearm have decreased over the last 20 years or so, or certainly not increased.


The problem was after the ban gun crime went up considerably over the next 5 years, since then it has declined considerably, we're still only at pre ban levels but on a downward trend so we'll know in the next 5-10 years if it worked..

if you google..

'Firearm statistics UK Parliament' you get a PDF of gun crime stats...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313942/UK-Peace-Index-Rate-murders-violent-crime-falling-fa...

More on that.. when we had the 2002 peak in gun crime we also had a peak in general violent crimes, but generally the UK is safer than it was. Surprised how much more murderous the Scots are.... angry bunch...
Post edited at 16:15
Moley on 29 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

> Moley - correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall you used to work in firearms licensing? Is that correct?

Correct, I had 12 years on firearms and explosives licensing - but retired now, thank god!

I try to keep out of these discussions, everything has been said many times before on here, nobody changes their views (far as I can see) and we go round in circles and off at tangents.

But ultimately, back to the initial post.......Farrage is simply using it as a political tool to try and gain votes, exactly the same as Blair and Major used it as a tool to try and gain votes leading up to that election.
IainRUK - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Moley:

> .......Farrage is simply using it as a political tool to try and gain votes, exactly the same as Blair and Major used it as a tool to try and gain votes leading up to that election.

Exactly.. I think hunting was a similar issue..
r0x0r.wolfo - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

How do people spin anti gun control in America? (Unrelated from this lot above)

America 2011 Gun homicides: 11,101
United Kingdom: 38

Pretty mad.
Tangler - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

It takes a big man to say sorry. Don't worry no offence taken here - just part of UKC debate.
IainRUK - on 29 May 2014
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> How do people spin anti gun control in America? (Unrelated from this lot above)

> America 2011 Gun homicides: 11,101

> United Kingdom: 38

> Pretty mad.

I just put this on a friends FB post after one of their friends stated how legal guns were just for self defence...

"For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home, The risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms".."
Tangler - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Moley:

> I think he probably would be turned down for a firearm certificate if he had mental health issues, even non-violent.

> Ultimately he would have to have the support of his GP or whomever experts were involved with his conditions and then the approval of a police force medical officer.

I'm not sure that Aspergers would be sufficient grounds to refuse a firearms certificate. (Bearing in mind it covers a broad spectrum). I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be able to refuse membership of a gun club on that basis.
Tangler - on 29 May 2014
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> How do people spin anti gun control in America? (Unrelated from this lot above)

> America 2011 Gun homicides: 11,101

> United Kingdom: 38

> Pretty mad.

The second amendment right to bear arms in the constitution trumps pretty much everything.
That and a very active NRA lobby....
HenryMarx - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

The police have guns. The army have big guns. Criminals have guns. Why shouldn't we have guns?
IainRUK - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tangler:

> I'm not sure that Aspergers

I heard recently Aspergers is no longer a condition... formerly part of autism.. but the main thing is these are gradients, easily missed for years.
skog - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Mad Hatter 1988:

> I'm going to go ahead and apologise for being an antagonistic c0ck.

For whatever it's worth, I don't think you were out of order. As far as I can see, you just got a bit bogged down in some details and forgot what the debate was about!
IainRUK - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tangler:
"Your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights" Joe the Plumber... pretty disgusting view but it won't change.
Post edited at 18:47
Duncan Bourne - on 29 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> If you're glamourising risk, you're giving a false impression of the risks vs benefits. That's something I certainly try to avoid. Again, I have no problem with people making informed decisions to take risks (and you've pretty much said you don't, either - why are you pursuing this line?)

I am pursuing this line and others to show that all things are relative.
You and I perceive climbing as an activity that involves minimal risk to those not involved and do not see any reason to restrict it. I have come across others who claim that climbing and walking encourages risk by the simple virtue that people do it (I disagree with them but that is their view) or that it is environmentally damaging (walkers are included in this).

> Are you deliberately missing the point?

Not at all the argument that guns should be banned because they can be used to kill more people in a single instance is flawed. While this is certainly the case with repeat action rapid fire weapons it certainly isn't the case for single shot target weapons nor for breach loading black powder weapons.

> Passive smoking is rightly restricted, and a pretty selfish thing to inflict on anyone on a regular basis.

So ban cigarettes.

> Vehicles, I think, bring more benefits than disadvantages, and are integral to our society; I'm pretty confident that third parties are safer from motorbikes than from cars, do you disagree?

My argument is that motorbikes are inherently more dangerous to the riders than if they were driving a car. It isn't that the motorbikes kill other people (which they can do) but that they are a fundamentally more dangerous mode of transport and unnecessary to society.

> You have a good point re alcohol abuse.

> That's my argument distorted to its worst possible representation, have you considered taking up politics?

My whole argument is not that any of the above should be banned but that a case can be made for banning them. So is the freedom they represent worth rescinding in order to make the world safer? In 1990 it was perfectly legal to own registered handguns provided you could provide a good reason, had no prior convictions, mental health issues, etc. that you could demonstrate they were kept safely separate from their ammo ( It is worth noting that semi-automatic weapons were banned in 1982. Interestingly in 1946 "self-defence" was no longer considered a good reason for owning a firearm. By the time firearms were totally banned in 1996 they were already heavily restricted and a long way from when the then prime minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England").
So there were people going about their lawful business, shooting targets for their own pleasure strong in the belief that they were harming no one. Then next they are branded criminal lunatics.
It is easy when you are not involved in something to deride it and label it dangerous, you are not involved it is not your living or your hobby or your money, why not ban it? You can point out the dangers and declare that a ban it of benefit to public safety or protecting the morals of society and everyone will sleep safer at night knowing that one more danger has been erased from the world. A small freedom has been lost but what does that matter it wasn't your freedom? But gradually we all have our freedoms restricted. Perhaps it is the price we pay for living in densely packed societies, after all we need some rules and we do want a certain amount of safety. But when we do give a freedom we rarely get it back so when we do call for things to be banned it is wise to look at it from all angles and really think about what we are doing. We have a duty to protect society from the minority of maniacs but we also have a duty to protect the freedoms of the minority from the society they find themselves in.
Most people on here only see the dangers that guns represent and do not recognise why some regret the ban, they don't see a need to own a gun. Perhaps it is good that guns were banned but there are many things we do that we do not need to do or present dangers to ourselves or others.
skog - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> In 1990 it was perfectly legal to own registered handguns provided you could provide a good reason, had no prior convictions, mental health issues, etc. that you could demonstrate they were kept safely separate from their ammo ( It is worth noting that semi-automatic weapons were banned in 1982. Interestingly in 1946 "self-defence" was no longer considered a good reason for owning a firearm. By the time firearms were totally banned in 1996 they were already heavily restricted and a long way from when the then prime minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England").

And it didn't work. There's too much that can go wrong for it to be reliable.


Most of your reply seems to ignore that I've said I have no problem with people making informed decisions to take personal risks.

I'm also fine with encouraging others to do so.

This is quite different from choosing to put other, uninvolved, parties at risk. Particularly children - to my mind, at least.

Maybe it isn't me you're talking to. By all means, carry on!
Duncan Bourne - on 29 May 2014
In reply to skog:

But the point is it was working up until Dunblaine.

Think I covered all the other bases in my last post
Ashley - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tangler:

> I'm not sure that Aspergers would be sufficient grounds to refuse a firearms certificate. (Bearing in mind it covers a broad spectrum). I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be able to refuse membership of a gun club on that basis.

Presumably you didn't read my post just confirming with moley that he used to work in firearms licensing? I would think that he would be rather more informed on that than you?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bulls Crack - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

If it were 'only' to keep the risk of accidental 'in-house' deaths low the laws should at least stay the same
off-duty - on 29 May 2014
In reply to Ashley:

> Presumably you didn't read my post just confirming with moley that he used to work in firearms licensing? I would think that he would be rather more informed on that than you?

I'm sure he can answer for himself then.

My point being that there is a difference between an overarching phrase like "having mental health issues" and being diagnosed with Aspergers, as well as there being a difference between "having a firearms certificate" and being in a gun club with access to hand guns.


r0x0r.wolfo - on 30 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:


> So there were people going about their lawful business, shooting targets for their own pleasure strong in the belief that they were harming no one. Then next they are branded criminal lunatics.
No they were not.

> It is easy when you are not involved in something to deride it and label it dangerous,
No one has labeled it dangerous. People have labeled shooting someone in the face dangerous and has banned handguns to impede them, the person who shoots paper targets is an unfortunate casualty, but in the grand scheme of things, not particularly important.

> you are not involved it is not your living or your hobby or your money, why not ban it? You can point out the dangers and declare that a ban it of benefit to public safety or protecting the morals of society and everyone will sleep safer at night knowing that one more danger has been erased from the world.
Thirty thousand and counting die in America every year from firearms. I sleep safer in this country thanks to gun control, I'm not afraid of people going to shoot targets with rifles though.

> A small freedom has been lost but what does that matter it wasn't your freedom? But gradually we all have our freedoms restricted. Perhaps it is the price we pay for living in densely packed societies, after all we need some rules and we do want a certain amount of safety. But when we do give a freedom we rarely get it back so when we do call for things to be banned it is wise to look at it from all angles and really think about what we are doing. We have a duty to protect society from the minority of maniacs but we also have a duty to protect the freedoms of the minority from the society they find themselves in.
Yes we do, in general I think that we should allow freedom as long that freedom does not impinge on other people's freedom. However, the government decided to limit the freedom of some law abiding citizens to shoot targets, in order to help extend the freedom of not-being-shot to other law abiding citizens. Sometimes these things are a worthwhile trade. I am sure a lot of thought went into the handgun ban.

> Most people on here only see the dangers that guns represent and do not recognise why some regret the ban, they don't see a need to own a gun. Perhaps it is good that guns were banned but there are many things we do that we do not need to do or present dangers to ourselves or others.
There may be other things that we do not need, but few are designed explicitly and so efficaciously to kill other human beings. If a climber massacres a school with a hex and a nut key then these analogies might start to hold more weight.
Duncan Bourne - on 30 May 2014
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> No one has labeled it dangerous. People have labeled shooting someone in the face dangerous and has banned handguns to impede them, the person who shoots paper targets is an unfortunate casualty, but in the grand scheme of things, not particularly important.

Thank you. This is what I was driving at. In the grand scheme of things it is probably not important after we don't have the "freedom" to breed mink for fur or the "freedom" to take certain drugs. There are certain restrictions we accept on our lives. But "not particularly important" to us may be very important to someone else. That is why when we consider a ban it is important to look at it from all angles before proceeding

> Thirty thousand and counting die in America every year from firearms. I sleep safer in this country thanks to gun control, I'm not afraid of people going to shoot targets with rifles though.

So do I. Though for the sake of balance I have spoken to Americans who take the opposite view that they feel safer in a country where they can defend themselves.

> Yes we do, in general I think that we should allow freedom as long that freedom does not impinge on other people's freedom. However, the government decided to limit the freedom of some law abiding citizens to shoot targets, in order to help extend the freedom of not-being-shot to other law abiding citizens. Sometimes these things are a worthwhile trade. I am sure a lot of thought went into the handgun ban.

I totally agree with the exception of the last. Not that I don't think that it was the right decision but I believe that it was a knee-jerk reaction given the speed with which it came out.

> There may be other things that we do not need, but few are designed explicitly and so efficaciously to kill other human beings. If a climber massacres a school with a hex and a nut key then these analogies might start to hold more weight.

It is only a matter of perspective. Alcohol would fit the bill but as seen in America the banning of it only increased criminal activity

Gordonbp - on 30 May 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

In actual fact I think you'll find that crime committed with illegal weapons soared by some FOUR HUNDRED percent in the years following the banning of pistols.

And to answer other posters - yes it is easy to get hold of all sorts of weapons from Eastern Europe.

Also education is the answer - you don't see any ex-servicemen running amok - because they know what these weapons do.
skog - on 30 May 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> But the point is it was working up until Dunblaine.

It was working right up until it didn't? Ah, great, no need to look at reasonable ways of further reducing the number killed in mass murders, then?

We're not talking about some hypothetical, 'maybe someone will kill lots of people sometime' here - there will be many more mass murders, regardless. This is about making them less likely, about reducing the toll, by making them harder to do.

It's not even like people are being told they can't shoot guns for fun. They're being told that, for public safety, there needs to be a restriction on the types of guns they can use.

It's like banning climbing on crags where rockfall poses a real risk to the public living, working, walking or driving under them. Or banning certain types of vehicle on the basis of excessive engine power, poor braking, dangerous emissions.

Jeez, most of us are happy enough to accept restrictions on where we climb just to avoid disturbing birds, never mind reducing human carnage.

skog - on 30 May 2014
In reply to Gordonbp:

> Also education is the answer - you don't see any ex-servicemen running amok - because they know what these weapons do.

You think mass murdering gunmen wouldn't do it, if they knew what their weapons did? That's an ... interesting ... idea. What do you suppose they thought they would do?

Also, did this ex-serviceman - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24120333 - not know what his weapons did?
off-duty - on 30 May 2014
In reply to Gordonbp:

> In actual fact I think you'll find that crime committed with illegal weapons soared by some FOUR HUNDRED percent in the years following the banning of pistols.

Where would we find that? Worth noting firearms crimes are "as reported" - eg includes "I think he had a gun".

> And to answer other posters - yes it is easy to get hold of all sorts of weapons from Eastern Europe.

Easier than from other oplaces perhaps - not the same as "easy".

> Also education is the answer - you don't see any ex-servicemen running amok - because they know what these weapons do.

And because they don't have any weapons on account of being ex.
dissonance - on 30 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> Where would we find that? Worth noting firearms crimes are "as reported" - eg includes "I think he had a gun".

I suspect they add a zero onto the about 40% increase in Firearms crimes.
if so those figures also include airguns and imitations.

I think it will end up being one of those special figures like the violent crime comparison with the US (UK is a hell of a lot higher since the US figures only count serious violence, as in you give the victim statement in hospital, compared to UK which is pretty much anything).
mockerkin on 30 May 2014
In reply to Gordonbp:

> In actual fact I think you'll find that crime committed with illegal weapons soared by some FOUR HUNDRED percent in the years following the banning of pistols.

Be careful of statistics. When pistols were legal 'gun crimes' had to involve the misuse of guns. As soon as they were banned simply possessing one was gun crime. It doesn't have to mean that people suddenly started misusing guns by a factor of 400%.

Gordonbp - on 30 May 2014
In reply to off-duty:

Here's a link for yo:
Met police say gun crime increased by 48% IN ONE YEAR!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8473029.stm
dissonance - on 30 May 2014
In reply to Gordonbp:

> Met police say gun crime increased by 48% IN ONE YEAR!

Where is the one supporting your original claim?
Also as already pointed out that gun crime includes replicas, airguns and even just the belief guns were involved.
IainRUK - on 30 May 2014
In reply to Gordonbp:
> In actual fact I think you'll find that crime committed with illegal weapons soared by some FOUR HUNDRED percent in the years following the banning of pistols.

> And to answer other posters - yes it is easy to get hold of all sorts of weapons from Eastern Europe.

> Also education is the answer - you don't see any ex-servicemen running amok - because they know what these weapons do.

please provide a source.

And yes.. ex servicemen do.. their have been numerous in the states..
Post edited at 15:41
Duncan Bourne - on 30 May 2014
In reply to skog:

> It was working right up until it didn't? Ah, great, no need to look at reasonable ways of further reducing the number killed in mass murders, then?

Same with anything really

> We're not talking about some hypothetical, 'maybe someone will kill lots of people sometime' here - there will be many more mass murders, regardless. This is about making them less likely, about reducing the toll, by making them harder to do.

Safety is not the only issue when a ban is considered. We could make our world very safe but it probably would be a world that anyone would want to live in.

> It's not even like people are being told they can't shoot guns for fun. They're being told that, for public safety, there needs to be a restriction on the types of guns they can use.

Which fair enough I have no problem with that at all but that is not what I was arguing about

> It's like banning climbing on crags where rockfall poses a real risk to the public living, working, walking or driving under them. Or banning certain types of vehicle on the basis of excessive engine power, poor braking, dangerous emissions.

Again all fair examples

> Jeez, most of us are happy enough to accept restrictions on where we climb just to avoid disturbing birds, never mind reducing human carnage.

All I am saying is that there is more to consider than just safety. You don't shoot so you don't understand why people do so a blanket ban would seem sensible to stop the annihilation of the human race. All I am saying is that others may see it differently and not see the carnage you mention as at all likely.
Sure it occurs but really only in rare events, far rarer than motorway pile-ups, alcohol fuelled murder. You see those rare events as one event too many, which is good. Others see them as rare events like a car crash, unfortunate acts committed by stupid or careless people but not relevant to their situation. Where you see every gun as a potential murder weapon they see themselves as responsible people pursuing a hobby they enjoy.

I think that the UK has quite sensible gun restrictions. But that is just my opinion and who is to say I am right?
RomTheBear - on 30 May 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well it all depends on the details of the licensing system. It seems ludicrous that olympic pistol competitors have to train in France (that notorious haven of gun crime) but then again we don't want every scrote in the country replacing his knife with a Smith and Whesson.

All you need to do is allow olympic pistols on training premises only, and all the rest stays banned. problem solved.
John_Hat - on 30 May 2014
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Jesus, he's even more barking than I realised.

Well put.
Indy - on 31 May 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> Also as already pointed out that gun crime includes replicas, airguns and even just the belief guns were involved.

I suspect there's an agenda there somewhere.
Sketchy - on 31 May 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

Well it'd (hopefully) bring back the gentleman's duel. Pistols at dawn and whatnot. Efficient way to settle major arguments.

But yeah otherwise it's a terrible idea.
Jim Fraser - on 31 May 2014
In reply to Gordonbp:

> Met police say gun crime increased by 48% IN ONE YEAR!

Half of which were water pistols and some of the rest were imaginary guns.

Nevertheless, it allow the number of immature pr1cks allowed to walkaround the streets of Britain with a machine gun to increase.

Jim Fraser - on 31 May 2014
In reply to Sketchy:

> Well it'd (hopefully) bring back the gentleman's duel. Pistols at dawn and whatnot. Efficient way to settle major arguments.

If that's part of the UKIP constitution then maybe we should just let them get on with it.

:-)
dek - on 31 May 2014
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> If that's part of the UKIP constitution then maybe we should just let them get on with it.

> :-)

Recently the Birmingham Somali gangsters came up here to kill the Edinburgh mosque imams, crack dealing son using a machine gun, pistol, golf clubs, and bats. Two minute walk from justice minister MaCaskills office....he was closed...
off-duty - on 31 May 2014
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> Nevertheless, it allow the number of immature pr1cks allowed to walkaround the streets of Britain with a machine gun to increase.

Still, at least that increase is matched by the number allowed to post on UKC. And they don't even need to pass a firearms assessment.
THE.WALRUS - on 31 May 2014
In reply to Jim Fraser:

On what basis have you decided that all armed coppers are immature pricks? Or that there are more of them than there used to be?

Sounds like a rather immature statement to me...
Chambers - on 01 Jun 2014
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> On what basis have you decided that all armed coppers are immature pricks? Or that there are more of them than there used to be?

> Sounds like a rather immature statement to me...

'Immature pricks' is a nasty turn of phrase, to be sure. Insulting and - let's be frank - meaningless. We're talking here about people who haveapparently chosen to wear an extremely funny uniform and spend their working days following orders that enforce the rule of the interests of capital without any regard for justice. 'Unevolved' woud be a better description.

In 1829 the Metropolitan Police were given fifty flintlock pistols. I think you've lost that argument!
THE.WALRUS - on 01 Jun 2014
In reply to Chambers:

Don't tell me...the coppers are all corrupt agents of a nasty capitalist government, and we'd all be better off living in a Socialist workers paradise, discussing the ideas of Karl Marx and knitting beanie hats etc?

Oh, the purported increase in the number of armed police is supposed to have taken place after the metropolitan police reported a 48% rise in armed crime in 2009...the 'fact' they they were issued 50 flintlock pistols in 1829 is, therefore, irrelevant to this debate.

Given budget cutbacks across the public sector, I suspect there are rather fewer armed coppers about in 2014 compared to 2009.
Chambers - on 02 Jun 2014
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Not interested in your puerile, ill-informed jibes that only illustrate how little you understand of my position. The fact remains that there is no doubt that the police have more weapons than they used to. Have you tried finding accurate figures on how many guns they have? Because what you 'suspect' is considerably less relevant than anything I've said.
dissonance - on 02 Jun 2014
In reply to Chambers:

> Not interested in your puerile, ill-informed jibes that only illustrate how little you understand of my position. The fact remains that there is no doubt that the police have more weapons than they used to.

Is there?
Prior to 1936 the police had more routine access to firearms. Since then it has varied with access being slowly cut down eg the Met has far less qualified officers than they did in the 1970s although they are better armed (which is what is to be expected when you dont have many of them).
Or do you mean tasers and CS which is a separate discussion?
Chambers - on 03 Jun 2014
In reply to dissonance:

I'm not sure it is a separate discussion at all. But let's allow that it is. I've searched for figures regarding the size of their arsenal but can find nothing. The most recent Home Office statistics support your claim that there has been a reduction in qualified officers - at least over the last five years, although there was a 5% increase in 2012. So, is it disputable that they have more firepower now than ever before? I think so. Take a look at the contents of their current arsenal and compare it to the contents of their gun lockers in the past.
Jim Fraser - on 03 Jun 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> ... And they don't even need to pass a firearms assessment.

So that quite definitely doesn't apply to me since I am up to date with IW and side and recent on several others.
Jim Fraser - on 03 Jun 2014
In reply to dek:

> Recently the Birmingham Somali gangsters came up here to kill the Edinburgh mosque imams, crack dealing son using a machine gun, pistol, golf clubs, and bats. Two minute walk from justice minister MaCaskills office....he was closed...

Not nice.

Thinking more Nigel Farage and a colleague with flintlocks at dawn. It has a far more romantic air to it. And since most people couldn't hit the proverbial barn door at fifty feet with a pistol, quite safe too.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.