Guns in Society

[alan p]

Apparently more fatalities are due to the humble kitchen knife these days. Its not the object that becomes the weapon at the time, its the idiots wielding them that is the problem.

[Tim Kearsley]

People who think guns are "evil" and that it's therefore ok to penalise them and their owners are dimwitted, shallow, shortsighted, have no knowledge of history or cause & effect, and clearly don't give a stuff about democracy.

How's that for a masterclass in making sweeping, wildly inaccurate statements? Surely it's my democratic right to think guns are evil just as much as it's yours to worship them? Personally, I'd make it illegal to own any firearm of any kind.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[onetenor]

In my opinion the guy in the OP was /is a murderer .Who would try to shoot deer with a pistol. And why shoot deer in the first place. Did he just happen to have his pistol handy when the deer appeared.If he was being bothered by deer surely there are ways of scaring them off or get hold of a rifle Borrow or buy/hire ( which I believe is possible to do) O.K. tin hat a the ready. O/T

[Tim Kearsley]

It's just symptomatic of the American "shoot anything that moves" mentality. After all you're talking about a country that legalises shooting hibernating bears.

[Mowerman]

.

Just a small point, the law that allows Americans the right to be armed was started when there was very little law enforcement and the 'native Americans ' were trying to protect their lands against the 'white -man', The weapons available at that time were mainly non- automatic and often muzzle loaders . Times have changed and so have the weapons available. but the law has not kept pace with technology.

[David Davis]

So 30,000 Americans are killed each year by fire arms. Given that the population of the USA is about five or six times the size of the UK, if the situation were the same in the UK we could expect annual deaths by gunfire to be 5,000-6,000.

Actually it's 50-60.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

With respect to your experience, Tony, would it be too far an assumption that the people who you have observed handling guns are enthusiasts who keep their weapons for either target shooting, game hunting and/or in connection with their occupations? I'd submit that there's a world of difference between those people and someone who wants to keep or carry a gun "for their own protection"...

A sporting firearm safely locked in a cabinet in the loft is one thing - left under the bed it's an invitation for an accident or over-reaction. Sadly, it seems that this sort of availability is what many Americans crave and which indirectly lead to the death of the lady in the OP.

[cymaz]

In some US states, it’s easier to buy a gun than fireworks.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I thought the main point of the OP was that a person picked up his pistol and fired it down his garden in the hope of hitting a deer 200 (!!!) yards away - and hit a woman neighbour with fatal results.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Tony Harrison 2]

Posted by Tim Kearsley on 25/11/2017 14:56:08:

People who think guns are "evil" and that it's therefore ok to penalise them and their owners are dimwitted, shallow, shortsighted, have no knowledge of history or cause & effect, and clearly don't give a stuff about democracy.

How's that for a masterclass in making sweeping, wildly inaccurate statements? Surely it's my democratic right to think guns are evil just as much as it's yours to worship them? Personally, I'd make it illegal to own any firearm of any kind.

Of course it's your right to consider guns "evil" but this doesn't make your opinion either rational or reasonable. Presumably you'd exempt from your sweeping (!) ban on gun ownership the agents of the State, such as the police and military - and of course the criminal classes, since no law on earth can stop crims from acquiring guns then using them in the commission of crime. Yours is a recipe for a police state. I stand by my statement: the very great majority of people, in my very long experience of interest in this subject, who express anti-gun opinions, tend to know little or nothing about the subject, and are motivated by sentiment rather than by anything resembling reasoned argument or rationality.

rgds Tony

[Tony Harrison 2]

Posted by Percy Verance on 25/11/2017 16:56:08:

And that's 50 or 60 too many. Only the armed forces and police ought to have access to guns...

Are you serious, PV? I really hope not! It's a recipe for a police state, wildly illiberal, against the entire historical tradition of free people being entitled to defend themselves - which means owning weapons. How about the criminal fraternity? Are you, er, going to pass a law that stops them from owning guns? It's been tried. It doesn't work. So you want a society in which the only people with guns are the government, and criminals. Hmmm...

rgds Tony

[David Davis]

Have a look at my previous post Tony.

[Tony Harrison 2]

Posted by Martin Harris on 25/11/2017 17:27:02:

With respect to your experience, Tony, would it be too far an assumption that the people who you have observed handling guns are enthusiasts who keep their weapons for either target shooting, game hunting and/or in connection with their occupations? I'd submit that there's a world of difference between those people and someone who wants to keep or carry a gun "for their own protection"...

A sporting firearm safely locked in a cabinet in the loft is one thing - left under the bed it's an invitation for an accident or over-reaction. Sadly, it seems that this sort of availability is what many Americans crave and which indirectly lead to the death of the lady in the OP.

Martin, you offer good points. But surely people have an inalienable right to defend themselves? It used to be perfectly allowable for HM's subjects to apply for a Firearm Certificate with the "good reason" given as self defence: this was stopped in the 1950s simply by administrative order from the Home Office, with no discussion in Parliament, and no, er, good reason given. Prior to the original Firearms Act 1920, it was very common for gentlemn to carry a pocket pistol for personal protection,especially in big cities - at a time, as I've pointed out more than once here, when gun crime was at lower levels than it is today...

rgds Tony

[stu knowles]

I stand by my statement: the very great majority of people, in my very long experience of interest in this subject, who express anti-gun opinions, tend to know little or nothing about the subject, and are motivated by sentiment rather than by anything resembling reasoned argument or rationality.

said the man from 'sweeping statements are us'!! TBH, you would fit in very well stateside but over here you only serve to underline why firearms are kept under such strict control,

 

Edited By stu knowles on 25/11/2017 18:39:37

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Don Fry]

Sorry Tony, my background is as a shooter, started as an eight year old, .410, culling pidgeons for local farmers. Moved on via 12 bore to target rifles, 10000 rounds a year for many years, to National standard, I once beat Malcolm Cooper when he was an Olympic Champion ( once). Secretary of a large club, and as a favour to a mate, culling dear on a meat production estate.

Society has a right to irrational laws between evils. My views as to murder by speeding in a car at not popular. I accept it. And a view that a gun is evil is a rational view, perhaps not my view, but has rationality. It is not the making of a police state.

Your view that you have not met oddball gun owners does not equate with my experience. Bottom line gun ownership can attract gun lovers, rather than gun users. Just as fast cars attract speed freaks rather than people why like a bit of power under the right boot. I once acquired a semi automatic pistol. The magazine needed a new spring, the old owner slept with it fully loaded under his pillow, hence the worn spring. His gun club, who rarely saw him, defended his ascertion he was a member in good standing. Also I remember an old odd "fact" that more NYPD officers were injured in gum related accidents than shot by criminals. I do not attest to the accuracy of the last statement, it is a memory.

I no longer shoot, when my eyes ceased to accommodate, age, I accepted I had a future of slowly getting a worse shot. But nowadays I have to say I am neutral as to whether society should move shooting towards our view of bear baiting, or whether it is a demonstration of skill.

[Andy48]

Posted by Tony Harrison 2 on 25/11/2017 13:27:24:

People who think guns are "evil" and that it's therefore ok to penalise them and their owners are dimwitted, shallow, shortsighted, have no knowledge of history or cause & effect, and clearly don't give a stuff about democracy.

rgds Tony

I think guns are evil.

It is incredibly patronising to assume that I am dimwitted, shallow, shortsighted, have no knowledge of history or cause & effect, and clearly don't give a stuff about democracy.

I have been around a variety of guns in live firing situations long enough to know just how dangerous they are, even in the "right" hands.

Frankly your comment above discredits any arguement you may care to make about any positive aspects of gun ownership.

[PatMc]

Posted by David Mellor on 25/11/2017 17:37:55:

 

Is the main point being overlooked?

If the object is to reduce (preventable) deaths, then you would not make guns the priority. You would make public health the priority and control tobacco, drugs and alcohol.

Those 3 kill 20 times more americans than guns.

That's probably why there are US federal & state bodies set up & funded in order to control tobacco, drug & alcohol abuse.
But AFAICS, no equivalent federal or state bodies to tackle gun or directly tackle car related deaths.
However car related deaths have been reducing, probably due to safety regulations imposed on the vehicles, whilst gun related deaths have been gradually rising.

 

Edited By PatMc on 25/11/2017 19:48:01

[Tim Kearsley]

Posted by Tony Harrison 2 on 25/11/2017 18:13:24:

Posted by Tim Kearsley on 25/11/2017 14:56:08:

People who think guns are "evil" and that it's therefore ok to penalise them and their owners are dimwitted, shallow, shortsighted, have no knowledge of history or cause & effect, and clearly don't give a stuff about democracy.

How's that for a masterclass in making sweeping, wildly inaccurate statements? Surely it's my democratic right to think guns are evil just as much as it's yours to worship them? Personally, I'd make it illegal to own any firearm of any kind.

Of course it's your right to consider guns "evil" but this doesn't make your opinion either rational or reasonable. Presumably you'd exempt from your sweeping (!) ban on gun ownership the agents of the State, such as the police and military - and of course the criminal classes, since no law on earth can stop crims from acquiring guns then using them in the commission of crime. Yours is a recipe for a police state. I stand by my statement: the very great majority of people, in my very long experience of interest in this subject, who express anti-gun opinions, tend to know little or nothing about the subject, and are motivated by sentiment rather than by anything resembling reasoned argument or rationality.

rgds Tony

Perhaps I should have made it more obvious that I was referring to making it illegal for a member of the public to own a firearm. I think most would have inferred that though. So if you express views not in agreement with Tony's you know nothing about guns! Simply astonishing arrogance. I find it very disturbing that anyone thinks a valid reason for owning a firearm is self-defence. Still, we must bow to the greater knowledge of someone who has "a long experience of interest in the subject" - what a non-statement that is!

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Tony Harrison 2 on 25/11/2017 18:25:11:But surely people have an inalienable right to defend themselves?

Thereby lies the problem as I see it. I've owned air guns since I was a teenager and had a small involvement with .22 rifle shooting many years ago, discharging the odd barrel of a shotgun from time to time over the years - but always with the aim (no pun intended) of improving my skill level in hitting the target and never the thought of using them for self defence.

Perhaps your passion is driven by simple concern for individual right of choice and I don't know where in the country you live and how lawless it is there, but do many of us in this country actually live in such fear that we feel the need to keep firearms for protection? This doesn't seem to be the case for millions of Americans though - cause or effect of widely available gun ownership?

Edited By Martin Harris on 25/11/2017 20:39:01

[Robin Colbourne]

Whilst the 'need' to defend one's property is given as the principal reason for owning a firearm, the reality is that there are probably more home entries which are misguided, or accidental than intentional. If ownership of guns is what prevents break-ins, we should all know people who have been burgled when they are in the house.

Think of all these cases, which could easily get someone shot in the States if they visit the 'shoot first, ask questions later' type of owner:

• Dementia sufferer returns to the wrong house
• Drunk returning from the pub to friend's house gets the wrong one
• Concerned neighbour puts their head round the door as they think something might be wrong
• Meter reader arrives unseen, but found leaving
• Someone thinks they hear/see lost pet in garden and goes to investigate

The other major issue is that domestic disputes can rapidly escalate from a black eye to 'manslaughter on grounds of diminished reponsibility' once guns are added to the equation, and if children are left alone in a house with guns present, but not locked away, then all bets are off.

Finally, its worth remembering that even if you consider yourself only of average intelligence, half the population are less intelligent than you are. Will it make you more comfortable that if they have guns?