I have been watching this on the news for the last 24 hours or so, and my sympathies and condolences go out to the families and friends of all those affected by this despicable act of violence.
Surely, this crime should sound the death knell for gun ownership in this country, we do not need them, and it is time to get rid of them altogether!
As Famine has already pointed out, that will simply lead to the only people with guns being criminals. Hardly a sane move at all.
As for not needing them, one hell of a lot of Farmer and people who game shoot for farmers would disagree with that.
The wild population of Pigeons, Rabbits and Deer need to be controlled; not doing so would result in devastation of crops within the UK. Shooting is still the single most effective method of control.
Once again I would refer back to car ownership. Many more people are killed each year on the roads, would that justify a ban on powerful cars?
Good point but in this case the guns used were licensed and Im not aware of illegal guns being used in a multiple killing case like this in the UK.
If other members of the public had guns it is quite possible this could have been over much quicker but as it cant be guaranteed that the UK would follow countries like Canada and Switzerland rather than America with regards to gun fatalities its unlikely this will ever happen.
Yes we do know exactly what level of attacks of this nature would take place with the old gun laws, because we only have to go back a few decades to see that.
The increase in gun control has not reduced the frequency of attacks of this nature in the UK at all, they were rare before and remain rare.
As a point of fact we went for centuries with 'sane' gun ownership laws before Hungerford. The most extreme cases (Dunblaine and this one) have happened after gun laws were tightened.
The number of people who can be killed by one person in a single incident with a gun is much greater than with most other tools. Isolated murders make up the majority of the statistics so as rare multiple killings cases like this make up a small percentage of the figures when averaged out over the years it is arguable they should be considered separately.
Yes it potentially is, but overall knives are far more likely to be used to kill someone.
I also find it bizarre to argue for single isolated cases being used to determine an overall legal position. That makes no sense at all and would result in all manner of bizarre legal changes.
To be honest I think the competitive shooting point that was brought up by the pro-shooting representative on BBC news is a fairly weak argument as it appears that it is already under very strict control and detracts from the issue of gun ownership by the general public. I was also pretty amazed the guy had the balls to go on record supporting gun ownership right in the middle of the report.
How the hell does competitive shooting detract from public ownership? They are one and the same thing, please at the very least understand what you are discussing before posting.
I also find it interesting that you would take issue with someone presenting a discussion on gun ownership! Smack rather of a one-sided view point on things.
The issue of gun ownership is far from a black and white case and Im not claiming that they should all be banned. I also accept that tighter control is unlikely to make a significant difference to the annual figures but if this guy didnt already own guns I doubt he would have sourced them illegally before going on a killing spree. I dont know what justification he had for his gun licences but as a taxi driver I cant imagine it was for his job so is likely to be for recreational hunting/shooting. Im against the nanny state in most respects but when the potential is as devastating as this I do think gun ownership for recreational use should be revised.
The only remaining step in terms of gun ownership in the UK is pretty much a complete ban, the existing rules are already that tight.
You also have no idea what this guy would or could of done had he not owned legal weapons, given that more illegal guns exist in the UK than legal ones its not a great reach to say he would not have obtained one.
Nor can you categorically state that he would not have managed to achieve a similar toll via other means.
What you are arguing for (and to say otherwise is quite frankly laughable) is a nanny state move, you just seem OK with it because it doesn't affect you. Keep in mind that an erosion of rights will someday catch up with something that does affect you.
Scaff
