Printable View
Prior to Dunblane you could get licences for combat rifles. Now you can't which is the point that I was making about adjusting the law in steps and responding to known and removable threats rather than hypothetical ones (like plastic spoon massacres).Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
In the case of Dunblane, the guy had a license for the gun he used and had no trouble getting one despite the fact that he had known psycological problems.
Because cars are a part of the fundamental transport infrastructure and are continually being legislated and made safer (UK road deaths are now lower than thge level in the 1920s).Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
I acknowledge incidents such as these as a tragedy but why single out guns and not, say, cars? How many children die in road accidents every year? If we banned cars we could save more lives so what are we waiting for?
For better or worse much of British society (particularly rural society) could not function at present without cars (supermarkets, commuter towns, country pubs ;), schools (now that village schools have been closed down), factories on industrial parks/estates etc. Do you think that gun restrictions have had a similar impact?
Your analogy would be closer if I was suggesting banning guns for soldiers on active service.
Not wishing to be picky, but it's Dunblane. It's one of those things that I think deserves to be got right.Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Prior to Dunblaine ...
I stand corrected - so what are your views on causes and solutions (other than on the spelling) . . .Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleDuncan
Not wishing to be picky, but it's Dunblane. It's one of those things that I think deserves to be got right.
Kzin
Why does it have to be a mass attack? Because the incidents of death are a multitude of isolated incidents rather than one mass incident, that's somehow worse?Quote:
If there are any mass attacks with it and it proves to be impossible for ordinary citizens to disarm someone with it yes.
As for capacity for disarmament, I doubt that your average citizen could disarm somebody with a kitchen knife (particularly if they knew how to use it).
No, I don't but I was not equating usefulness to society with tolerated risk.Quote:
For better or worse much of British society (particularly rural society) could not function at present without cars (supermarkets, commuter towns, country pubs , schools (now that village schools have been closed down), factories on industrial parks/estates etc. Do you think that gun restrictions have had a similar impact?
You do have a point but I don't think usefulness to society is a prime consideration when deciding whether a particular activity is too dangerous to be legal. I doubt that smoking cannabis is very useful to society but that doesn't mean that it should be banned merely because there is a perceived risk. What use does rock climbing provide to society yet we tolerate that sport with all it's risks?
I don't personnally like gun usage or ownership but I would tend to err on the side of liberty when considering the legality of particular activities.
Do you mean you do not like the idea of you using or owning a gun, or anybody using or owning a gun, me for instance?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I don't personnally like gun usage or ownership but I would tend to err on the side of liberty when considering the legality of particular activities.
GlenW
No, I have nothing against people who like guns, parse.
I, personally, would not like to own or use a gun under any circumstance.
Depend whether you think shooting children in a school is equivalent to falling off a rock wall or giving yourself throat cancer with Ganga. I'm quite happy to live in a place which only has the minimum number of laws needed to protect people from one another and no other laws [although I prefer the system we actually have]. I don't see much point in one that does not give that level of protection. Different people will obviously disagree on what constitutes the minimum protection.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
You do have a point but I don't think usefulness to society is a prime consideration when deciding whether a particular activity is too dangerous to be legal. I doubt that smoking cannabis is very useful to society but that doesn't mean that it should be banned merely because there is a perceived risk. What use does rock climbing provide to society yet we tolerate that sport with all it's risks?
The myth of the noble samurai eh? (well thats what these jerks think they are). You don't remember Lisa Potts the nursery school teacher who disarmed one of these jumped up nutters single handed in her school.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kzin
As for capacity for disarmament, I doubt that your average citizen could disarm somebody with a kitchen knife (particularly if they knew how to use it).
I think if you pulled a knife on a child in a public place in the south of england your "time-before-head-caved-in-by-17-stone-passing-bloke" would be very short indeed.
A quick search of the internet supports this.
http://www.educationderbyshire.co.uk...n/010130fc.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/edu...000/192474.stm
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/educationnow/lisapotts.htm
I'm off now - I'll be back with a Marines surplus surplus Vulcan Phalanx CIWS or a plastic spoon [both my citizens right to own] to settle this later.:p
1) Scotland
2) Germany
3) US
Katie, what are you trying to say?
We may be loonies........we are loonies............but we aren't the looniest.
It is a tragedy anytime there is sensless violence. Since it is just that, senseless, trying to make sense of it is beyond what sane people can fathom! Gun control doesn't help when people are crazy. It helps lower the overall cases, but it will never stop it. We are a screwed up life form bent on our own demise. :(
True, there are loonies the world over. But, America is definitely the looniest of the lot!Quote:
We may be loonies........we are loonies............but we aren't the looniest.
Just sticking my head around the corner of the door for a couple of seconds.Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
We may be loonies........we are loonies............but we aren't the looniest.
It is a tragedy anytime there is sensless violence. Since it is just that, senseless, trying to make sense of it is beyond what sane people can fathom! Gun control doesn't help when people are crazy. It helps lower the overall cases, but it will never stop it. We are a screwed up life form bent on our own demise. :(
Its not a question of having loonies Katie - its a question of arming then (or voting for them if you are French ;)). After the Scottish incident we imposed much tighter gun controls (ours used to be about the same as Germany) and we don't seem to have had similar incidents since. The aussies did the same after Tasmania.
sure sounds like helping to me ;)Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
Gun control doesn't help when people are crazy. It helps lower the overall cases,
Do you know any [life forms] that aren't (you should hear what an Austrailian girl was telling me about wombats this weekend ;))Quote:
Originally posted by barrk
We are a screwed up life form bent on our own demise. :(
. . back to work
Kzin
Well, it's a bit of an assumption to say that such incidents have been prevented since the gun controls came into effect. It was never exactly your every day sort of incident.Quote:
After the Scottish incident we imposed much tighter gun controls (ours used to be about the same as Germany) and we don't seem to have had similar incidents since.