By: stuart gowans
- 7th June 2010 at 13:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unfortunately your comparisons are unhelpful because each of the items you mention, and man y others, has the power to kill in the wrong hands. Guns are made to shoot ammunition. That ammunition might be directed at an inanimate target, a flying piece of clay or an animal for sport. It might also, in the wrong hands, be used to kill another human being, in peacetime. They are not specifically and solely made to kill.
To reiterate, from inception they were designed to kill; what was the long bow designed for? and what are they used for now?
The fact that most guns are taylored to sporting styles of shooting, makes no difference; my Martini Henry was made for the British army in about 1870 to shoot Zulu's, subsequently rebarrelled to a small calibre, it had the stock shortened, and was issued to cadets for target practice, it is now used for vermin control.
Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose.
By: RyanShort1
- 7th June 2010 at 13:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From the US perspective... The only day many of us will peaceably give up our guns, is when the military does so as well. The risk of tyranny if the people are defenseless against either their government or a neighboring thread is quite real looking at history. Also, as long as there's a military with guns, soldiers will have access to them and may snap just as easily as any civilian.
By: Bob
- 7th June 2010 at 13:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...what was the long bow designed for? and what are they used for now?
As you raised it - this person could quite easily have killed the 11 victims and injured the others with a modern hunting or sport bow or one of the crossbows that can be bought. An arrow is quite capable of fatally wounding someone - it worked well enough for centuries. Do we ban archers or others from owning them just in case?
For years Bird probably went through his application process for renewing his certificates with no indication of how he would end up using them. Maybe he never thought he would turn one of his weapons on another human being. Sadly he did.
Punishing, by tighter legislation, those who feel they need firearms/shotguns for legitimate reasons will not solve the problem.
As was pointed a few days ago on one news slot, these events happen once every 10-12 years in the UK, but happen almost annually in the rest of Europe. Tighter legislation hasn't stopped the gun crime in the UK which seems to indicate that if you really want to use a firearm to 'get even' then just having a fistful of dollars will get you what you want...
By: Red Hunter
- 7th June 2010 at 13:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stuart Gowans - "Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose." I which case we are in agreement, because that was the point I was trying to make in response to yours. In the wrong hands there are dozens of implements and tools which can cause serious injury or death.
By: Creaking Door
- 7th June 2010 at 13:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...these events happen once every 10-12 years in the UK, but happen almost annually in the rest of Europe. Tighter legislation hasn't stopped the gun crime in the UK...
...but it would seem to have reduced such tragedies considerably.....by your own admission.
By: Al
- 7th June 2010 at 14:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No amount of legislation would stop these sad people settling alleged grievances using any means available to them at the time.
I can't help thinking though that Cameron's no "knee jerk" reaction statement was to placate worried firearm owners, rather than the general public...
By: J Boyle
- 7th June 2010 at 14:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Also, as long as there's a military with guns, soldiers will have access to them and may snap just as easily as any civilian.
Ryan
The real reason why guns haven't been collected yet in the U.S. is the liberals can't get around the second amendment.
They'd love to, but in over 40 years of trying they haven't been able to find a away to void it...without voiding the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Also, visit any of the military bases in San Antonio....soldiers don't walk around armed, even on Army infantry bases.
Firearms are tightly controlled there. They're locked up.
Witmess the Islamic militant/terrorist at Ft. Hood, he used his own guns, not Army issued weapons.
They actually saw Bird walking around with a shotgun, but the unarmed officers could do nothing to stop him.
As for the 'guns stop tyranny' argument, it has already been pointed out that gun ownership in some nations, such as Iraq, is very high- and this did nothing to stop a dictator such as Saddam Hussein from holding onto power.
By: stuart gowans
- 7th June 2010 at 16:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stuart Gowans - "Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose." I which case we are in agreement, because that was the point I was trying to make in response to yours. In the wrong hands there are dozens of implements and tools which can cause serious injury or death.
But that is no argument for banning them.
And if you read my posts on this subject properly, you will see that I am not suggesting banning anything.
By: kev35
- 7th June 2010 at 21:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Several points.
To begin with, it has to be impossible to argue against the absolute fact that utilising guns of any kind has simplified 'spree killing' enormously. How long does it take to chamber a round in a bolt action rifle? Or to replace shotgun cartridges? Not forgetting how much quicker it is still in countries where semi automatic and automatic weapons are readily available. When was the last time in the UK that twelve people were killed in less than an hour with a kitchen knife?
Proximity. Yes, we know Derrick Bird killed and injured a number of victims at close range, but he didn't have to touch them. Not like if he was having to plunge a knife into someone. The use of guns removed him from that absolute proximity to his victims and allowed him to kill very quickly, without any actual physical involvement, and then to move on to the next victim.
I'm not advocating the banning of guns here, not at all. But it should be remembered that while guns are available, occasional shooting sprees such as this will continue. I have no answers, and to be honest, I'm not sure there ever will be an answer.
Regarding the arming of the Police. The day after the shootings, there was a BBC radio phone in. A number of Police Officers rang in to say that they had no desire whatsoever to be armed. Some went as far as to say they didn't want the responsibility of being in a situation where they may have to decide on whether or not to discharge their firearm. I didn't hear the whole programme but during the longish segment I listened to, I don't recall a single Officer advocating the arming of the Police Service as a matter of course.
By: J Boyle
- 7th June 2010 at 22:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The day after the shootings, there was a BBC radio phone in. A number of Police Officers rang in to say that they had no desire whatsoever to be armed. Some went as far as to say they didn't want the responsibility of being in a situation where they may have to decide on whether or not to discharge their firearm.
kev35
If I may make an isolated point about police being armed:
If they don't want the responsibility that comes with protecting the public, by whatever means necessary, I'd politely suggest they go back to selling clothes at M&S.
There is more to being a police officer than wearing the uniform and being beloved by school children.
No cop wants to shoot someone, but I would hope that if the case meant saving an innocent person's life, they'd shoot a criminal.
By: Grey Area
- 7th June 2010 at 23:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I may make an isolated point about police being armed:
If they don't want the responsibility that comes with protecting the public, by whatever means necessary, I'd politely suggest they go back to selling clothes at M&S.
There is more to being a police officer than wearing the uniform and being beloved by school children.
No cop wants to shoot someone, but I would hope that if the case meant saving an innocent person's life, they'd shoot a criminal.
This is not America, Mr B.
Our police forces prefer not to routinely carry firearms while on everyday duty.
It's also rather disappointing to see you to belittle the thousands of dedicated men and women who make up the police forces of the UK in the way that you just have.
Frankly, I have come to expect better from you. :(
By: bubbles
- 7th June 2010 at 23:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody could have foreseen this event, i doubt even the man himself did. Banning guns won't acheive anything but arming the police will see more criminals arming themselves.
By: kev35
- 7th June 2010 at 23:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to the press he made some comment to a friend about doing this some while back. it might just be paper talk but then again, if it is true, perhaps it was an indication of a change in his mindset.
By: J Boyle
- 7th June 2010 at 23:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's also rather disappointing to see you to belittle the thousands of dedicated men and women who make up the police forces of the UK in the way that you just have.
You miss my point...
Part of a police officer's job is to protect the public.
That may mean doing things they’d rather not do.
I wouldn't want the responsibility of perhaps having to shoot someone in the course of a day's work.
But that’s why I'm not a police officer*.
I'm not getting the pay or wearing the uniform or driving around in funny cars.
When I was in the military I'd rather not have the opportunity to be shot at...but I signed on the line and took an oath.
So, if I got nuked at RAF Bentwaters, well...that's the way it goes.
I was doing my duty.
Our police forces prefer not to routinely carry firearms while on everyday duty.
If you're getting paid to do the job i.e. protect the public...you had better be prepared do it.
Personal preferences be dammed.
There are nutters out there. One day, one may happen to be in your ordinarily peaceful village.
*If they take a oath to protect the public, I'm sure it doesn't have a proviso that says...."I swear to protect the Queen and country, if I'm comfortable doing it...”:D
My late brother-in-law was a police officer in the UK...no "belittlement" intended.
I seem to have hit a nerve..I thought I explained my opinion rather well the first time.
By: BumbleBee
- 7th June 2010 at 23:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"What sort of little sh*t beckons someone over to his car,then shoots them in the face" ?
The same kind that kills children to get back at society.
With respect,not the same kind of person at all.
Thomas Hamilton was a suspected paedophile whom nobody would have described as " a nice bloke ".
Derrick Bird was the archetypal nice bloke,a family man with a social network of friends,workmates,drinking buddies and so on,who pursued hobbies and was outwardly as normal as they come,which makes this crime even more shocking.
Posts: 2,025
By: stuart gowans - 7th June 2010 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To reiterate, from inception they were designed to kill; what was the long bow designed for? and what are they used for now?
The fact that most guns are taylored to sporting styles of shooting, makes no difference; my Martini Henry was made for the British army in about 1870 to shoot Zulu's, subsequently rebarrelled to a small calibre, it had the stock shortened, and was issued to cadets for target practice, it is now used for vermin control.
Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose.
Posts: 242
By: RyanShort1 - 7th June 2010 at 13:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From the US perspective... The only day many of us will peaceably give up our guns, is when the military does so as well. The risk of tyranny if the people are defenseless against either their government or a neighboring thread is quite real looking at history. Also, as long as there's a military with guns, soldiers will have access to them and may snap just as easily as any civilian.
Ryan
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 7th June 2010 at 13:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, an Apache (or Hind) gunship helicopter is going to be no match for four guys with shotguns in a pickup truck! :rolleyes:
Posts: 3,566
By: Bob - 7th June 2010 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As you raised it - this person could quite easily have killed the 11 victims and injured the others with a modern hunting or sport bow or one of the crossbows that can be bought. An arrow is quite capable of fatally wounding someone - it worked well enough for centuries. Do we ban archers or others from owning them just in case?
For years Bird probably went through his application process for renewing his certificates with no indication of how he would end up using them. Maybe he never thought he would turn one of his weapons on another human being. Sadly he did.
Punishing, by tighter legislation, those who feel they need firearms/shotguns for legitimate reasons will not solve the problem.
As was pointed a few days ago on one news slot, these events happen once every 10-12 years in the UK, but happen almost annually in the rest of Europe. Tighter legislation hasn't stopped the gun crime in the UK which seems to indicate that if you really want to use a firearm to 'get even' then just having a fistful of dollars will get you what you want...
Posts: 1,683
By: Red Hunter - 7th June 2010 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stuart Gowans - "Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose." I which case we are in agreement, because that was the point I was trying to make in response to yours. In the wrong hands there are dozens of implements and tools which can cause serious injury or death.
But that is no argument for banning them.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 7th June 2010 at 13:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...but it would seem to have reduced such tragedies considerably.....by your own admission.
Posts: 1,190
By: Al - 7th June 2010 at 14:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No amount of legislation would stop these sad people settling alleged grievances using any means available to them at the time.
I can't help thinking though that Cameron's no "knee jerk" reaction statement was to placate worried firearm owners, rather than the general public...
Posts: 9,826
By: J Boyle - 7th June 2010 at 14:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The real reason why guns haven't been collected yet in the U.S. is the liberals can't get around the second amendment.
They'd love to, but in over 40 years of trying they haven't been able to find a away to void it...without voiding the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Also, visit any of the military bases in San Antonio....soldiers don't walk around armed, even on Army infantry bases.
Firearms are tightly controlled there. They're locked up.
Witmess the Islamic militant/terrorist at Ft. Hood, he used his own guns, not Army issued weapons.
Posts: 1,518
By: jbritchford - 7th June 2010 at 16:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I ask the question again, should the Police in the UK be armed?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/10257836.stm
They actually saw Bird walking around with a shotgun, but the unarmed officers could do nothing to stop him.
As for the 'guns stop tyranny' argument, it has already been pointed out that gun ownership in some nations, such as Iraq, is very high- and this did nothing to stop a dictator such as Saddam Hussein from holding onto power.
Posts: 1,683
By: Red Hunter - 7th June 2010 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The question needs some qualification. Do you mean every beat copper all the time he/she is on duty?
Posts: 1,518
By: jbritchford - 7th June 2010 at 16:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was thinking of something along those lines, although if there are any other ideas or systems then I'm all ears.
The UK is one of the only countries in the world not to have Police Officers armed as a matter of routine, it seems to me that it might be worth it.
Posts: 2,025
By: stuart gowans - 7th June 2010 at 16:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And if you read my posts on this subject properly, you will see that I am not suggesting banning anything.
Posts: 6,968
By: kev35 - 7th June 2010 at 21:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Several points.
To begin with, it has to be impossible to argue against the absolute fact that utilising guns of any kind has simplified 'spree killing' enormously. How long does it take to chamber a round in a bolt action rifle? Or to replace shotgun cartridges? Not forgetting how much quicker it is still in countries where semi automatic and automatic weapons are readily available. When was the last time in the UK that twelve people were killed in less than an hour with a kitchen knife?
Proximity. Yes, we know Derrick Bird killed and injured a number of victims at close range, but he didn't have to touch them. Not like if he was having to plunge a knife into someone. The use of guns removed him from that absolute proximity to his victims and allowed him to kill very quickly, without any actual physical involvement, and then to move on to the next victim.
I'm not advocating the banning of guns here, not at all. But it should be remembered that while guns are available, occasional shooting sprees such as this will continue. I have no answers, and to be honest, I'm not sure there ever will be an answer.
Regarding the arming of the Police. The day after the shootings, there was a BBC radio phone in. A number of Police Officers rang in to say that they had no desire whatsoever to be armed. Some went as far as to say they didn't want the responsibility of being in a situation where they may have to decide on whether or not to discharge their firearm. I didn't hear the whole programme but during the longish segment I listened to, I don't recall a single Officer advocating the arming of the Police Service as a matter of course.
Regards,
kev35
Posts: 9,826
By: J Boyle - 7th June 2010 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I may make an isolated point about police being armed:
If they don't want the responsibility that comes with protecting the public, by whatever means necessary, I'd politely suggest they go back to selling clothes at M&S.
There is more to being a police officer than wearing the uniform and being beloved by school children.
No cop wants to shoot someone, but I would hope that if the case meant saving an innocent person's life, they'd shoot a criminal.
Posts: 6,968
By: kev35 - 7th June 2010 at 23:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No argument. I'm only stating what I heard. I think it was the Five Live Victoria Derbyshire show which may still be available on listen again.
Regards,
kev35
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 7th June 2010 at 23:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is not America, Mr B.
Our police forces prefer not to routinely carry firearms while on everyday duty.
It's also rather disappointing to see you to belittle the thousands of dedicated men and women who make up the police forces of the UK in the way that you just have.
Frankly, I have come to expect better from you. :(
Posts: 318
By: bubbles - 7th June 2010 at 23:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody could have foreseen this event, i doubt even the man himself did. Banning guns won't acheive anything but arming the police will see more criminals arming themselves.
Posts: 6,968
By: kev35 - 7th June 2010 at 23:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to the press he made some comment to a friend about doing this some while back. it might just be paper talk but then again, if it is true, perhaps it was an indication of a change in his mindset.
Regards,
kev35
Posts: 9,826
By: J Boyle - 7th June 2010 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You miss my point...
Part of a police officer's job is to protect the public.
That may mean doing things they’d rather not do.
I wouldn't want the responsibility of perhaps having to shoot someone in the course of a day's work.
But that’s why I'm not a police officer*.
I'm not getting the pay or wearing the uniform or driving around in funny cars.
When I was in the military I'd rather not have the opportunity to be shot at...but I signed on the line and took an oath.
So, if I got nuked at RAF Bentwaters, well...that's the way it goes.
I was doing my duty.
If you're getting paid to do the job i.e. protect the public...you had better be prepared do it.
Personal preferences be dammed.
There are nutters out there. One day, one may happen to be in your ordinarily peaceful village.
*If they take a oath to protect the public, I'm sure it doesn't have a proviso that says...."I swear to protect the Queen and country, if I'm comfortable doing it...”:D
My late brother-in-law was a police officer in the UK...no "belittlement" intended.
I seem to have hit a nerve..I thought I explained my opinion rather well the first time.
Posts: 1,549
By: BumbleBee - 7th June 2010 at 23:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With respect,not the same kind of person at all.
Thomas Hamilton was a suspected paedophile whom nobody would have described as " a nice bloke ".
Derrick Bird was the archetypal nice bloke,a family man with a social network of friends,workmates,drinking buddies and so on,who pursued hobbies and was outwardly as normal as they come,which makes this crime even more shocking.