another knee jerk reaction to gun ownership

[scothunter 12,609]

well let me rephrase that,they shouldnt have been allowed to keep them in thier home.

[Buch 145]

Well i suppose thats pretty reasonable, if abit impracticle.

[FightTheBan 1,147]

a taxi driver being legally allowed to keep 6 different firearms in his house! Why?

 

What difference does it make, he is not a f*****g octopus and can only fire one at a time

 

FTB

[Nik_B 3,790]

a taxi driver being legally allowed to keep 6 different firearms in his house! Why?

 

What difference does it make, he is not a f*****g octopus and can only fire one at a time

 

FTB

 

haha I was going say the same

[paulus 26]

i think your all missing my point the police were informed 3 years earlier that he was self harmind but made the decision not to revoke his license?? so there was every oppertunity for the police to have revoke them, however he probably would have still done it with another weopon knive, hammer ect, over xmas a lot have people have been stabbed, but their not calling for knives to be debated in parliment?

[Malt 379]

You can never fully legislate for possible future actions of every person, and the current gun laws are tight enough. As tragic as things like these are, they happen now and again and always will. For every incident like this involving legally owned guns, how many are there which involve illegal ones?

[paulus 26]

You can never fully legislate for possible future actions of every person, and the current gun laws are tight enough. As tragic as things like these are, they happen now and again and always will. For every incident like this involving legally owned guns, how many are there which involve illegal ones?

a lad gets shot in the head at point blank range last week it didnt get the reaction this incident got, there will always be nutters and there are enough rules/laws inplace they just need to be uniformally enforced

[Malt 379]

You can never fully legislate for possible future actions of every person, and the current gun laws are tight enough. As tragic as things like these are, they happen now and again and always will. For every incident like this involving legally owned guns, how many are there which involve illegal ones?

a lad gets shot in the head at point blank range last week it didnt get the reaction this incident got, there will always be nutters and there are enough rules/laws inplace they just need to be uniformally enforced

 

Spot on. I think it's because gun crimes involving illegal guns are expected to happen to a certain degree and accepted into crime statistics while at the same time, crimes involving legally held guns are supposed to be legislated against and never meant to happen. It makes a crime with a legally held gun more taboo in the eyes of the establishment and worthy of far more coverage and debate.

[scothunter 12,609]

try getting caught with a blade up here,you will see if they take it seriously or not. wasnt that long ago there were a few high profile stabbings and yes it was debated,and now a mandotary custiodial sentence is what you will get. malt is right it wont stop it happening again,but surely even a small change or at the very least a review wont do any harm. if it stops even one future nutter who up until now has remained under the radar its gotta be a good thing surely. its better than joe public rightly or wrongly thining the gun owners are selfish that they would put thier right to own a shotgun before someones safety.i would think its better to weed out those who shouldnt have them,and it would take the gun issue out of the limelight. thats my thoughts anyway.

[paulus 26]

You can never fully legislate for possible future actions of every person, and the current gun laws are tight enough. As tragic as things like these are, they happen now and again and always will. For every incident like this involving legally owned guns, how many are there which involve illegal ones?

a lad gets shot in the head at point blank range last week it didnt get the reaction this incident got, there will always be nutters and there are enough rules/laws inplace they just need to be uniformally enforced

 

Spot on. I think it's because gun crimes involving illegal guns are expected to happen to a certain degree and accepted into crime statistics while at the same time, crimes involving legally held guns are supposed to be legislated against and never meant to happen. It makes a crime with a legally held gun more taboo in the eyes of the establishment and worthy of far more coverage and debate.

very true, i did see a figure for incidents in 2010 involving legal held firearms it was .0 something percent

[paulus 26]

try getting caught with a blade up here,you will see if they take it seriously or not. wasnt that long ago there were a few high profile stabbings and yes it was debated,and now a mandotary custiodial sentence is what you will get. malt is right it wont stop it happening again,but surely even a small change or at the very least a review wont do any harm. if it stops even one future nutter who up until now has remained under the radar its gotta be a good thing surely. its better than joe public rightly or wrongly thining the gun owners are selfish that they would put thier right to own a shotgun before someones safety.i would think its better to weed out those who shouldnt have them,and it would take the gun issue out of the limelight. thats my thoughts anyway.

it use to be normal practice for most sgc and fac apllications to be endorsed by your gp now very few will do it as the police will hold them responsible for anything that happens after. so who/how is the current firearms laws to be ammended to stop this? it carnt be done its a random nutter

[craigyboy 1,274]

you can't legislate for kunts

[scothunter 12,609]

you know what i mean mate,ive said it wont stop it completly,but yea why not have a thing in place where you need to attend a few appointments to a dr or someone with similar standing. give you an example i know a guy who used to shoot many years ago.he stopped shooting game and done the clays,bored with that and hasnt shot in 5year at least.no interest what ever. but mention to him about letting his ceryificate lapse and he goes off on one. ITS MY RIGHT TO OWN A SHOTGUN. very passionate he is to the point of sounding fanatical. if you dont use it then why have it.after all its a tool. so is he right enough lol

[Nik_B 3,790]

i think your all missing my point the police were informed 3 years earlier that he was self harmind but made the decision not to revoke his license?? so there was every oppertunity for the police to have revoke them, however he probably would have still done it with another weopon knive, hammer ect, over xmas a lot have people have been stabbed, but their not calling for knives to be debated in parliment?

 

The thing is it appears it was one person making that call and there was no evidence other than hearsay...if I phoned up the police and told them my next door neighbour was going to top himself should they take his guns away? Just my word against him and the police have work within the legislation. This is what they've said so far anyway. If they turned up and he totally denied it and there was no proof he'd tried to harm himself what can they do?

[paulus 26]

i think your all missing my point the police were informed 3 years earlier that he was self harmind but made the decision not to revoke his license?? so there was every oppertunity for the police to have revoke them, however he probably would have still done it with another weopon knive, hammer ect, over xmas a lot have people have been stabbed, but their not calling for knives to be debated in parliment?

 

The thing is it appears it was one person making that call and there was no evidence other than hearsay...if I phoned up the police and told them my next door neighbour was going to top himself should they take his guns away? Just my word against him and the police have work within the legislation. This is what they've said so far anyway. If they turned up and he totally denied it and there was no proof he'd tried to harm himself what can they do?

i think your all missing my point the police were informed 3 years earlier that he was self harmind but made the decision not to revoke his license?? so there was every oppertunity for the police to have revoke them, however he probably would have still done it with another weopon knive, hammer ect, over xmas a lot have people have been stabbed, but their not calling for knives to be debated in parliment?

 

The thing is it appears it was one person making that call and there was no evidence other than hearsay...if I phoned up the police and told them my next door neighbour was going to top himself should they take his guns away? Just my word against him and the police have work within the legislation. This is what they've said so far anyway. If they turned up and he totally denied it and there was no proof he'd tried to harm himself what can they do?

trust me police normally revoke on the side of caution and its up to the individual to disprove it, word alone doesnt work he would have needed a letter from his gp to get them back. it looks like someone in the flo fecked up