-Demosthenes- Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 k, sorry. I won't spam anymore either Could a gun banning law be like Prohibition in the 20's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Not really. It's a comparison that's overused when anyone mutters about banning anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Oh, lots of people say that. What does everyone else think?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 there are lots of things "Banned" like robbing a liquor store or stealing cars etc... and yet the criminal element continue with this activity regardless, do you think that if they banned Guns that these criminals will say "Oh dear!, guns are banned, lets hand them over to the nearest police station and stop being naughty" I think NOT! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 It worked in the UK. Obviously there's still a core of organised criminals using guns, but the figures for hand weapons handed in during the amnesty after Dunblane were way above expected levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 and the vast majority were all from legitimate owners and or users. I KNOW this, as a good many of my mate from the gun club did the same, that even includes police officers that train there on saturdays also. only the "good guys" will hand them in, don`t think for a sec that criminal will though, you`ll find that most all the crim guns handed in were by a rellative or some criminals Mom that knew little Leroy had one stashed under his bed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Who handed it in isn't really the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 sure it is, the "badies" keep theirs as they`ve no respect for the law anyway, and the good guy go without their guns that may have been passed down to them from grandparents in the war or just something they paid alot of money for when it was legal so they could enjoy their hobby at the range (most of them kept their guns at the range too!). they all have to go? where`s the fairness in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 I meant the bit when you said "you`ll find that most all the crim guns handed in were by a rellative or some criminals Mom that knew little Leroy had one stashed under his bed". I'm sure most of the guns handed in were from non-criminals (after all it was a unilateral ban), but we can't just assume no criminals handed in weapons. It was an amnesty - that's what it's for. Afaik disabled handguns of historic or antique interest are immune, but I would have thought they still need to be registered and locked up. If the only people who keep their guns despite the ban are the ones who intend to use them despite the law, for killing people, then we have not solved the problem of guns being used as a tool for murdering. But that's not the point of a gun ban. The point is to remove the rest of the guns from the population. You then prevent accidental deaths, children meddling with daddy's gun, and incidents involving psychotic breaks (a la Dunblane). The law can then be free to issue severe penalties to those who do use illegal guns to kill people, and it's easier to track those who use registered weapons for the purposes that they weren't intended for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 the historic guns were not immune as for accidental deaths, I`m not sure if you`re aware or not, but in order to keep ANY gun at home (most didn`t) there are certain measures that must be taken and inspected as laid down by the law, spot inspections were/are also in force, and that was just to keep the GUN! never mind ammo! not me now anyone there have ever heard of a REAL instance where`s there`s been such a thing as accidental killings by legitimate holders ever! there has been the odd mishap at the range with ricochets and fragments beaming someone in the head (that`s par for the course and it`s never serious) most instances are black eyes on newbies that get too close to the scope and don`t expect the recoil LOL (I aint kidding and it`s dead funny banning guns across tho board is a dumb idea! it`s even closing the barn door after the horse has bolted dumbness, it`s worse! as I said, even police officers were forced to have their guns destroyed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :the historic guns were not immune Under the specified conditions, they are: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/histarm.html as for accidental deaths, I`m not sure if you`re aware or not, but in order to keep ANY gun at home (most didn`t) there are certain measures that must be taken and inspected as laid down by the law, spot inspections were/are also in force, and that was just to keep the GUN! never mind ammo! Yes, I am aware. I fact must of those current regulations are directly due to the 1997 Amendment to the Firearms Act, which came about after the Dunblane Massacre - which I've already mentioned. So you're kind of arguing the "for" case there. not me now anyone there have ever heard of a REAL instance where`s there`s been such a thing as accidental killings by legitimate holders ever!there has been the odd mishap at the range with ricochets and fragments beaming someone in the head (that`s par for the course and it`s never serious) most instances are black eyes on newbies that get too close to the scope and don`t expect the recoil LOL (I aint kidding and it`s dead funny banning guns across tho board is a dumb idea! That's like saying "inconveniencing people who have guns they don't need is not justified by saving X lives, where X is a number I don't know." it`s even closing the barn door after the horse has bolted dumbness, it`s worse! No it isn't. It makes the problem areas more easily identifiable, and extends the powers of the law for meting out justice. Look at the figures: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/firearms/index.html as I said, even police officers were forced to have their guns destroyed I don't know where you get that from, but the gun laws in this country specifically make provisions for those in the service of the realm: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/useoffirearms.pdf http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/policeguide.pdf Exemptions from the requirement to hold the Secretary of State’s authority to possess prohibited items: 3.27 Under the terms of section 54 of the 1968 Act (as amended) persons in the service of Her Majesty acting in their capacity as such are exempt from the provisions of section 5 of the Act. For the purposes of the Act, persons deemed to be in the service of Her Majesty include members of a police force, persons employed by a police authority acting under the direction and control of a chief officer of police, members of any foreign force when serving with British forces, members of any approved cadet corps when engaged as members of the corps in drill, or in target practice on service premises, and persons providing instruction to members of a cadet corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 i`ll adress a point at a time as I dunno how to do that multi quote crap yet, never needed to. "I don't know where you get that from, but the gun laws in this country specifically make provisions for those in the service of the realm" tell them that! the police guys that go training there on a saturday, and bring their own sidearms in during the week, they had to reliquish their home weapons, and the gun club is not allowed to keep them there either! btw, the club/firing range is less than 100 yards behind a major west-midlands police station! "No it isn't. It makes the problem areas more easily identifiable, and extends the powers of the law for meting out justice. Look at the figures:" at who expense though and I mean that literaly too!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 The right to keep a weapon whos only purpose is to kill (excluding rubber bullets, but that's another matter entirely) is pretty low down on the list of vital liberties. And the police can't keep guns at home. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :tell them that! the police guys that go training there on a saturday, and bring their own sidearms in during the week, they had to reliquish their home weapons, and the gun club is not allowed to keep them there either! btw, the club/firing range is less than 100 yards behind a major west-midlands police station! You didn't look at the links I posted then. You don't get to keep your own guns because you happen to be a police officer. The Police as a government body are entitled to use firearms to enforce the law, and they do so under specific conditions. The only reason a gun club would not be able to keep guns is because those guns cannot be held there under legal circumstances, so I don't see a problem. If you look at the figures for police gun incidents, they have been falling since the 1997 amendment. You'd also see that the number of authorised firearms officers has dropped 7%. That suggests: 1) Authorised Police use of firearms is allowed, since there has not been a 100% drop, and 2) The number of AFOs has fallen more or less in line with the drop in gun incidents that the police are involved in - because the law is working. at who expense though and I mean that literaly too!? I assume you mean "who has to die for that?", which would be a poor approach since under the amended act the vast majority of gun deaths will be due to criminal involvement, rather than accidental or self-inflicted. It's a bit like saying "if we can't get rid of all the gun deaths, then let's bring back the guns and kill some more people", which you're obviously not intending to say If you mean money-wise, I'd much rather pay the taxable end of an investigation into the odd crime than pay for dozens of special task forces who can't actually do anything effective in the face of unregulated gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 non of the above, I meant the guys (legitimate gun owners) that paid good money for thier guns having to give them up because of the criminal element without monetary compensation. you can spend thousands on this hobby, and many do, and they are GOOD PEOPLE! as I said, some are even police, I`ve spent nearly a thousand on our guns alone and I have a relatively small collection of 5 guns. and off the record in the canteen talking to such officers, they also would keep one at home with them, but that majority would not want to have to use them at work as standard issue, these are good men and women, disarmed now! as a result of a$$holes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 That's not the law's fault, is it? You even state as much. What do you need 5 guns for, out of curiosity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 well, hard to explain really if you`re not a shootist, but basicly it`s nice to use and train on different sorts of gun (boredom factor most probably). some time you may wish to use a hand gun other days a long riffle. sometimes you`ll get days when your fave gun just doesn`t seem to be doing "it" right, so you try a different one that is (it`s all down to YOU really, not the gun). the fun is a bit like playing darts (wonder when they`ll bann them!?) you try to get the best score you can and beat your shooting partner, but at the same time you`re getting practice in and becoming a better shot. it`s got sweet phuk all to do with killing things, far from it, it`s all about getting good and efficient, and then put yourself up againg the next guy that recons he`s a good shot, clean target each, lets see who wins. 5 guns is all I can afford for now, but they are of such a variety, that at least one of them will serve you well in a shoot out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 btw, if you`re interested, here a pic of our guns: http://www.yt2095.net/experiments/Guns1.JPG one of which is no longer with us it`s been replaced however Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 My two cents:- I quite like your PPK, it's cute. I don't like gun's in circulation, I knew a policeman who was shot point-blank in the chest by a solder who was having ‘difficulties’ with his sanity. Both were what you would class as ‘good guys’ both are dead. Both were trained in gun use. Neither worked for Al Capone. What was the point in allowing that to happen? I have no problem with gunclubs, but anyone who takes a gun out of a gunclub into civilian areas should be beaten with rubber truncheons. Short of farmers with low bore shotgun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 thnx, and PPK belongs to Kitty my wife, it`s hers alone (even I have to ask permission to use it!). I can keep these at home but the ammo stays elsewhere, the only times these guns EVER see a civilian area is from our home to the car to the club and same back again, they`re kept in the back in cases also. and in the 20+ years that I`ve owned a gun I`ve never onece used one in anger (that`s what fists, elbows, knees and foreheads were made for). Guns are for fun only, as my knives are for preparing good food. any perversion of this is flat out wrong except where it comes to hunting or last resort deffense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 What kind of gun is that in the lower left corner... I've been looking to get one like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 So is anyone here who opposes gun possession familiar with the several examples where towns have required BY LAW for every citizen to own a gun? Violent crime essentially disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 it`s a 9mm Sig Saur p225 if I rem correctly Nickel plate (can`t be arsed to unlock it to find out 100%) but do a search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # :So is anyone here who opposes gun possession familiar with the several examples where towns have required BY LAW for every citizen to own a gun? Violent crime essentially disappeared. Violent crime, manslaughter, murder and grievous bodily harm all being separate crimes then yes. I’m aware that violent crimes diminish. Crime itself doesn’t disappear; think of it as silly putty in society that just comes out of a different hole when you block one up. With interesting unexpected results, mostly involving violence. Did you know that Captain James Cook was the last UK citizen granted the right to bear arms? He died in 1779 when Hawaiian islanders killed him and some of his crew after his first mate shot an island chief. Apparently it was all a bit of a misunderstanding that having a gun to hand just made all so much worse. - Plus get a S & W 1911, rather than the Sig Saur, it's just a nicer gun (it's patriotic as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuTze Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :btw, if you`re interested, here a pic of our guns: http://www.yt2095.net/experiments/Guns1.JPG Aren't handguns illegal in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts