As this has come up in another thread I decided to bite the bullet and jump in on what is a contentious issue.
My own thoughts are that the snowdrop appeal basically hijacked the parents of the Dunblane tragedy and used their grief for their own political aims. This caused a kneejerk reaction in government and some badly thought out and rushed legislation that in reality did nothing to reduce gun crime and ultimately only really punished legitimate firearms holders.
Take it away folks.......
Last edited by RVF500; 23-06-2004 at 12:34 PM.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Right on mate. I was working in a regional office of BASC at the time of the enquiry.
I'll admit I don't know much about the whole issue (only the basics) but why would anyone outside of the armed forces (and the few armed policemen) need a handgun? Rifles and shotguns have obvious uses (culls really, the odd rabbit, etc) but a handgun?
The major use is, of course, sport. Remember pistol shooting is an olympic sport, and British atheletes (OK, that word sounds wrong) now train mainly abroad. It's not something I'm into, but neither is Lacrosse.
Originally Posted by malfunction
just a point I would like to make regarding this 'few police'. I think ALL police should carry a handgun (but trained to use it properly, not like the americans where it is pulled nearly all the time!).
I also think that people should be (if properly vetted) allowed to possess a handgun if they want.
Fair point - hadn't thought of that - there are always exceptions I suppose and as I (for example) accept archery as a sport I would be being a hypocrite to say that I'm against guns being used in such ways... Though in all honesty I wouldn't miss gun related sport (or indeed archery) in terms of it possibly making the world a safer place... And even with the supposed benefits of the 'sports' I'm against fox / grouse hunting too. But that's a bit OT. I suppose my own lingering doubts come from my own motivations - I would only ever want to own a gun if I wanted (or rather possibly needed) to shoot someone (unless the world plunges into chaos and I have to go out hunting wabbits as a food source of course)
Whilst one could cite the USA as an obvious example of how availability of handguns leads to an inrease in gun crime, why is the same not true of Canada? Conversely the new gun laws in this country have done nothing to stem the tide of gun crime.
I actually think that it has much more to do with the origins of a gun culture within a society and how it has developed. The latter being partly a consequence of multiculturalism.
I am of the opinion that the legislation was badly thought out and should be changed, though I would have to think hard about the specifics.
As to the need for handguns - sport would be one reason, as has been suggested.
Another small point - you can kill some-one with a catapult with the right type of shot, so the easy to hide argument doesn't hold comepletely true......
If it ain't broke, fetch a bigger hammer
Oooh christ no. Not a chance - my main argument against that is that is raises the stakes - yes there may be many criminals that have guns or have easy access to them but if the police have them don't doubt for a second that every petty criminal will feel the need to be similarly equipped - and even for those that have easy access to them but don't normally carry one you can bet that with the increased use they will feel the need to carry one with them all the time. I just believe it will increase the number of guns out there and the number of incidents involving them.
I believe that wouldn't happen! Any person who wants/'needs' a gun now has one or can get one easily. Some people are already prepared to equip themselves with a weapon to use in the act of committing another crime. Having the police armed would not change these numbers, because the criminals out there who do not have guns don't have them because they don't want/feel they need a gun. This talk of 'raising the stakes' is pure BS as far as I'm concerned!
I'll have to agreed to disagree with you there - you give every bobby on the beat a gun and many more people will feel they need a gun to protect themselves... Just criminals at first and then the population at large (as and when gun use has risen or is perceived to have risen far enough many 'normal' people will no longer feel safe without a gun in the house at least). I don't relish the idea of every member of the police force being able to carry a gun either - there's simply no need for it IMO - if / when there are situations that may require such force then armed response units can and are dispatched accordingly - in any other situation it just opens up the possibility of intimidation (intentional or not) and abuse.
I agree largely with what you say; if the existing legislation had been properly applied at the time, Thomas Hamilton would never have had firearms in the first place; the last officer to inspect Hamilton described him as dangerously unstable and totally unfit to have a firearms certificate, and recommended that it be withdrawn (the police can do that anytime). She was overruled by senior officers, he kept his FAC, and the result from that point was more or less inevitable. Cue a lot of posturing on a handgun ban by the police (while their colleagues who had royally screwed the pooch were allowed to quietly retire or resign with their pension rights intact), and a government who took a cold hard look at the numbers. Number of perfectly law abiding sporting pistol shooters in the country? Number of screaming voters that we can appease? Don't exactly need a calculator and a spreadsheet to work that one out...
Gun crime increased in the years following the legislation, and for a very simple reason; the overwhelming majority of firearms related crime is not committed (and was not committed) with legally held guns, but with illegally held firearms. Effect of legislation upon illegal gun possession? None.
Governments have a history of poorly thought out legislation in the face of public panic (consider the Dangerous Dogs Act). A good example is the ban on the possession of self-loading rifles after the Hungerford incident. Michael Ryan possessed a self-loading rifle, true, but none of the killings were committed using it. He used a shotgun. "Number of people with shotguns as opposed to rifles in the UK? Rather a lot...major vote loss banning those...but we have to be seen to be doing something...".
Consider the incident of the deaths of Charlene Ellis and Latisha Shakespear, the Birmingham New Years' shooting of about a year and a half ago, and all the people demanding a "change in the law to make those guns illegal"; this in spite of the fact that they were shot with a submachine gun. They've been illegal since 1948, FFS.
Public outcry is not always the best barometer of right and wrong (don't be a paediatrician on the Paulsgrove Estate for instance).
There's a saying that "hard cases make bad law", i.e. that exceptional circumstances lead to judges making decisions which look less than optimal when applied to other cases. I think that public hysteria makes infinitely worse law than that.
Last edited by nichomach; 23-06-2004 at 02:46 PM.
Well there was I poised to climb onto my knackered and very flimsy soapbox, and Nicho covers every point I was going to make. every last damn one
Suffice to say My father and I handed our firearms license in and ceased participating in a very enjoyable hobby.
Triffic.
Well there was I poised to climb onto my knackered and very flimsy soapbox, and Nicho covers every point I was going to make. every last damn one
Suffice to say My father and I handed our firearms license in and ceased participating in a very enjoyable hobby.
Triffic.SMIDSY!
Well anyway
I'm off to purchase one of these
http://www.barnettcrossbows-uk.com/compound.htm
Just as lethal, silent, and no license required.
Logic is a wonderful thing isn't it :S
I strongly agree with this sentiment. Having lived and worked in Switzerland I was surprised at the free availability of firearms. Also their military is built onthe 'levee en masse' concept where their army is almost totally civilian and the population of citizen soldiers take their weapons home with them. It is an everyday sight to see Swiss citizens getting on the train/bus etc in uniform going to do their compulsory service days carrying their issue weapons. However, there is little gun crime in the country.
I disagree that the police shold be routinely armed. There is no need for it at present. Any low life can go to a pub in virtually any town in the country and purchase an illegal weapon. The fact that they don't lends itself to the argument that they don't feel the need. The penalties far outway the pros of carrying one for the average criminal imho. Change that to the point where the average scrote feels that he is at risk from being shot by the police then the argument in their minds may begin to swing to the idea that they need to 'protect' themselves. Of course if they got a real job and didn't make their living from mugging old ladies is an argument that won't hold much water from such people.
I do agree that certain areas do need armed police. Airports for example. My other argument against the police being routinely armed is that you increase the risk of a firearms incident simply by their deployment.
Personally I used handguns for several years for target shooting, which I enjoyed, and never had the urge to use one on a human being. But that's just me, I can't speak for others.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
I also think nichomach gets it pretty spot on.
How is it a consequence of multiculturalism?The criminal gangs of the 50s and 60s used guns; the heydey of armed robbery was probably the 60s and 70s. Nowadays crime is a multicultural profession like any other, but I don't think a rise in gun culture (such that there is) is anything to do with multiculturalism. It's far more likely to be due to more weapons entering the country from former Eastern Bloc states.
Rich :¬)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
