hpsauce…My main reasoning behind gladly giving up a hobby / sport that I enjoyed so much and supporting the ban was because of seeing on an almost daily basis ,numbers of people with clearly identifyable mental health issues that legally held firearms and honestly thinking it to be an unnaceptable risk.
and
..there were a number who wanted to protest and fight the ban but there were more that could not put hand on heart and say they didnt see the potential for more tragedies.
I appreciate that you’re not a rabid antigunner, and not just trying to be perverse or contrary, but I confess I’m puzzled by what you say. I don’t know what part of the country you’re in, or what your shooting club background is/was, but your experience is utterly at variance with mine. I did not speak to one member of my clubs at the time, or other shooting people I met (and have met since) who professed to understand the ban and accept it as you do. Ten years on, everyone I know in shooting remains angry, disgusted, cynical about politics and the news media, and unapologetic about their love of guns & shooting.
I suppose I’ve met one or two gun owners I found a bit weird, but nothing like the seemingly significant numbers of people with mental problems (are you a health professional? I wonder how qualified you are to judge mental states – ?) you claim to have encountered.
As soon as I heard about Dunblane I had a feeling that this would mean the end of our handguns, but even I was taken aback by the wave of hysteria, rabid lying, crude anti-shooter propaganda and political dishonesty that followed in 1996/97. I’ve always been interested in politics, but it’s highly instructive when you’re part of a minority that suddenly finds itself being persecuted by politicians of whom Dr Goebbels would have been proud. I never for one minute felt I should be glad about giving up my freedom to own a handgun, and I don’t think you should either.
hps
hpsauceThe gun controls put in place mean there will never be another massacre by a “nut” legally using the banned types of firearm , it could be no other way unless the ban was lifted , ergo the gun control measures were effective.It is now a matter for the justice system to do something about the illegal firearms issue.
I wonder why you persistently cite the (revised) official line, that the full-blown Acts of 1988 and 1997 – seriously important pieces of legislation, not mere adjustments – were specifically aimed at preventing certain types of very narrowly defined crime from happening again. Much bigger claims were made for these Acts at the time.
Maybe you’re a “New Labour” councillor or something… The Establishment knows perfectly well that it lacks both the ability and the will to “do something about the illegal firearms issue”: “doing something” would and should entail reversing the pitiful trend of recent years to shy away from punishing the guilty; rather, we are all to be treated as potential criminals and have our freedoms curtailed. Properly sorting out armed (and other) criminals would involve e.g. executing murderers and armed robbers, suppressing vicious urban subcultures that glorify violence, and ceasing to subsidise the criminal underclass through state benefits. But our political culture lacks the intellectual honesty and the strength of character to do this, so it pursues the soft option of knee-jerk grandstanding that dishonestly promises to “take guns off the streets” but largely just persecutes the law-abiding. Both Hungerford & Dunblane occurred not through the principle of firearms ownership by citizens, but because the police’s claim to safeguard the public through stringent licencing is a sham – they’re no good at it, and both the instances cited arose directly through massive police incompetence. But the police, of course, are far more interested these days in managing the public (they’re sheepdogs, we’re the sheep) than in their traditional function of banging-up the bad guys while leaving decent citizens to go about their business.
hps
hpsauceThe gun controls put in place mean there will never be another massacre by a “nut” legally using the banned types of firearm , it could be no other way unless the ban was lifted , ergo the gun control measures were effective.It is now a matter for the justice system to do something about the illegal firearms issue.
I wonder why you persistently cite the (revised) official line, that the full-blown Acts of 1988 and 1997 – seriously important pieces of legislation, not mere adjustments – were specifically aimed at preventing certain types of very narrowly defined crime from happening again. Much bigger claims were made for these Acts at the time.
Maybe you’re a “New Labour” councillor or something… The Establishment knows perfectly well that it lacks both the ability and the will to “do something about the illegal firearms issue”: “doing something” would and should entail reversing the pitiful trend of recent years to shy away from punishing the guilty; rather, we are all to be treated as potential criminals and have our freedoms curtailed. Properly sorting out armed (and other) criminals would involve e.g. executing murderers and armed robbers, suppressing vicious urban subcultures that glorify violence, and ceasing to subsidise the criminal underclass through state benefits. But our political culture lacks the intellectual honesty and the strength of character to do this, so it pursues the soft option of knee-jerk grandstanding that dishonestly promises to “take guns off the streets” but largely just persecutes the law-abiding. Both Hungerford & Dunblane occurred not through the principle of firearms ownership by citizens, but because the police’s claim to safeguard the public through stringent licencing is a sham – they’re no good at it, and both the instances cited arose directly through massive police incompetence. But the police, of course, are far more interested these days in managing the public (they’re sheepdogs, we’re the sheep) than in their traditional function of banging-up the bad guys while leaving decent citizens to go about their business.
hps
hpsauceAll of these massacres… The problem in all these incidences is that NOBODY IS SHOOTING BACK!
An interesting point, that ‘s been made before by e.g. David Kopel – see http://www.davidkopel.org, and http://www.independenceinstitute.org
..the idea that most people handed in their guns for the cash is something the gov’t would like you to believe – most went abroad for safe keeping and a lot just disappeared – there was no requirement to prove what you had done with your weapon; all you had to say was that you had disposed of it.
Not exactly – evidence was required, though individual police forces varied in their attitude. A couple of friends were among a number of people who shipped their handguns to Zimbabwe to be cared for by friends there in gunclubs, who were very helpful. You wouldn’t want to do that now, though… Other handguns went to Belgium, the USA… One friend of mine was so bloody-minded that he cut up his S&W semi-auto with an angle grinder, and dumped the bag of bits at the police station – the cops weren’t pleased, because they thought he was taking the P**s – which of course he was… Me, I was just so disgusted that I sold my Combat Commander .45 to a dealer, rather than waiting to join an abject queue of retrospectively criminalised citizens down at the police station, handing in their property.
Re Zamfire’s remarks on “need”, they’re dead right – who the hell is anyone else to presume to define my “need” to own this or that. And Ren Frew’s latest reaction seems a bit, well, juvenile and unconstructive.
Regards, hps
hpsauceAll of these massacres… The problem in all these incidences is that NOBODY IS SHOOTING BACK!
An interesting point, that ‘s been made before by e.g. David Kopel – see http://www.davidkopel.org, and http://www.independenceinstitute.org
..the idea that most people handed in their guns for the cash is something the gov’t would like you to believe – most went abroad for safe keeping and a lot just disappeared – there was no requirement to prove what you had done with your weapon; all you had to say was that you had disposed of it.
Not exactly – evidence was required, though individual police forces varied in their attitude. A couple of friends were among a number of people who shipped their handguns to Zimbabwe to be cared for by friends there in gunclubs, who were very helpful. You wouldn’t want to do that now, though… Other handguns went to Belgium, the USA… One friend of mine was so bloody-minded that he cut up his S&W semi-auto with an angle grinder, and dumped the bag of bits at the police station – the cops weren’t pleased, because they thought he was taking the P**s – which of course he was… Me, I was just so disgusted that I sold my Combat Commander .45 to a dealer, rather than waiting to join an abject queue of retrospectively criminalised citizens down at the police station, handing in their property.
Re Zamfire’s remarks on “need”, they’re dead right – who the hell is anyone else to presume to define my “need” to own this or that. And Ren Frew’s latest reaction seems a bit, well, juvenile and unconstructive.
Regards, hps
hpsauce..I made a slight error in my earlier post in that I should have put that ‘reasonable’ you indicated in italics. My intent wasn’t to suggest that I thought it reasonable, as such, rather that the accepted wisdom became the fact that it was a reasonable request.
Yes, I thought you probably meant something like that – I was just being pedantic, and also I think the 1936 ban on automatics is quite interesting.
Thats not to say, however, I am entirely in support of individuals with no military training having access to assault rifles.
Well, we could argue about the details, but I dare say your heart is in the right place!
I would much rather dear old Uncle Ted down the end of the street not spray 40 rounds in a 30 degree arc, from his dear old Lewis Gun, trying to slot the guy who just nicked his car stereo. If you see my point!.
Yes, and as I say, we could argue about the details. OTOH if lowlife types were aware that Uncle Ted et al were tooled up, they might be less willing to try nicking people’s car stereos..
Regards, hps
hpsauce..I made a slight error in my earlier post in that I should have put that ‘reasonable’ you indicated in italics. My intent wasn’t to suggest that I thought it reasonable, as such, rather that the accepted wisdom became the fact that it was a reasonable request.
Yes, I thought you probably meant something like that – I was just being pedantic, and also I think the 1936 ban on automatics is quite interesting.
Thats not to say, however, I am entirely in support of individuals with no military training having access to assault rifles.
Well, we could argue about the details, but I dare say your heart is in the right place!
I would much rather dear old Uncle Ted down the end of the street not spray 40 rounds in a 30 degree arc, from his dear old Lewis Gun, trying to slot the guy who just nicked his car stereo. If you see my point!.
Yes, and as I say, we could argue about the details. OTOH if lowlife types were aware that Uncle Ted et al were tooled up, they might be less willing to try nicking people’s car stereos..
Regards, hps
hpsauceI have studied Marxism for almoust seven years now,…. All Soviet Union misshaps were effects of basic idea of tyranny and despotism, something against Marx orginally begun to fougth for… I found it disgusting to use typical anti-communist rant as a stepping stone for Nazi sympatism. If you want to wave the bourgerous flag, then fine, but please, do not speak nazis out of same sentence…
Well, I first read Marx, and later bits of Althusser etc, getting on for thirty years ago – “know your enemy” is my watchword. I find it standard Marxist technique to suggest that, of course, no-one has managed to implement proper Marxism yet. The difficulty for your argument is that sensible people consider practice, not theory: experience and history, rather than idealised speculation. And in every case where Marx’s theories have been espoused by a government, tyranny has resulted, together with economic collapse. The Third Reich is extremely apt to cite in parallel with the USSR, China etc, because it was another one-party tyranny based on screwball authoritarian principles, just like your Marxist states…
..9 mm pistol nor semi automatic submachine gun isent sporting weapon. Remember, You are speaking to a semi professional sportshooter in here. If you desire to target shooting, there are other equipment for that, so un-ergonomical that all sort of “Rambo” acts would be pure torture to conduct with them.
Gosh – are we supposed to be impressed by your target-shooter status? You remind me, sadly, of all too many target-shooting fans in this country, who worked so hard to distance themselves from those squalid cowboy types who owned “non-target-style” handguns that they helped to sell us down the river. Of course, they shafted themselves too…. A 9mm pistol (or anything else) can be a target weapon if you want it to. I’ve fired thousands of rounds of 9mm and .45ACP at targets, in Practical Pistol competition for example.
Why Are we then fighting any more? My target is US gun laws, not UK, that has taken wise step in its gun laws….
“Wise” from your point of view maybe, but for anyone with an interest in political liberty – as opposed to the sort of collectivist tyranny represented by Marxism, Fascism or other authoritarianism – our firearms legislation is a hodge-podge of oppressive, irrational, illiberal, anti-democratic, dysfunctional garbage.
hps
hpsauceI have studied Marxism for almoust seven years now,…. All Soviet Union misshaps were effects of basic idea of tyranny and despotism, something against Marx orginally begun to fougth for… I found it disgusting to use typical anti-communist rant as a stepping stone for Nazi sympatism. If you want to wave the bourgerous flag, then fine, but please, do not speak nazis out of same sentence…
Well, I first read Marx, and later bits of Althusser etc, getting on for thirty years ago – “know your enemy” is my watchword. I find it standard Marxist technique to suggest that, of course, no-one has managed to implement proper Marxism yet. The difficulty for your argument is that sensible people consider practice, not theory: experience and history, rather than idealised speculation. And in every case where Marx’s theories have been espoused by a government, tyranny has resulted, together with economic collapse. The Third Reich is extremely apt to cite in parallel with the USSR, China etc, because it was another one-party tyranny based on screwball authoritarian principles, just like your Marxist states…
..9 mm pistol nor semi automatic submachine gun isent sporting weapon. Remember, You are speaking to a semi professional sportshooter in here. If you desire to target shooting, there are other equipment for that, so un-ergonomical that all sort of “Rambo” acts would be pure torture to conduct with them.
Gosh – are we supposed to be impressed by your target-shooter status? You remind me, sadly, of all too many target-shooting fans in this country, who worked so hard to distance themselves from those squalid cowboy types who owned “non-target-style” handguns that they helped to sell us down the river. Of course, they shafted themselves too…. A 9mm pistol (or anything else) can be a target weapon if you want it to. I’ve fired thousands of rounds of 9mm and .45ACP at targets, in Practical Pistol competition for example.
Why Are we then fighting any more? My target is US gun laws, not UK, that has taken wise step in its gun laws….
“Wise” from your point of view maybe, but for anyone with an interest in political liberty – as opposed to the sort of collectivist tyranny represented by Marxism, Fascism or other authoritarianism – our firearms legislation is a hodge-podge of oppressive, irrational, illiberal, anti-democratic, dysfunctional garbage.
hps
hpsauceCapitalism is a conduct of the ills of the human, and socialism is need to whipe it off….despite what you like to say that I have low opinion of people, I (as a marxist) believe in the goodnes of people and that is the main reason why I cannot understand why anyone needs to own military weapons decided to kill people.
You should examine the history of Marxism more closely – a set of dogmas responsible for the deaths – many of them caused by guns in the hands of Party/State agents – of tens of millions of people, far more than were murdered by the Third Reich. My need or desire to own whatever weapon I like should be no-one’s business but mine.
You can make up all sort of morale and noble excuses over freedom and ect.. that you have the rigth to onw guns, but it doesent make the gun any less a tool of killing.
It’s a “tool of killing” for those who choose to make it so, such as the armies, secret police etc, of Marxist states of the 20thC, from Albania to the USSR. For others it’s a sporting weapon. For others still it’s a potential means of self defence that might not ever be used, or at least not used to shoot anyone.
This is just you repeating your own goverment propaganda made to support your nations weird passion to arms…
I’m not American, I’m English – alas, my nation has no “passion to arms” any more…
My forefathers focused more on struggeling for social equality and peace and liberty rising from the principle that no one is left on is own….rather than focusing individual stubbournes.
Social cohesion and firearms ownership are not mutually exclusive, far from it. UK society is more fragmented than ever, with less cohesion and mutual loyalty, largely because (one might assume) the State has taken so much power to itself, reducing individuals to dependence and impotence. Savagely limiting people’s right to own firearms is one aspect of this trend.
JohnEboy wrote:
The ban was put in place as a preventative measure to ensure a certain type of incident could never be repeated , and the what ifs and maybes are mute points.
This is the sort of thing spokesmen of both major parties now claim to have been the case, but it’s not so. At the time of both the 1988 and 1997 Firearms Acts, bold claims were made about “taking guns off the streets” (contemptible c**p – the guns in question weren’t “on the streets” but in the locked gun-cabinets of legitimate owners), but when it quickly emerged, as we predicted, that armed crime wouldn’t be affected in the slightest, some backtracking took place re claims about legislative efficacy… One might call it “spin”. And I think you mean “moot” not “mute”.
Jonesy hits the nail on the head re Marxism, and continues:
The problem with these bans is that they start off the slippery slope effect. In the UK it started off with automatic weapons bans etc which sounded reasonable, then hunting rifles, then handguns…each time nibbling away freedoms on the pretext of the ‘reasonable’ question ‘why do you need x type of guns’. The answer should always come back ‘why do you think we cannot be trusted with them’ but somehow that never happens.
Exactly so – I’d just query your reference to the ban on automatic weapons sounding “reasonable”. This happened in 1936, for no clearly understood reason: automatics were denigrated as “gangster guns” but no evidence was given that British criminals had ever used a machine-gun in crime – unlike these days, 60 years after the “ban”, as drug-dealers tote sub-guns – and AFAIK there wasn’t a single instance. It’s just one of many examples of government knee-jerk prohibition. My view is that every right-thinking person should have an automatic weapon (only slightly tongue in cheek..) just like 400,000 Swiss males do, as army reservists…
Regards, hps
hpsauceCapitalism is a conduct of the ills of the human, and socialism is need to whipe it off….despite what you like to say that I have low opinion of people, I (as a marxist) believe in the goodnes of people and that is the main reason why I cannot understand why anyone needs to own military weapons decided to kill people.
You should examine the history of Marxism more closely – a set of dogmas responsible for the deaths – many of them caused by guns in the hands of Party/State agents – of tens of millions of people, far more than were murdered by the Third Reich. My need or desire to own whatever weapon I like should be no-one’s business but mine.
You can make up all sort of morale and noble excuses over freedom and ect.. that you have the rigth to onw guns, but it doesent make the gun any less a tool of killing.
It’s a “tool of killing” for those who choose to make it so, such as the armies, secret police etc, of Marxist states of the 20thC, from Albania to the USSR. For others it’s a sporting weapon. For others still it’s a potential means of self defence that might not ever be used, or at least not used to shoot anyone.
This is just you repeating your own goverment propaganda made to support your nations weird passion to arms…
I’m not American, I’m English – alas, my nation has no “passion to arms” any more…
My forefathers focused more on struggeling for social equality and peace and liberty rising from the principle that no one is left on is own….rather than focusing individual stubbournes.
Social cohesion and firearms ownership are not mutually exclusive, far from it. UK society is more fragmented than ever, with less cohesion and mutual loyalty, largely because (one might assume) the State has taken so much power to itself, reducing individuals to dependence and impotence. Savagely limiting people’s right to own firearms is one aspect of this trend.
JohnEboy wrote:
The ban was put in place as a preventative measure to ensure a certain type of incident could never be repeated , and the what ifs and maybes are mute points.
This is the sort of thing spokesmen of both major parties now claim to have been the case, but it’s not so. At the time of both the 1988 and 1997 Firearms Acts, bold claims were made about “taking guns off the streets” (contemptible c**p – the guns in question weren’t “on the streets” but in the locked gun-cabinets of legitimate owners), but when it quickly emerged, as we predicted, that armed crime wouldn’t be affected in the slightest, some backtracking took place re claims about legislative efficacy… One might call it “spin”. And I think you mean “moot” not “mute”.
Jonesy hits the nail on the head re Marxism, and continues:
The problem with these bans is that they start off the slippery slope effect. In the UK it started off with automatic weapons bans etc which sounded reasonable, then hunting rifles, then handguns…each time nibbling away freedoms on the pretext of the ‘reasonable’ question ‘why do you need x type of guns’. The answer should always come back ‘why do you think we cannot be trusted with them’ but somehow that never happens.
Exactly so – I’d just query your reference to the ban on automatic weapons sounding “reasonable”. This happened in 1936, for no clearly understood reason: automatics were denigrated as “gangster guns” but no evidence was given that British criminals had ever used a machine-gun in crime – unlike these days, 60 years after the “ban”, as drug-dealers tote sub-guns – and AFAIK there wasn’t a single instance. It’s just one of many examples of government knee-jerk prohibition. My view is that every right-thinking person should have an automatic weapon (only slightly tongue in cheek..) just like 400,000 Swiss males do, as army reservists…
Regards, hps
hpsauceWhy does it not surprise me that this argument goes round and round… Arguing against gun-controllers one does so often seem to be up against beliefs based on faith rather than upon a rational approach to evidence, not to mention a a cavalier disregard for human liberty.
Criminals dissapear along with capitalism and class structure as a main factor of societies horizontal element,..
Aha – this revelation of our Finnish friend’s starting point ought to end the discussion – pure Marxism, the belief that the ills of society stem from capitalism rather than from the nature of humanity… However:
Your logic that banning arms would make a state a police state is silly and nonsense. Police state is facism and bootstamping dictature, but criminalizating military weapons in civil usage is a triumph of legistation and jurical state.
Leaving aside the idiosyncratic notion that handguns are military and hence inappropriate for civilian ownership, police states arise through an imbalance of power. A key factor in such an imbalance is a disarmed populace. Historically, police states and those who seek to introduce them enact measures to disarm the populace – nb the Third Reich, one of whose earliest acts was to bring in radical gun controls…
How come we have managed to succee as a forerunners of truely free and democratic nation without seeing any need to give people freedom to carry weapons desinged purely to kill other humanbeings?
But we have – during the birth of modern democracy in the 18th & 19th centuries, ordinary people became more free to own weapons – which formerly were often suppressed by pre-democratic monarchical states. It’s only in recent years that our “democratic” rulers have started to emulate the autocratic ways of their royal predecessors…
And I take issue with your persistent description of handguns as “things just for killing people” – most often, one would not need to actually fire a gun, since just pointing it at (say) a burglar would probably cause him to retreat. I owned four Colt 1911 .45ACP semi-auto pistols in succession between 1987 and 1997, and managed not to kill anyone, not even a traffic warden or double-glazing salesman.
..9mm pistol hasent got any other purpose than to kill other people.
Nonsense! see above.
.. human rigths cannot compromise the most precious one of them, and that is to let live!
Again, you’re assuming that to own a handgun is to imperil the lives of other people, which is just sinister and dangerous rubbish. You have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens, and when you say
society isent about what rigths you have, but obligations you have to your fellow citizens
I must insist that apart from your obligation to yourself and your family (to defend both against the possibility of assault) your “duty to society” is best met by being armed and prepared to combat evil-doers. Those who sit idly by, and depend on the authorities to keep the peace (something they’re not actually very efficient at) are cowardly and short-sighted.
Jonesy writes:
The post Ren logged up about the Dunblane lunatic, ironically, underscores the same issue… responsible authorities had procedures in place to filter out the wrong sort of people gaining access to a firearm. …the problem was that those procedures were not adhered to strictly enough to prevent two mentally suspect people slip past the vetting.
A key point. The credibility of the UK police case for gun control rests upon their strictly controlling the granting of Firearm Certificates, and in both the mass-shooting cases of recent years – Hungerford and Dunblane – the police were shown to have fallen down on the job to a, er, criminal degree. Thames Valley Police strongly resisted a public enquiry into Hungerford – I wonder why? And Central Scotland Police – well, key evidence from the Dunblane enquiry is buried beneath a 100-year secrecy ruling – I wonder why… But it’s known that at least twice, officers reported to their superiors that Hamilton was a weirdo unfit to own guns. They were ignored. One senior officer, McMurdo, was made to retire a few months early, on full pension. Gee whiz.
Gollevainen again:
My logic of banning of all guns … with out any guns, there wouldnt be guns for illigal activities as well. …you take out business of gun manufactures and production of guns, suitable for criminal purposes would end (or drastically decrease) and in long term the ammount of guns will decrease…
It’s difficult to respond to this in a reasonable way. I don’t want to be gratuitously insulting, but this stuff is just bonkers. The idea of “banning all guns” is (a) utterly unfeasible, (b) wildly repressive, and (b) well, er, unbalanced.
If it violates people rigths, who cares… nation that needs rigth to be armed to the teath isent on healthy foundation anyway
Well, you do seem to admit to Marxist leanings, so no-one should be surprised if you go right over the edge and say b***ger freedom & liberty, who cares about such antiquated stuff anyway… really, I despair when I see stuff like this. Did our forbears really struggle and suffer for centuries just for someone to chuck away the resulting liberty so casually?
hps
hpsauceWhy does it not surprise me that this argument goes round and round… Arguing against gun-controllers one does so often seem to be up against beliefs based on faith rather than upon a rational approach to evidence, not to mention a a cavalier disregard for human liberty.
Criminals dissapear along with capitalism and class structure as a main factor of societies horizontal element,..
Aha – this revelation of our Finnish friend’s starting point ought to end the discussion – pure Marxism, the belief that the ills of society stem from capitalism rather than from the nature of humanity… However:
Your logic that banning arms would make a state a police state is silly and nonsense. Police state is facism and bootstamping dictature, but criminalizating military weapons in civil usage is a triumph of legistation and jurical state.
Leaving aside the idiosyncratic notion that handguns are military and hence inappropriate for civilian ownership, police states arise through an imbalance of power. A key factor in such an imbalance is a disarmed populace. Historically, police states and those who seek to introduce them enact measures to disarm the populace – nb the Third Reich, one of whose earliest acts was to bring in radical gun controls…
How come we have managed to succee as a forerunners of truely free and democratic nation without seeing any need to give people freedom to carry weapons desinged purely to kill other humanbeings?
But we have – during the birth of modern democracy in the 18th & 19th centuries, ordinary people became more free to own weapons – which formerly were often suppressed by pre-democratic monarchical states. It’s only in recent years that our “democratic” rulers have started to emulate the autocratic ways of their royal predecessors…
And I take issue with your persistent description of handguns as “things just for killing people” – most often, one would not need to actually fire a gun, since just pointing it at (say) a burglar would probably cause him to retreat. I owned four Colt 1911 .45ACP semi-auto pistols in succession between 1987 and 1997, and managed not to kill anyone, not even a traffic warden or double-glazing salesman.
..9mm pistol hasent got any other purpose than to kill other people.
Nonsense! see above.
.. human rigths cannot compromise the most precious one of them, and that is to let live!
Again, you’re assuming that to own a handgun is to imperil the lives of other people, which is just sinister and dangerous rubbish. You have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens, and when you say
society isent about what rigths you have, but obligations you have to your fellow citizens
I must insist that apart from your obligation to yourself and your family (to defend both against the possibility of assault) your “duty to society” is best met by being armed and prepared to combat evil-doers. Those who sit idly by, and depend on the authorities to keep the peace (something they’re not actually very efficient at) are cowardly and short-sighted.
Jonesy writes:
The post Ren logged up about the Dunblane lunatic, ironically, underscores the same issue… responsible authorities had procedures in place to filter out the wrong sort of people gaining access to a firearm. …the problem was that those procedures were not adhered to strictly enough to prevent two mentally suspect people slip past the vetting.
A key point. The credibility of the UK police case for gun control rests upon their strictly controlling the granting of Firearm Certificates, and in both the mass-shooting cases of recent years – Hungerford and Dunblane – the police were shown to have fallen down on the job to a, er, criminal degree. Thames Valley Police strongly resisted a public enquiry into Hungerford – I wonder why? And Central Scotland Police – well, key evidence from the Dunblane enquiry is buried beneath a 100-year secrecy ruling – I wonder why… But it’s known that at least twice, officers reported to their superiors that Hamilton was a weirdo unfit to own guns. They were ignored. One senior officer, McMurdo, was made to retire a few months early, on full pension. Gee whiz.
Gollevainen again:
My logic of banning of all guns … with out any guns, there wouldnt be guns for illigal activities as well. …you take out business of gun manufactures and production of guns, suitable for criminal purposes would end (or drastically decrease) and in long term the ammount of guns will decrease…
It’s difficult to respond to this in a reasonable way. I don’t want to be gratuitously insulting, but this stuff is just bonkers. The idea of “banning all guns” is (a) utterly unfeasible, (b) wildly repressive, and (b) well, er, unbalanced.
If it violates people rigths, who cares… nation that needs rigth to be armed to the teath isent on healthy foundation anyway
Well, you do seem to admit to Marxist leanings, so no-one should be surprised if you go right over the edge and say b***ger freedom & liberty, who cares about such antiquated stuff anyway… really, I despair when I see stuff like this. Did our forbears really struggle and suffer for centuries just for someone to chuck away the resulting liberty so casually?
hps
hpsauce… to lower the ammount of gun related crimes, you have to lower the ammount of guns, and only way to do that is to ban them completely. Its a long term progress and will take decades before all the illegal guns have been collected away from the streets….
Sorry, but you persist in ignoring the distinction between guns in the hands of the criminal minority, and those owned by normal decent people – you and me and the other 99% of the population. Persecuting the latter – by diminishing their liberty, treating them as irresponsible children – in order to control criminals is, as we say, to throw the baby out with the bath water. As for collecting all the illegal guns off the streets, it isn’t going to happen. There have always been armed criminals and there always will be, and you cannot wave a magic wand to take their guns away, now or in 500 years’ time.
well how I survive when I dont have a freedom to set a SAM battery on my back yard against suecide airplanes targeting my house?
It’s a shame to see you joining the ranks of those whose arguments depend on gross exaggeration. Let’s keep a sense of proportion: we’re talking about the individual’s fundamental right, recognised throughout history, to defend himslef or herself if the need arises – with a handgun if that’s considered appropriate by the individual concerned. No government can or should attempt to take away that right.
Ultimate back bone of free society is the juricacy and security officals that defends you and make you feels safe. If society is in that state that you need civil vigilance for that, I wouldn’t brag of its exelence…or call it a society…anarkia would be my choice of words
Maybe this is a Scandinavian thing, but I’m astonished that anyone might believe the State – in the shape of the police & judiciary – could ever defend the individual in an emergency. Many criminals are stupid, but most aren’t so stupid as to attack you when there’s a police officer around.
..you have let your country in such deprivation in this field, that only way to rise from it is to ban guns. And if its made of excuse of peoples freedom to kill others or poses equipment solely mented for that….then You can look in the mirror and think is it worth it?
Huh? You continue to ignore evidence I present. I pointed out that for 87 years in UK, very strict legislation has continually reduced the number of guns in legitimate ownership – while simultaneously, guns have become owned & used by criminals to their highest degree ever! And if you think gun ownership means freedom to kill people, you have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens – the ultimate logic of your position is the imposition of a police state.
hps
hpsauce… to lower the ammount of gun related crimes, you have to lower the ammount of guns, and only way to do that is to ban them completely. Its a long term progress and will take decades before all the illegal guns have been collected away from the streets….
Sorry, but you persist in ignoring the distinction between guns in the hands of the criminal minority, and those owned by normal decent people – you and me and the other 99% of the population. Persecuting the latter – by diminishing their liberty, treating them as irresponsible children – in order to control criminals is, as we say, to throw the baby out with the bath water. As for collecting all the illegal guns off the streets, it isn’t going to happen. There have always been armed criminals and there always will be, and you cannot wave a magic wand to take their guns away, now or in 500 years’ time.
well how I survive when I dont have a freedom to set a SAM battery on my back yard against suecide airplanes targeting my house?
It’s a shame to see you joining the ranks of those whose arguments depend on gross exaggeration. Let’s keep a sense of proportion: we’re talking about the individual’s fundamental right, recognised throughout history, to defend himslef or herself if the need arises – with a handgun if that’s considered appropriate by the individual concerned. No government can or should attempt to take away that right.
Ultimate back bone of free society is the juricacy and security officals that defends you and make you feels safe. If society is in that state that you need civil vigilance for that, I wouldn’t brag of its exelence…or call it a society…anarkia would be my choice of words
Maybe this is a Scandinavian thing, but I’m astonished that anyone might believe the State – in the shape of the police & judiciary – could ever defend the individual in an emergency. Many criminals are stupid, but most aren’t so stupid as to attack you when there’s a police officer around.
..you have let your country in such deprivation in this field, that only way to rise from it is to ban guns. And if its made of excuse of peoples freedom to kill others or poses equipment solely mented for that….then You can look in the mirror and think is it worth it?
Huh? You continue to ignore evidence I present. I pointed out that for 87 years in UK, very strict legislation has continually reduced the number of guns in legitimate ownership – while simultaneously, guns have become owned & used by criminals to their highest degree ever! And if you think gun ownership means freedom to kill people, you have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens – the ultimate logic of your position is the imposition of a police state.
hps
Sign In
