OT: Road Rage / UK firearms policy

I read interesting statistics about the incidence of gun crime before and after the handgun ban. It made not the slightest impression because, guess what, gangsters don't register their firearms!

Now if banning legal handgun ownership (which can only be for sporting purposes) had saved a single life or injury I would have supported it (as would the majority of sporting marksmen I'd wager). But it hasn't, so it was a complete waste of time.

Rather like imposing TROs on green lanes because people are driving them irresponsibly. The loonies don't give a damn, but the law abiding citizens lose their rights for no net gain.

It's a crazy world and the more I live in it the more I realise that the law is simply pissing against the wind, catching 1% of the bad guys so the media can glamorise them.

Now I was no saint as a kid, but I always knew I would grow up to become a straightforward family man with a mortgage and a labrador. What do these kids with guns running errands for 'players' for silly money aspire to? A bigger gun and a bigger Beemer? The police were called to a local school last week because the pupils rioted!

It's an "every man for himself" society, and the sooner I check out of it and get my house in the country the better....

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 '77 101FC Ambulance '95 Discovery V8i

"Mother" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

I have read somewhere, that since the gun-ban in the UK, gun-related crime has risen with what, 20%? Banning the guns of decent people who do nothing with those guns except cleaning them and shooting at olympic size cardboard targets, is a typical hysteria-regulation. And just because the owners of those guns are honest and register their guns, the govt. is able to confiscate them. Over the illegal guns on the black market, illegal guns now in more vast amounts available than ever before the gun-ban, the govt. obviously hasn't got control at all. A gun-ban has therefore no positive effect on public safety whatsoever. And don't give me the "it's dangerous for the children" crap. Learn the children the dangers of guns. Yes, they ARE dangerous and deadly, but so is traffic to name just one. Let them fire those guns under controlled circumstances, and they won't be tickled anymore to experiment on their own, when they find them. And they WILL find them, if not in the safe at home, they'll find them in a pub. And what goes on in their minds at that moment? "It's illegal, hence it MUST be fun!" Not having the slightest idea what they're dealing with. With all the inherent, very likely deadly consequences... And I'm not saying guns have to float freely around the house here, far from that... If guns are legal (with permits needed of course), the govt. knows where the guns are, and people know where the guns are. Ban the guns and you get just the opposite. As you readers might have guessed; Yes, I'm a gun owner. I have a FN High-Power 9mm, a Hammerli 208 cal .22LR sports pistol and a cal 20 trap rifle (clay pigeon shooting). All of them with permits... And probably also facing a gun ban from the hysterical and populist Belgian govt. Sad, very sad.

mmmmmmmmm "Down In The Ghetto" - Elvis's only decent song......

Richard

Mother"

I'm not sure that the point about gun deaths being not being a related to crime, applies to the US and possibly may not apply to Canada either.

Hell, there are many cities in the US that EACH have more homicides every year than we have in the entire contry of Canada. Guns are the weapon of choice among Bad Guys in the US.

Pete

"> I don't think anyone was ever naive enough to believe that banning guns

It was also very costly to the public purse in compensation, and sent a great many responsible and legitimate small businesses to the wall.

What's really sad though, is that government knew all this perfectly well at the time. The decision was never made on the grounds of public safety but as a purely political reaction to ill informed public opinion hyped up by the news media.

Nick

Twas Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:43:15 +0100 when Nick Nelson put finger to keyboard producing:

Such is the nature of the game I fear.

-- Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) ___________________________________________________________ "To know the character of a man, give him anonymity" - Mr.Nice.

but what is important is that the vast majority of

Are you saying that is the case in the UK?

Steve. Suffolk. remove 'knujon' to e-mail

In message , Exit writes

I think it does, my point is that in places where guns are easily and legally available like the US a large proportion of the recorded gun related deaths are actually ordinary law-abiding citizens who get angry and shoot people, not just by dedicated criminals. If I don't own a gun, chances are I will have cooled down by the time I get one illegally - our tiny gun-related death figures in the UK prove this.

An important consideration to bear in mind though is that 74 % of quoted statistics are made up on the spot.....the other 82 % are researched and remaining 40 % come from polls

;-)

Lee D

-- Project Percy - Jaguar 4.2 and Auto in to Series IIa 88 see it @

alt.fan.landrover hall of fame -

Nonsense, if you blow a big enough fuse to make you kill, you'll kill. If you have access to guns or not, makes no difference.

"Peter" schreef in bericht news:DY4hb.3083$ snipped-for-privacy@tor-nn1.netcom.ca

Taking away the good guys their guns won't solve that.

Sorry Pros, not sure I agree. Many things are done in the heat of the moment, whereas if people have time to calm down, they see things more rationally. I once got out the car to argue with another motorist, then ended up catching him up at some traffic lights and we apologised to each other! I'm not saying I would have shot him if I'd had a gun, but to some people, the opportunity to make a quick retaliation without even necessarily being held accountable would be the one to take in the short term.

The example in question proves the point. If the perpetrators of this crime hadn't had a gun, they would have had a shouting match and maybe there would have been fisticuffs. There would almost certainly not been a murder. I really find it hard to see your point of view on this one.

David.

In my experience the real problem is not with the rational people, the ones who clearly know right from wrong but still find themselves holding a gun for whatever reason.

It's the ones which wouldn't know what a blown fuse as you put it is. These fall in to several catagories. Those with mental issues, those whom are under the influence of substances either drink or drugs and those who have suicidal tendanicies i.e. the "death by cop", scenario where the asialant knows full well he/she will get shot if they start loosing rounds at the public / police even though they have no intention to actually kill anyone but want to be killed themselves but haven't the courage to pull the trigger.

For law enforcers or anyone finding themselves on the sharp end of a gun it''s very difficult to distinguish the difference there and then. Of course

So for these reasons Pros on this occasion I can't agree with your comments.

Lee D

"David French" schreef in bericht news:bm3cfu$hg6oj$ snipped-for-privacy@ID-160280.news.uni-berlin.de

My point of view is that from the law abidig gun owner, who has guns for sporting purposes. Taking away the legally owned and permitted handguns of the sports-user WILL NOT solve your problem. I am not saying everybody has to be allowed to *carry* a gun, that is something completely different, and also rules out the situation you described.

OK, I was misreading you, in that case I think we pretty much agree. I'm not sure where one would draw the line between legality of sporting guns and widespread use, I guess that's a whole nother question. The day UK legalises guns, I will be emigrating, and not to the USA!

David

"David French" schreef in bericht news:bm3f15$i316i$ snipped-for-privacy@ID-160280.news.uni-berlin.de

That is quite simple. Guns are stored behind locks. Not loaded. Ammunition is locked away in a different location. Transporting the guns to the official shooting range is done in the same way. Empty magazines, ammo and guns separately stored in locked cases. At the shooting range itself there are VERY strict rules on how to handle the guns, when to load and the number of bullets one may load at a time (max. 5, only one magazine is to be filled), when to fire (of course), no alcohol allowed, etc. All takes place in a very calm and peaceful atmosfere.

In the end, olympic shooting (standing, target at 25 metres, one shot at a time) is shooting against yourself. The gun you hold is (theoretically) capable to shoot ten points every time, the only limiting factor is the one operating the gun. The goal is to improve breathing technique, standing-position, grip-technique on the gun, technique of sqeezing the trigger, concentration, timing, aiming, the technique of looking (did you know your eye needs 4 seconds to change focus on something that's 25 metres further, or closer, and can hold that focus for only about 4 seconds?). Olympic shooting has nothing to do with the things you get to see on TV, practical shooting, bowling pin shooting, etc. Olympic shooting is far too boring for an ignorant specator to show on TV.

And just where would you emigrate to? Mars? :-) The USA has, in some states, a very liberal gun policy. Which is probably the other extreme of a gun-ban... OTOH banning the guns in the USA wouldn't have ANY effect at all towards public safety.

Yup. Loathed though I am to say it, I think my days in the 'city' are numbered. I feel a move to Kent coming on. Charlotte, oddly, was not as violently opposed to the idea as she was this time last year when I muted it. Now all I have to do is get Warren interested...

Martyn