egafd.com

"Now this has happened in Whitehaven in Cumbria they will probably tighten up gun ownership even further - the problem is though that if you really want to get a gun illegally in order to kill people you always will. So banning them will have little effect."

I don't see why so many people need a gun licence in the UK. There aren't that many farmers, that's for sure.

Although you are right that criminals who are prepared to make all the effort will probably be able to get a gun, there should be further tightening of the gun laws to stop anyone from getting a gun who does not need it as part of their occupation. I realise that this will cause outrage with the shoot it, kill it brigade which is why the Tories will probably not be in favour.

At least, that way there is more of an opportunity to cut the number of guns owned by people like Bird who just flip and appear to turn completely mental.

CHeers
D

Terrible tragedy. There will be the usual tosh in Parliament about
tightening gun laws when, in fact, the UK has just about the tightest
in the World. All the murders prove is that you if you want to do
something evil all the laws on earth won`t stop you.....and, David
Johnson, visit the countryside sometime - there are still plenty of farmers
in Britain and they have needed and used guns for the past 400 years !
Don`t blame them for this nutter (who was a taxi driver !)

"and, David Johnson, visit the countryside sometime - there are still plenty of farmers in Britain and they have needed and used guns for the past 400 years ! Don`t blame them for this nutter (who was a taxi driver !)"

1. I spend most of my time in the countryside.
2. I never said I was in favour of taking guns from farmers. I'm not.
3. What I did say is that there should be a tightening up on gun licences for people such as Bird who do not need it as part of their occupation.

You completely misrepresented what I wrote.

Cheers
D

Banning guns/imposing further restrictions won't do a great deal. This is a tragedy that will occur every so often regardless of what you do/laws you put in place. if not a gun then it'll be a sword/knife, or a chair leg with a nail through it etc etc

if someone go's over the edge they'll find something. And again relevancy, how many people killed every year by legally held firearms, upto now virtually nil. How many people killed every year in traffic collisions, over 3 thousand but you would'nt give up your cars to save lives now would you. Same with drink drivers, so ban drink, simple, surely? or is it?

No I'm not a gun nut but saying ban guns isn't the answer

The Police have a very dim view of anyone who owns a gun (unless their Police). People with bonafide gun licences or firearms certificates are regulary targeted by the Police in particular if they live in large city's. I have a "friend" who had certification for a shotgun and a 0.223 rifle, he belonged to a number of shoots and also to a couple of trap clubs, he didn't keep the guns at his home but at a family farm locked in a secure Police approved strong box. but due to a burglary at his home and an altercation with the Police following their attempts to solve the burglary the city Police pertitioned for him to loose his guns, which after a number of court appeals was turned down much to the annoyance of his local Police, (part of the Police argument was if the guns were stored at the house the burglers may have got hold of them).

How many people get shot in the Uk every week with unlicenced weapons, these are the guys the police should turn their efforts to.

There's a clear correlation between the number of licenced guns in a country and the number of murders carried out with those guns.
The US is the most extreme example of this.

I repeat. It is therefore logical that if you can reduce the number of licenced guns further, this should have some impact however limited on the amount of associated crime.

Obviously it does not solve the problem due to the numbers of illegally held guns which represent a substantial risk.

Why should a guy like Bird, a taxi driver with criminal convictions, have a licenced shotgun and a hunting rifle?

Cheers
D

David Johnson wrote:

> There's a clear correlation between the number of licenced guns
> in a country and the number of murders carried out with those
> guns.
> The US is the most extreme example of this.

Is there? I'd like a bit of proof. There are plenty of countries with strict gun control, but large numbers of illegal guns, such as Brazil or South Africa, with really bad crime rates. Equally, there are countries with large numbers of legally held guns, and very low crime rates, such as Canada. In my view, it has much more to do with the nature of society than what is written on pieces of paper.


> I repeat. It is therefore logical that if you can reduce the
> number of licenced guns further, this should have some impact
> however limited on the amount of associated crime.


Ever heard of cost benefit analysis? Money spent on more form filling is money which can't be spent on more useful things. Maybe Cumbria police should have a helicopter? That might be a good use of money.



> Obviously it does not solve the problem due to the numbers of
> illegally held guns which represent a substantial risk.

Well exactly.



> Why should a guy like Bird, a taxi driver with criminal
> convictions, have a licenced shotgun and a hunting rifle?

Because he had legitimate reasons for having them of course. Cumbria is a rural county, thousands of people own guns there. How many would you deprive of their property for the actions of one man? When Israel blockades Gaza we call it collective punishment, but in Britain law abiding gun owners get fucked over all the time for things they haven't done.

Robches wrote:


> When Israel blockades Gaza we call it collective
> punishment, but in Britain law abiding gun owners get fucked
> over all the time for things they haven't done.


When the Israeli government goes mad, hundreds of innocent people get killed.
When a "law abiding" gun owner goes mad, dozens of innocent people get killed.

What exactly was your point?

Connection between number of guns held and intentional firearm deaths

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

Chart looks to me to provide a pretty clear correlation backing up what I said about the correlation of firearms held and deaths.

Since you mention Canada

""Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa"

I said
" I repeat. It is therefore logical that if you can reduce the
> number of licenced guns further, this should have some impact
> however limited on the amount of associated crime.

You said
Ever heard of cost benefit analysis? Money spent on more form filling is money which can't be spent on more useful things.

Robches, I will leave you to explain cost benefit analysis to the families of the dead in Cumbria.

I said
Why should a guy like Bird, a taxi driver with criminal
> convictions, have a licenced shotgun and a hunting rifle?
You said
Because he had legitimate reasons for having them of course.

So it would be alright would it to give a gun licence to a bin man with a history of shizophrenia and general mental disorders on the grounds that he lived in the country and fancied a bit of duck shooting?

Again, reducing the ease with which people can get licences for lethal weapons will reduce the level of deaths related to those lethal weapons.

Cheers
D

David Johnson wrote:

> Connection between number of guns held and intentional firearm
> deaths
>
> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
>
> Chart looks to me to provide a pretty clear correlation backing
> up what I said about the correlation of firearms held and
> deaths.

I am familiar with the "Gun Control Network", which is a seven member group of gun prohibitionists. You will notice that the chart you cite does not include states such as Brazil or South Africa. I wonder why not?


>
> Since you mention Canada
>
> ""Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership
> levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the
> percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop
> in the homicide rate".
> Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of
> Criminology - University of Ottawa"

That is the view of Dr Gabor, who is another gun prohibitionist, and whose views must be considered in that light. But if you look at Britain, the last 15 years have seen a drop of about a third in legal gun ownership. Has the homicide rate dropped at all?



> You said
> Ever heard of cost benefit analysis? Money spent on more form
> filling is money which can't be spent on more useful things.
>
> Robches, I will leave you to explain cost benefit analysis to
> the families of the dead in Cumbria.

That's a cheap shot. My point is valid. Rushing in with knee jerk solutions which cost money but do not address a problem is no way to behave. Money wasted which could be better spent is no sort of solution is it?


>
> I said
> Why should a guy like Bird, a taxi driver with criminal
> > convictions, have a licenced shotgun and a hunting rifle?
> You said
> Because he had legitimate reasons for having them of course.
>
> So it would be alright would it to give a gun licence to a bin
> man with a history of shizophrenia and general mental disorders
> on the grounds that he lived in the country and fancied a bit
> of duck shooting?

Obviously not, that's a rather stupid point. The current legislation would stop anyone with such a mental history getting a legal gun. Bird had no mental health history at all. By the way, what have you got against taxi drivers and bin men? Do you think working class people should not be allowed to own guns? If a bin man is sane and law abiding he's got as much right to go duck shooting as a peer of the realm.