Hungerford, Dunblane, now Whitehaven...

[David Johnson]

"I'm pretty sure our gun controls are some of the strictest in the world, and tightening even more wouldn't make much difference."

This may be true for certain types of firearms, but "strict" isn't the word that I would personally use for shotgun controls here. Strict perhaps only in comparison to countries such as the US.

There are 1.4 million shotguns held in this country on licences and only 2% of applications for shotgun licences get turned down. And there is no age limitation on who can get a shotgun licence so for example, in the UK, 8 year olds have been given licences. This doesn't strike me as "strict" in any meaningful sense of the word other than in comparison with a country where they have very little control whatsoever.

There does seem room for considerable tightening up on shotgun control.

Cheers
D

[SpannerProductions]

Hi max,

i've read all the various comments that have been posted here - and I think the common thread has been throughout that the families concerned etc should be left to grieve in peace and not hounded by the media in any shape or form - innocent lives have been lost in the most tragic and meaningless way.

There SHOULD be even stricter gun laws in this country - do we really want to head down the road of the yanks where anybody with a government approved id (or a good fake)can purchase anything from a .22 ladies 'handbag' special to a MI6 with grenade launcher - there must be some fucking big rodents in the countryside ......

I also agree with many posters on here, or least some well thought out comments - there is NO reason in the UK to have a Gun of any discription in your home - i know a couple of farmers and even they don't retain it in the house they share with thier family.

perhaps an alternative would be to keep these weapons in a secure location such as a major police station etc - I'm not sure if it has changed, but when I first left the army and was on the reservist list for a couple of years - my local (ish) cop shop retained my personal weapon in case I was called up.

The other thing that has not been mentioned in this thread (and i have missed it if it was) is that 'Guns' don't kill people - it's the person at the other end that has to make the decision to squeeze that trigger.....there are a few legitimate reasons in the uk to have a firearms license but not many - check out those applying and if they don't meet the criteria - refuse access.

The criminal underworld will always manage to get access to weapons somehow, it doesn't take much to re-fit a 'made safe' weapon - these can be purchased from army surplus stores in some towns and citys - but make the ammo extremely hard to get hold of - that might help in some ways.

We have had so many 'amnesties' in this country and the range of weapons handed in always amazes me when I see the results on television etc - perhaps the police should concentrate thier efforts on bringing down the source of these 'arms traders' - i'm sure they already are, but cut of the source and it may diminish somewhat.

For many years the best selling weapon in the usa was the pump action shotgun , but not the ammo !! - apparently it makes such a distinctive cocking noise that the mere sound is enough to deter the oppurtunist burglar - but would you want to keep any such weapons in your home - this country needs to stay weapon free - or at least train the people who have legitimate reasons for possession in the best way to store, handle and use it.

what has happened is tragic for all those involved , but how do you know somebody who has a shotgun or any other type of firearm is a nutter until they go nuts.....you can't.

[max_tranmere]

Lots of interesting comments.

Spanner, it is interesting you make a distinction between the availablility of guns and the availability of ammo - you state that even if the guns could be bought, but the ammo not, then gun crime would be a lot lessened. Quite obvious that somoene would need both but I always rather regarded it as if you can get hold of a gun you can get hold of the ammo to use with it. The supplier would know where to get both from. I have often wondered where illegal firemans come from - there are so many around and they have to come from somewhere - probably smuggled here from abroad.

[Jonone]

They also killed Jean Charles De Menezes.

[Jonone]

As Donald Rumsfeld said 'There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns'.

What can you do about the unknown unknowns? Nothing !

[SpannerProductions]

Hi Max,

The reason I said that is I remember reading somewhere that arms traders - tend to make seperate shipments - something along the lines of the sentances are less severe if caught ,one without the other...something along those lines , it was a long time ago.

my thinking (and pehaps with modicom of naievity) was that having been involved with the military myself, it was often commented that anybody with the right workshop and metals expertise could manufacture some kind of working firearm - however the making or securing of ammo was a lot more difficult - i suppose the laymans version of the ingram snub nosed machine pistol would be an example (not unlike a UZI) - 9mm ammo however not being so readily available would make it a mute exercise in advance metalwork......

Again from media (if believed) - the price of the ammo for an illegal handgun would normally be as much if not more to purchase than the actual weapon - on account of it being such a rare commodity, and again if the sources are to believed would be sold round by round. cut of that source and we go back to kitchen knives eventually........

I suppose the reasoning being, that if confronted by some spotty, drink or drug fueled idiot with a pistol - do you take a chance on it being empty, or a replica etc - not many people would be able to tell the difference visually and certainly not in such a stressful moment (apparently the 'sights' are the thing to look for) if your not too busy shitting yourself of course.....

I just think that the last thing we want to do in this country is head anywhere near the route that the yanks have taken - the thought of some people in this country being able to just stroll into a 'shop' show thier passport and electricity bill and walk out with an armalite - scares the shite out of me - if you can't prove you need a weapon (such as a shotgun ) to the correct authorities - then you don't get it - I can't think of any profession (other than the police/miltary) where any kind of magazine or multi chambered weapon could possibly be relevant. and in all honesty (and i'm sure i'll get some form of 'response'...) i cant think of that many reasons for farmers to have one either...

[David Johnson]

"What can you do about the unknown unknowns? Nothing !"

Make it harder for them to get deadly weapons.

[Sam Slater]

Yes, you make good points when it comes to shotguns. I suppose that part of our gun laws can be tightened further.

I still think some sort of psychological assessment, as well as a training course is a better option that a total ban, along with keeping your guns in designated, secure premises (like a gun club or police station).

[Bob Singleton]

Sam Slater wrote:


> I still think some sort of psychological assessment, as well as
> a training course is a better option that a total ban, along
> with keeping your guns in designated, secure premises (like a
> gun club or police station).
>


Sam, as I pointed out earlier, those policemen and women who are trained in firearms undergo probably the most stringent psychological tests of anyone, and yet it's happened in the past that a serving officer has used that weapon against his family.

Psychological tests are only valid at the moment they are carried out. An hour or more later and they are as worthless as a Zimbabwean One Dollar note. You and I could pass such a test with ease right now, yet something could happen in the following hours or days that make us so angry that, had we a weapon, we could start using it against those who we believe to have slighted us.

Psychological tests are not the answer. The only sane answer is to limit gun ownership to as few individuals as possible and for those individuals to store their weapons in a safe and secure place away from their home. In the case of those who shoot for sport (by sport I mean target shooting and clay pigeon shooting) the guns should be kept under lock and key at the establishment they normally use for their sport. For those who shoot game, or who make their land available for hunting, the weapons can also be stored somewhere under lock and key. And by lock and key I don't mean some nice wood and glass cabinet... I'm talking about storage similar in security to bank vaults, with two key holders required to unlock the cabinet.

In response to the point Spanner made about "Guns don't kill people - it's the person at the other end that has to make the decision to squeeze that trigger..." (and in a round about way also answer Justincyder's point about drink drivers), the simple fact is that guns are designed to kill. To say that it's the person behind the gun that's to blame is somewhat of a fatuous argument. Yes you can kill someone with a car, but have you ever heard of an instance where someone has gone crazy and driven from village to village running people over?

As for Spanner suggesting that guns shouldn't necessarily be harder to get, just the ammunition... what fucking planet are you living on? Walk into a bank with a shot gun and no one will try to be brave in the hope it's not loaded! What a completely idiotic suggestion! I think you'll find that the penalty for using a weapon (or indeed a replica), be it loaded or not, is the same, which underlines my point that making ammo harder to get but not necessarily the guns is an idea that is ludicrous in the extreme.

[Jonone]

If it comforts you. I'm not sure it would make much difference. You choose to believe that such events are preventable. I'm not sure they are.