egafd.com

Jonone wrote:

> 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.


If Derrick Bird hadn't had licenced guns in his house would he have been...

a) More likely to go on a killing spree?
b) Less likely to go on a killing spree?


Let us take the following scenario; Bird is upset about something or things and decides to take out retribution against his brother, the family solicitor and others. Without access to guns he may have managed to kill his brother and maybe one or two others, but it's the ease with which guns allow you to kill people from a great range, indiscriminately, that allowed him to kill so many times in such a short period of time.

If you don't think tougher gun controls will make a difference then I feel very sorry for you.

[quote]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.[/quote]

And as I pointed out earlier, drivers who go through hours of training and complete tests still drive like maniacs. We recognise that training and testing cannot catch everyone, but they do, on the whole, make the roads safer. Drivers who go through red lights and kill other people shouldn't be used as an argument that driver training and testing is a waste of time. I fully understand training and psychological assessments cannot catch everyone, and I'm fully aware that anyone can 'flip'.

I think I ought to explain my stance as I get the feeling you and David think I'm some sort of gun nut, which is far from the case.

I agree with you, Bob, on there being no good reason why anyone would want access to a rifle, or shotgun at home. I agree that gun clubs should have places where members can safely and securely store their weapons. I agree with David that when it comes to shotgun licences there is room to tighten up further.

I just feel that, regardless of where we go from here, anyone owning a gun should go through some sort of evaluation and assessment to at least show he's not a complete lunatic. And he/she should have to show this everytime they have to renew a gun licence. These assessments will be costly and time consuming and may put many off anyway.

Again, I'm all for banning people keeping their guns at home, and all for tightening laws surrounding shotguns. I just feel that if you have to prove yourself worthy of handling a car, motorbike or tractor, you should have to do the same for a weapon that can kill anyone within 100 yards of you just by pulling a trigger.

I stand by my comment that suddenly everyone's an expert, but sadly most posters here really don't know what they are talking about.

One of you pulls out facts about rifle clubs from Bisley. Do you think that has anything to do with clay pigeon or game shooting syndicates? A game shooter does not have a club house, he has to keep his guns at home (locked up).

You seem to have decided, based no knowledge wahtever, that guns should be stored at some sort of central armoury. Apart fom being a magnet for thieves, I presume you envisage some time when a gun owner can draw his gun from this armoury? If so, how is that different from having a gun at home?

Many target rifle shooters do store their rifles at their clubs. That is because secure rifle clubs exist. No such thing exists for clay and game shooters. They are country sports, they take place in fields. Is this really so hard to understand?

Some people seem to have no inkling of why anyone would want to take part in shooting. Fine, I don't expect everyone to be interested in game shooting, or clay shooting, or rifle shooting. But just because it means nothing to you, does not mean that the rights and property of the best part of a million people mean nothing. I don't know what the value of shotguns owned in Britain is, but it must be well over a billion pounds. If you think all shotguns should be confiscated, I hope you are prepared to pay that compensation, as well as seeing thousand of people lose their jobs.

I agree with the government on this. The immediate aftermath of a mass killing is not the time to discuss a complicated matter like gun legislation. I for one would like to see a really full inquiry into this in due course, where all options are discussed and costed rationally. The quality of "debate" here just proves that.

Robches wrote:

> I stand by my comment that suddenly everyone's an expert, but
> sadly most posters here really don't know what they are talking
> about.
>
> One of you pulls out facts about rifle clubs from Bisley. Do
> you think that has anything to do with clay pigeon or game
> shooting syndicates? A game shooter does not have a club house,
> he has to keep his guns at home (locked up).

Firstly you said clubs don't exist. I proved they do! You need to be more precise in your wording.

As for game shooters not having a "club house", I'm VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT!!!! I've been saying that NO guns should be kept in people's homes. If it means keeping the guns 20 miles away in a secure vault in a police station, for example, then so be it! However, I would prefer that the places offering such sport had their own secure facilities where people could keep their guns. Bottom line is that there is no reason for anyone to have a gun at home.


>
> You seem to have decided, based no knowledge wahtever, that
> guns should be stored at some sort of central armoury. Apart
> fom being a magnet for thieves, I presume you envisage some
> time when a gun owner can draw his gun from this armoury? If
> so, how is that different from having a gun at home?

If the person is wanting to shoot at targets, for example (such as those who take part in the various Olympic shooting disciplines), the guns are kept at the club/range/centre/whatever you want to call it. He/she does not need to keep them at home. They do not leave the aromoury except when used in competition, when they are transported securely by a third party.

If we're talking about clay pigeon shooting or game shooting then the person taking part borrows/hires the gun from the organisation offering the facilities. That organisation keeps the guns in a secure place, and two key holders are required to open up whatever facilities are used to house the guns (that way stopping a single individual from accessing the guns on their own). Whatever facilities are used, they must not be in the home. Those who own their own shot guns, for instance, will have to store them in, let's say, the place they shoot at most often. If they shoot at three or four venues, they'll either have to purchase a gun for each venue, where it will be stored for them, or else hire a gun from the venue for the day . If secure storage facilities do not already exist, then it's high time they did! Bottom line is that no-one keeps a gun at home.

>
> Many target rifle shooters do store their rifles at their
> clubs. That is because secure rifle clubs exist. No such thing
> exists for clay and game shooters. They are country sports,
> they take place in fields. Is this really so hard to
> understand?

Not at all hard to understand.

What seems hard for YOU to understand is my point that these very "organisations" and the loose body of people who take part in such sports need to store their guns securely away from their homes and in such a way that no single individual has access to them when not being used for their legitimate purpose. What you fail to understand, and continually fail to answer adequately (and I know it must be difficult for you, as there is NO adequate answer to this question) is what reason does anyone have for needing to have a gun in their home?


>
> Some people seem to have no inkling of why anyone would want to
> take part in shooting. Fine, I don't expect everyone to be
> interested in game shooting, or clay shooting, or rifle
> shooting. But just because it means nothing to you, does not
> mean that the rights and property of the best part of a million
> people mean nothing. I don't know what the value of shotguns
> owned in Britain is, but it must be well over a billion pounds.
> If you think all shotguns should be confiscated, I hope you are
> prepared to pay that compensation, as well as seeing thousand
> of people lose their jobs.

I never said anything about confiscating guns... I said they shouldn't be kept at home! WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?


>
> I agree with the government on this. The immediate aftermath of
> a mass killing is not the time to discuss a complicated matter
> like gun legislation. I for one would like to see a really full
> inquiry into this in due course, where all options are
> discussed and costed rationally. The quality of "debate" here
> just proves that.
>


Yes indeed, the poor quality of your debate, your putting words into other people's mouth's and your inability to answer the simple question WHAT REASON DOES ANYONE HAVE FOR WANTING TO KEEP A GUN IN THEIR HOME prove that you are ill placed to comment on the matter.

"You choose to believe that such events are preventable."

No. I choose to believe that they are more preventable if you reduce access to guns. Can you prevent them completely? No.

so sad to see so many lost lives & injured my thoughts are with the families & friends wats the world coming to xx

Bob Singleton wrote:


>
> Firstly you said clubs don't exist. I proved they do! You need
> to be more precise in your wording.

I am quite well aware that rifle clubs exist, it was clear, I thought, that I was talking about the use of shotguns for game and clay shooting.


You have constructed this elaborate fantasy of secure armouries dotted around the country where shotgun owners store their guns rather than keeping them at home, but can you answer this question:

What happen when the owner signs his gun out of this armoury? Is the armoury in the field where he is shooting? How can it be? The gun owner will have to take his gun to the place he is shooting. Unless you propose having an armed policeman escorting every gun owner at all times he has his gun, I do not see any logic in your proposal.


>Bottom line is that there is no reason for anyone to have
>a gun at home.

Given that your plan makes no sense, and there is nowhere else to safely store guns, of course they have to be kept in the home. If you are saying that no-one in Britain is fit to own a gun, and that is the clear implication of your argument, then you will have to face the fact and buy up all the legally owned guns out there, and sack everyone involved in the gun trade and country sports. Please accept, with all the good will I can muster, that this plan simply does not make any sense at all, and will simpy never happen.



> Yes indeed, the poor quality of your debate, your putting words
> into other people's mouth's and your inability to answer the
> simple question WHAT REASON DOES ANYONE HAVE FOR WANTING TO
> KEEP A GUN IN THEIR HOME prove that you are ill placed to
> comment on the matter.
>

Well, I have tried to keep this civil, but it's clearly not working. You have convinced yourself that if only Bird had not kept his guns in his home this would never have happened. Can't you appreciate that someone like Bird would simply go to your central armoury, sign his gun out, and off he goes? If anyone tried to stop him, he'd shoot him. Your solution is nothing of the sort. Honestly, it is a non starter. Clearly you do not take part in shooting sports, and have no conception of why anyone would, or why they would want to store their property in their own premises. Fine, you don't have to. But you have concocted a theory about central storage being a solution to this problem, and it just isn't.

Of course tougher gun controls would make a difference but perhaps not as much of a difference as you think. It's very glib to say 'make a difference' and of course it's impossible to quantify that difference but would it make that much of a difference?

Do you think gun control would result in the supply of firearms being cut to criminal gangs or individuals ? There is a market for guns and people are prepared to suppply that market. If you really want a gun you'll get one.

wen i worked in a shop i had a sawn of shotgun waved in my face not nice & i went to school with the guys brother even worse my heart was pounding
xx

This is a bit troubling to consider but I think it needs to be considered. I only know bits about Derrck Bird but when you think that he wasn't some weirdo loner but a person who worked for himself and had a family, then he goes mental and kills his own twin brother, and numerous other people in Cumbria, it makes you wonder whether even the most ordinary and ordered of people could basically crack up gradually over time (I think Bird has money problems that were worsening all the time) and go and do something like this. I makes you wonder whether any of us could develop some kind of mental illness and go and do something like this. The fact that none of us own guns would decrease the chances of us doing it but if we lost our minds and went crazy maybe one of us could do something like this. Worrying, isnt it!