Shotguns aren't the problem – criminals are

[robin wood]

Whilst in principle I don't disagree with the basic run of the article I think suggesting it is balanced is a bit silly. It is a strong argument from one point of view, a polemic as we would expect from the Torygraph. There are other points of view.

Of course it is the person not the gun that kills but if an individual reaches that state where he could go off the wire and has a gun then the consequences are somewhat more serious than if he has a baseball bat. I am aware that the majority of gun crime in the UK today involves illegally owned firearms and so tightening legislation on legal ownership may have little effect on that situation.

I have spent a lot of time in the USA where others have pointed out that ownership is much easier and more common and I would not want to be in the position over here where many people are fearful of the other guy having a gun so need to carry one themselves. There are a significant percentage of people in a normal society for whom I would prefer gun ownership was not an option and I think current UK legislation gets the balance about right. Large scale gun ownership does not necessarily equate to very high gun crime figures, Canada and Switzerland for instance manage to avoid the US situation, more research into why would be good.

To get a balanced view Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine" puts the other side of the argument in and equally rational, sensible though one sided manner. I am sure the pro gun lobby despise it.

 

[wingstoo]

As was once pointed out to me on another forum. If someone is intent on killing someone then they don't need a gun to do it. There are knives and axes easily available, and a fire extinguisher filled with petrol will make a good flame thrower in a confined space, and a car is a really good 1 ton+ guided missile.

Having discussed the issue with British Red at some length he makes very good sense about firearm ownership in the UK, far more than I can put down on here, but the gist is if you have been passed "fit" for a particular type of firearm then surely you are going to be fit for all types, after all they can all be lethal in the right or wrong hands.

I'll read the article later.

Wings

 

[Oblio13]

Michael Moore's "documentary" is deliberately and consistently deceptive. Even the title is a lie - the murderers did not go bowling that morning, as Moore asserts. A little Googling will show you how he shamelessly edited speeches and interviews, covering the splices with stills or video footage for a few seconds.

The media tends to dramatically over-hype gun crime in the US. Fear sells, and it helps push political agendas.

Most firearm crimes in the US happen within a very small demographic, specifically young urban black males. This despite the fact that they have very low rates of legal gun ownership.

Conversely, the demographic MOST likely to legally own guns in the US has a very low crime rate. I live in such a place. A neighbor who was watching our home while we were on vacation locked our doors, and I had to squeeze through the dog door because I have no idea where our keys are.

 

[robin wood]

Michael Moore's "documentary" is deliberately and consistently deceptive. Even the title is a lie - the murderers did not go bowling that morning, as Moore asserts. A little Googling will show you how he shamelessly edited speeches and interviews, covering the splices with stills or video footage for a few seconds.

The media tends to dramatically over-hype gun crime in the US. Fear sells, and it helps push political agendas.

Most firearm crimes in the US happen within a very small demographic, specifically young urban black males. This despite the fact that they have very low rates of legal gun ownership.

Conversely, the demographic MOST likely to legally own guns in the US has a very low crime rate. I live in such a place. A neighbor who was watching our home while we were on vacation locked our doors, and I had to squeeze through the dog door because I have no idea where our keys are.

Moore's film is a polemic as is the Telegraph article, starting from a set point of view and collecting whatever quotes and facts and editing them appropriately to support that point of view. Neither can be called balanced.

 

[gregorach]

If someone is intent on killing someone then they don't need a gun to do it.

Indeed, but such cases are a distinct minority of gun-related deaths (or criminal homicides in general) wherever you are. Suicide, accidental discharge and unpremeditated homicides are far more common. If two drunks get into a fight, it rarely ends with one of them dying. If two drunks get into a fight and they both have guns handy, things can get nasty very quickly. Similarly, your typical burglar isn't actually intent on murder, but if he's got a gun and gets disturbed, he might react in ways which he wouldn't if he didn't have the gun.

I don't want to get into a big gun-control argument, but the idea that pre-meditated murder by a determined killer is the only issue we need to consider is just silly.

 

[Oblio13]

I made this offer a few years ago, and I'll make it again: If any of you find yourself in my part of the world with the urge to do a little international bushcrafting, we have 52 acres along a lovely pond. I'll have you shoot a variety of pistols and rifles that would get you locked up for life in England. I promise you'll have fun and feel enlightened. I'll pitch a tent for you and supply a canoe. I'll even loan you a dog.

 

[Oblio13]

... your typical burglar isn't actually intent on murder, but if he's got a gun and gets disturbed, he might react in ways which he wouldn't if he didn't have the gun....

Why don't they make it illegal for burglars to have guns?

I keed, I keed.

... If two drunks get into a fight and they both have guns handy, things can get nasty very quickly....

That's a commonly expressed sentiment by people who are unfamiliar with an armed society. The reality is that people have more self control than that, if their government hasn't treated them like children all their lives. If one isn't inclined to stab or bludgeon someone, then there will likewise be no inclination to shoot someone. On the contrary, armed people tend to be polite and restrained.

 

[gregorach]

Why don't they make it illegal for burglars to have guns?

"They" generally do, after they've been caught. But a lot of them don't get caught.

 

[GordonM]

I just re-read the article the original poster provided. It does a fair job of quoting sensible concerns of those of differing views. Is it polemic, a wee bit, but what media article, written by a single author, is not polemic?

In Virginia law, the baseball bat, as referenced in the context above, is a deadly weapon, same as a firearm would be in that context. Both weapons able to take a life. If a burglar is in the act of robbing, and has chosen to arm himself with a firearm, then it is classed as armed robbery. If the burglar has a baseball bat, or a tire lug wrench, or a small pocket knife in hand, case law shows he holds a deadly weapon. So after firearms, do we legislate every single item that can be used as a deadly weapon?

Now this might be a polemic reach on my part, I hold to the statement in my original post...the focus should be on prosecuting the criminals. For those that criminally take life there should be tougher sentencing, including the "death penalty", as adjudicated in a court of law. The vast majority of firearms use in the UK or the US is in peacful sporting application. Therefore, my statement of not "persecuting the law-abiding citizen". Quite frankly, I do not subscribe to the view that "we will all be (insert your own words) if there are no firearms available".

Gordy

 

[gregorach]

Oblio13: It's rather poor form to edit your post that dramatically after somebody has already replied to it.

 

[Oblio13]

Oblio13: It's rather poor form to edit your post that dramatically after somebody has already replied to it.

Apologies, I didn't know you had already replied. The good news is that I didn't change a thing, just added the last bit rather than make a separate post.

 

[gregorach]

Apologies, I didn't know you had already replied. The good news is that I didn't change a thing, just added the last bit rather than make a separate post.

For the record, your original reply consisted solely of the text I quoted.

As I said, I'm really not interested in getting into an argument about this. I wanted to make exactly one point (that pre-meditated murder isn't the only thing to consider), which I have already made. If you want to get into an argument with someone about this (like you always seem to manage) it will have to be with somebody else.

 

[Oblio13]

Amigo, I'm not trying to upset you. Anyone who thinks access to a firearm is too much freedom and responsibility is undoubtedly correct, and it is well if they avoid it. Our only disagreement is when that lack of self-possession is projected on everyone.

 

[nuggets]

Well !!! having owned firearms and shotguns here in the UK ,and jumped through all the `hoops` that is required to own a gun here -I would just like to say How refreshing it was to be in a gun store in alaska this summer and being `free` and able to walk out with any shotgun or long rifle i may have wanted -instantly with no hoops whatsoever !!! Hand guns- you had to wait three days for the FBI to `give` a valid reason to the store owner why he could not sell you it !! But if the police do not return his call -he has to sell you the gun -by law !! ha ha ha

if i had the money i would have left that shop -looking like a f**kin mexican bandit !!!

welcome to paranoid britain !!!!!

 

[gowersponger]

Indeed, but such cases are a distinct minority of gun-related deaths (or criminal homicides in general) wherever you are. Suicide, accidental discharge and unpremeditated homicides are far more common. If two drunks get into a fight, it rarely ends with one of them dying. If two drunks get into a fight and they both have guns handy, things can get nasty very quickly. Similarly, your typical burglar isn't actually intent on murder, but if he's got a gun and gets disturbed, he might react in ways which he wouldn't if he didn't have the gun.

I don't want to get into a big gun-control argument, but the idea that pre-meditated murder by a determined killer is the only issue we need to consider is just silly.

this statement has meaning... iam a man with a fire arm ban and own a 12gage ,over and under, just dont keep it at my property the gun is under licence. some of the guns on the black market are very cheap indeed, its abit like the programe i herd on radio 4 about banning cheap alchol sales to stop the teenagers geting ****** in the park ,they can pick up ecstacy tabs for £1 and with most kids its what can they afford ,,quite scary realy,,.

 

[BOD]

Possible suicide and accidental discharges are no reason for the state to prevent a person of demonstrable good character (i.e no criminal record or mental illness history) from owning a firearm if there is a legitimate hunting, competitive shooting or personal protection reason.

At most a requirement for a locked container to be installed is all that is needed.

As has been said elsewhere backyard swimming pools kill more people than firearms at home

 

[nuggets]

what about the carnage and death caused by motor vehicles??? I was on a speed awareness course last month !! am sure the guy said something like 6 people a DAY die on our roads in the uk !!!!!!!!!! will they ban the use of cars ???? nonsence !!!!

 

[robin wood]

what about the carnage and death caused by motor vehicles??? I was on a speed awareness course last month !! am sure the guy said something like 6 people a DAY die on our roads in the uk !!!!!!!!!! will they ban the use of cars ???? nonsence !!!!

Unlikely but car use is quite tightly regulated and no one is discussing banning anything. Can you imagine the uproar if government suggested a tough practical and theory test requiring lots of expensive training before getting your shotgun certificate plus legal requirement for 3rd party insurance and tax? I think the figure for cars is about 3000 a year so nearer 8 a day and those are the killed not injured.

 

[British Red]

There are very few shooting accidents so I can't imagine why anyone would want a theory or practical test? Or is that a way just to make owning a gun even more difficult?

The point is that many types of gun have been banned in recent years, yet more people are killed with cars in a day and no-one says "ban sports cars" when an irresponsible sports car driver causes a pile up.

 

[robin wood]

There are very few shooting accidents so I can't imagine why anyone would want a theory or practical test? Or is that a way just to make owning a gun even more difficult?

The point is that many types of gun have been banned in recent years, yet more people are killed with cars in a day and no-one says "ban sports cars" when an irresponsible sports car driver causes a pile up.

My point was a response to Nugget's who seemed to be implying that gun legislation was unnecessarily strict when compared to car legislation. My point being that car legislation is rather strict in itself.

I don't know but I suspect the proportion of "irresponsible sports car drivers" causing pile ups is perhaps similar to the proportion of irresponsible shotgun users causing deaths. The last time I heard statistics I don't remember sports cars standing out statistically, I do remember a high proportion of those deaths involved male drivers in the 18-25 range and reasonably insurance companies and legislation have made it increasingly difficult and expensive for these folk to drive. Of course that unfairly penalises the responsible members of that demographic group.

It is true that with cars they don't go the banning route simply making it difficult and expensive and along with improvements in car design this has resulted in road deaths falling from c6000 a year in 1980.