The public should not have any firearms or weapons at all. Crossbows and air rifles should also be banned they are all misused persistently. Ask any vet.
Nonsense. Just about everything can be misused, but not everything should be banned. How about banning cameras? There are a lot of sick individuals who use their cameras to exploit young women and, even worse, children.
Presumably all your food is produced via hydroponics in a hermetically sealed environment? The unfortunate truth is whether you’re vegan, anti gun, whatever, pest control is a fact of life in all forms of agriculture so unless you grow all your own food then guns in public ownership will play a part to a greater or lesser extent and will continue to do so unless you are advocating the increased use of gassing and poisoning as an alternative. I’m sorry but banning public ownership of firearms will make sod all difference to the criminal use of them, they’re in circulation already and if they are banned then it will only be the law abiding citizens rather than the more nefarious users that will take note.
Rant over.
PS. As an aside I do agree there is no justifiable need for assault rifles in public hands
A strange fact about the shooting sports here in GB - every single participant has been checked out and approved by the police. That's probably the main reason why there is almost zero crime committed by shooters, and the stats that do exist are almost certainly exaggerated, because the police have to report every claimed sighting of a gun as an actual gun. And, generally, the police do a very good job of sifting out the people who aren't responsible enough to have guns. This process includes very thorough background checks, alcohol use and health issues.
And there are a lot of people who actually need to have guns, which is one of the reasons why there are nearly a million legally owned guns in this country. The last time that I was personally glad that I have guns was a few months ago when we had a horse writhing in agony with colic. The vet was on his way but I couldn't allow the horse to suffer in this way, and was unlocking the rifle cabinet when he arrived. And only a few weeks ago there was a cow in a similar state on the farm where my youngest son worked, the knacker man couldn't get there for several hours and she couldn't be left to suffer. And then there was the vet and the stockman on another farm, very seriously gored by a bull, that attack could only be stopped by a rifle. 3 incidents on 3 neighbouring farms in a very short period of time. . . People who live in cities tend not to understand the realities of country life.
I personally don't see any good reason for the public to have automatics, and I can be extremely critical of the laws and attitudes in the USA, but then it's pretty typical of any culture to be critical of what happens in other countries and to forget its own history - until the Hungerford shooting incident back in 1987, the public were allowed to have automatics (including SLR's) here, and until the Dunblane shooting incident in 1996, the public were allowed to have pistols, including semi-autos. There have been 3 massacres of this type in our long history, the last of which was in Cumbria in 2010, It's significant that each time this has happened, the police totally failed to do their job, and none of these people should ever have been granted a firearms certificate. With the Hungerford case, Ryan was a known criminal who also had very strange ways, the police were warned in writing, when he joined a shooting club as a provisional member, not to grant him a certificate, In the Dunblane shooting Hamilton was a known paedaphile who they had been warned about and who, in any event had no good reason to own firearms, and in the Cumbria case, Bird was a convicted criminal who was actually a prohibited person, i.e. a person who was not allowed access to firearms.
If you have ever served, you will know what damage these weapons can do. When we had the old SLR, we were told quite frankly, that within 30 metres, it would do so much damage that if you hit a limb, the chances are that limb would be lost. A shot in the chest is likely to rip through the heart & lungs, and if shot in the abdomen, then the target would probably never make a full recovery and end up having to poo in a bag.
There is no reason for them outside of a theatre of war. Why Americans feel they need them for their 2nd amendment rights is beyond me, but then I'm not a US citizen so don't fully understand their culture.
Yes, guns are potentially dangerous, that's the whole point of having military weapons. A shotgun will kill just as surely as a SLR at 30m. If there's no reason for them outside of a theatre of war then presumably you'll be happy for the police to be disarmed, so that only terrorists and other criminals have them?
As for crossbows, archery and air rifles, these again are recognised competitive sports. I happen to belong to a small club that stages charity events where the public can have a go, under very conrolled, safe conditions and with fully qualified safety officers supervising them. We put on events (such as the famous Malham trail) where the public, largely children, can shoot. They love it, and more importantly they're taught to treat these sporting tools (and potential weapons) with great respect.
). I'd love to one day go hunting deer in Norway/wherever. So I definitely 'get' it. But our society in the UK, with rapidly rising social inequality, injustice and crime, really isn't the place where gun ownership is a very good idea. Reducing the number of legally held firearms would have an effect of reducing the overall number of weapons that can potentially be used to kill or seriously injure. I don't actually think our firearms ownership laws are all that bad tbh; I'd just like to see them made better. What's wrong with that?
