Plymouth gunman

Garry Edwards said:
And you also seem to forget (or more likely don't know about) all the good that shooters do, assisting the police in ways that only they can.
Click to expand...
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
woof woof said:
I do agree that removing all guns from society may well save some lives
Click to expand...

But I don’t think it will, aside from the fact that it is impossible to “remove all guns from society”. E.g. :

Wolverhampton machete attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

He didn’t kill anyone I think but it would be easy to equal the toll of Hamilton, above, in these circumstances.

As I said earlier, it’s next to impossible to prevent “madmen” from doing mad things occasionally.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
What Paul is enunciating is a view about the perceived dangers of firearms in the hands of private individuals. It is certainly the case that people having guns in their possession for other than essential purposes are regarded with suspicion by many people in Britain.

There have been four major incidents of "spree shootings" in Britain since 1987...

19th August 1987, Michael Ryan (16 dead, 15 injured)
13th March 1996, Thomas Hamilton (17 dead, 15 injured)
2nd June 2010, Derrick Bird (12 dead, 11 injured)
12th August 2021, Jake Davison (5 dead, 2 injured)

So far as I've been able to establish, each murderer had previously come to the attention of the police and each held a firearms certificate at the time of the attack. After each of the first three attacks, the then current governments moved to tighten the regulations still further without, it seems, attaining the intended result.

So it seems to me that Paul is advocating a not unreasonable opinion and one with which many others probably agree.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the enquiry into the Thomas Hamilton outrage left a lot of people convinced that the police did not cover themselves in glory and there was a conspiracy to hide detail that the public shoud see.
www.bbc.co.uk

Dunblane 'cover-up' concerns revealed in official papers

Public perception of a "cover-up" over the mass murder needed to be "closed down", government papers reveal.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Nod said:
which puts the number killed by spree killers into some sort of perspective.
Click to expand...
That kind of comparison leaves me wondering.

Surely our aim should be to reduce unnecessary deaths whatever their cause? If there is a measure to reduce cyclist deaths we should make it happen, just as if there's a method to reduce car related deaths we should make that happen and if there's a method to reduce gun related deaths we should make that happen.

Arguing that our own special interest shouldn't be affected by the need to reduce deaths related to that special interest, because other things cause more deaths, seems very wrong.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That kind of comparison leaves me wondering.

Surely our aim should be to reduce unnecessary deaths whatever their cause? If there is a measure to reduce cyclist deaths we should make it happen, just as if there's a method to reduce car related deaths we should make that happen and if there's a method to reduce gun related deaths we should make that happen.

Arguing that our own special interest shouldn't be affected by the need to reduce deaths related to that special interest, because other things cause more deaths, seems very wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree, we should do everything that is reasonably practicable to remove all potential causes of harm.

But let's start at the top, with the major causes of harm, and work our way down until there are no potential causes of harm left, which means starting with

1. Alcohol. It causes immense harm and a high percentage of vehicle-related deaths and injuries
2. Cyclists. A disproportionate number of them are killed and injured on the roads
3. Motorcyclists. A disproportionate number of them are killed and injured on the roads
4. All other vehicles, they cause an immense number of deaths, injuries and pollution
5. Aircraft, they kill relatively few people but far more than guns.

And, eventually, when everything else has been banned, it will make sense to ban guns too, so that the only non-military and non-police ones left will be held by criminals.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That kind of comparison leaves me wondering.

Surely our aim should be to reduce unnecessary deaths whatever their cause? If there is a measure to reduce cyclist deaths we should make it happen, just as if there's a method to reduce car related deaths we should make that happen and if there's a method to reduce gun related deaths we should make that happen.

Arguing that our own special interest shouldn't be affected by the need to reduce deaths related to that special interest, because other things cause more deaths, seems very wrong.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that the “unusual” always gets people a bit “excited” and then there are calls to ban it and a special law is passed. Whereas “common” deaths (road accidents etc) leave most people uninterested.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I agree, we should do everything that is reasonably practicable to remove all potential causes of harm.

But let's start at the top, with the major causes of harm, and work our way down until there are no potential causes of harm left, which means starting with

1. Alcohol. It causes immense harm and a high percentage of vehicle-related deaths and injuries
2. Cyclists. A disproportionate number of them are killed and injured on the roads
3. Motorcyclists. A disproportionate number of them are killed and injured on the roads
4. All other vehicles, they cause an immense number of deaths, injuries and pollution
5. Aircraft, they kill relatively few people but far more than guns.

And, eventually, when everything else has been banned, it will make sense to ban guns too, so that the only non-military and non-police ones left will be held by criminals.
Click to expand...
Without wanting to cause an argument, I don’t think point 5 is correct.

www.statista.com

Worldwide air traffic - fatalities 2024| Statista

A total of 296 deaths were recorded worldwide in 2024 due to air traffc accidents, a sharp increase from 72 fatalities the previous year.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

I’d wager there are many times more deaths from guns worldwide.
 
TBH, I would put guns rather further up the list than "eventually" but agree with #1. Much as I enjoy a drink (or 2), it's never when I'll be driving and rarely to excess.
 
I’d also like to say that banning everything is not the way forward in most cases. Reasoned arguments and the use of data is a good start, but nowadays everyone just looks at what the BBC state as bring the truth, and anyone who questions that is cancelled, ostracised or ridiculed.
 
Or maybe fund the police to a level where they have no excuse for not exercising the levels of diligence the public might expect when it comes to properly applying the current legislation surrounding firearms.
That could work.......
 
Nod said:
TBH, I would put guns rather further up the list than "eventually" but agree with #1. Much as I enjoy a drink (or 2), it's never when I'll be driving and rarely to excess.
Click to expand...
I’d say there are many more deaths caused by alcohol fuelled violence than driving. But I don’t have any actual figures to back any of that up.
 
rick448 said:
Without wanting to cause an argument, I don’t think point 5 is correct.

www.statista.com

Worldwide air traffic - fatalities 2024| Statista

A total of 296 deaths were recorded worldwide in 2024 due to air traffc accidents, a sharp increase from 72 fatalities the previous year.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

I’d wager there are many times more deaths from guns worldwide.
Click to expand...
Yes, fair point, I'd forgotten the countries where gun crime is rife, I was thinking only of the UK, where many more people die in those very rare plane crashes.
 
Krisstiffer said:
Or maybe fund the police to a level where they have no excuse for not exercising the levels of diligence the public might expect when it comes to properly applying the current legislation surrounding firearms.
That could work.......
Click to expand...
Yes, people seem to forget the underfunding of the police (and much else). Gun licensing is probably a poor relation as mostly it’s an administrative nod rather than crime investigation. I don’t know how many of the staff are actual serving police officers, I know my local one isn’t (or wasn’t last time I had any dealings with him).
 
Garry Edwards said:
so that the only non-military and non-police ones left will be held by criminals.
Click to expand...
Yup! The old jokes don't die, they just come round again and again and again - a bit like rotten zombie apocalypse films on Freeview...
 
Last edited:
sphexx said:
Yes, people seem to forget the underfunding of the police (and much else).
Click to expand...
Now here's a thing: one of my in-house spies told me just the other day that Devon and Cornwall are on track to bring around 800 new personnel into service this year. That's a mixture of uniformed, plain clothes and unwarranted but with the emphasis on uniformed.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Yup! The old jokes don't die, they just come round again and again and again - a bit like rotten zombie apocalypse films on Freeview...
Click to expand...
Not a joke. Obviously there are no official figures, but the police estimate is that there are about half a million illegally-held guns in the UK. These will include smuggled guns, home-made ones (apparently not difficult with a 3D printer or a lathe), ones modified from airguns and blank-firers, deactivated guns and guns brought back by military personnel. I think that it's far too easy to obtain illegal firearms or to modify them - look at any of the online sales platforms and you'll find that there's a high demand, with high prices, for all sorts of guns that can't actually be fired but which can be illegally modified.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
In my opinion, if taking away all private firearms will save 49 lives, I think it's worth serious consideration.
Click to expand...

By that standard let’s take away all private motor vehicles, think how many lives that would save.

Or maybe all private knives? That could save 275 lives a year.
 
Last edited:
Dave * said:
By that standard let’s take away all private motor vehicles, think how many lives that would save.

Or maybe all private knives? That could save 275 lives a year.
Click to expand...
Whereas taking away all private guns will inconvenience around 570,000 people (according to this page: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ificates-england-wales-2019-2020-hosb1820.pdf )

Taking away motor vehicles would inconvenience 49,718,634 (see here: https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a17 ) while taking away all knives would inconvenience the entire population of Britain.

Does that answer your question?
 
Garry Edwards said:
Not a joke. Obviously there are no official figures, but the police estimate is that there are about half a million illegally-held guns in the UK.
Click to expand...
Clearly, they should be a much higher priority than legally held weapons.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
the then current governments moved to tighten the regulations still further without, it seems, attaining the intended result.
Click to expand...

there are about 600,000 certificate holders in the UK (570,000 shotgun very holders & 160,000 firearms certificates, the 600,000 allows that most people who hold an fac also hold an sgc) and you’ve listed 4 people who’ve held guns who demonstrated they shouldn’t that’s over nearly 35 years. Without denying that there are some questions to answer in the case I’d say the other 599,996 people demonstrate the police have things about right. Wouldn’t you?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Clearly, they should be a much higher priority than legally held weapons.
Click to expand...

So how do you propose to find them? The point is that virtually all licensed firearms are held by responsible people, known to the police (in a good sense :)) and it would be fairly simple to collect them all, but for almost no gain. The illegals … where would you start?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Whereas taking away all private guns will inconvenience around 570,000 people (according to this page: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ificates-england-wales-2019-2020-hosb1820.pdf )

Taking away motor vehicles would inconvenience 49,718,634 (see here: https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a17 ) while taking away all knives would inconvenience the entire population of Britain.

Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

Ok, you could put a 30mph speed limit on all roads, that would save many lives.

We could also ban people from going in the sea, rivers etc... as that would save lives too. Banning Joe Bloggs from using ladders and only allowing authorised trained people could also save lives.

Life cannot be risk free. we can put reasonable precautions in place but there will be risks with most things we do. As has been said, 4 bad people in 600k is about as good as it gets.

Its the illegal guns and weapons that cause more harm. Knife crime kills far more people than legally owned gun crime does in this country.
 
cambsno said:
Life cannot be risk free. we can put reasonable precautions in place but there will be risks with most things we do.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

It does make sense though, to do the simple things that protect the innocent.
 

cambsno said:
Ok, you could put a 30mph speed limit on all roads, that would save many lives.

We could also ban people from going in the sea, rivers etc... as that would save lives too. Banning Joe Bloggs from using ladders and only allowing authorised trained people could also save lives.

Life cannot be risk free. we can put reasonable precautions in place but there will be risks with most things we do. As has been said, 4 bad people in 600k is about as good as it gets.

Its the illegal guns and weapons that cause more harm. Knife crime kills far more people than legally owned gun crime does in this country.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, risk free seems to be what many people are seeking...
 
rick448 said:
Unfortunately, risk free seems to be what many people are seeking...
Click to expand...
Only for whatever happens to be currently in the news and then only if it doesn’t affect them. I doubt that anybody here who is advocating banning all legal guns is actually a gun owner themselves (at least, legally ;)) :(.
 
the only good gun is one that gets melted down into scrap.
all guns in private hands should be stored by law in a licensed gun club store when not in use
certainly not in a private residence unless the person can prove the need to quickly access the weapon such as farmers etc.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Whereas taking away all private guns will inconvenience around 570,000 people (according to this page: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ificates-england-wales-2019-2020-hosb1820.pdf )

Taking away motor vehicles would inconvenience 49,718,634 (see here: https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a17 ) while taking away all knives would inconvenience the entire population of Britain.

Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

No.

Cars and knives kill far more people than guns, by a large amount.

In the same time period privately held firearms have killed 49 people cars have killed around 100,000 people.

To become hysterical and want to ban all private firearms because of an annual death rate of around 1.4 people is quite unreasonable in comparison. Some risk has to be accommodated when living a normal life.

And no, I’m not a shooter or a firearm owner.
 
Everyone I've known who expressed a desire for a total gun ban have all been people who would not be inconvenienced in any way by such a ban. Some even seem to perceive a threat to be present by The Guns simply existing, and would feel safer if they didn't.
When it comes to the comparative death toll of guns and motor vehicles, they become defensive because banning those would be a major inconvenience to them personally, so the cost in human life is acceptable.
 
Tori_T said:
so the cost in human life is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Any avoidable death is a tragedy and I would be in favour of mandatory speed controls on all road vehicles.

The thing about guns is that only a very few people need to have them at home under their own control. That really should be considered by Parliament when the next public order bill comes up for consideration.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Any avoidable death is a tragedy and I would be in favour of mandatory speed controls on all road vehicles.

The thing about guns is that only a very few people need to have them at home under their own control. That really should be considered by Parliament when the next public order bill comes up for consideration.
Click to expand...
It‘s already been considered and Parliament has decided and instigated a fairly sensible system which is currently in force. It’s not perfect, as apparently shown in the current episode, but no system is :(.
 
sphexx said:
It‘s already been considered and Parliament has decided and instigated a fairly sensible system which is currently in force. It’s not perfect, as apparently shown in the current episode, but no system is :(.
Click to expand...
All the more reason for improving it. I appreciate that many people get a lot of pleasure from target shooting and such like but If the system still has holes, they have to be plugged.
 
Dave * said:
Cars and knives kill far more people than guns, by a large amount.

In the same time period privately held firearms have killed 49 people cars have killed around 100,000 people.
Click to expand...

It's a pointless comparison, how many people get in their cars with the intention of killing someone ?
 
Gremlin said:
It's a pointless comparison, how many people get in their cars with the intention of killing someone ?
Click to expand...
A surprisingly large number recently :(. But are you that if all the fairly recent gun deaths were accidental, That‘d be OK?
 
silure130 said:
If you hold a firearms certificate and at anytime you have it revoked, then to me that’s it gone for good.
Click to expand...
Seeing as the police revoke first and ask questions after (rightly) that’s a little harsh if the allegation against the certificate holder is unproven
 
Gremlin said:
It's a pointless comparison, how many people get in their cars with the intention of killing someone
Click to expand...
Nobody can possibly answer that question, but certainly terrorists have done so quite often.
And then there are the uninsured, disqualified and otherwise unlicensed drivers - a massive number - who may not actually set out to kill but whose conduct strongly indicates that they don't care whether they kill or not.
And then there are all of the drunk and drugged-up drivers, same thing applies.

Now compare that with shooting incidents. 3 deliberate spree killings (3 too many) in the last 30 years, plus a very small number of "domestic" murders where a different type of weapon would probably have been used if there hadn't been a gun.

I don't count killings committed by criminals with illegally-held guns.
sphexx said:
A surprisingly large number recently :(. But are you that if all the fairly recent gun deaths were accidental, That‘d be OK?
Click to expand...
AFAIK it is extremely rare for accidental gun deaths to happen nowadays, at least among civilian shooters. The reasons for this are probably because shotguns are so potentially dangerous that everyone follows the correct procedures all the time, which means that guns are only ever loaded during the short time that they are pointing towards where the targets will appear, and also because every single shooter is wideawake at all times and constantly acts as a safety officer.

Although it's now very rare for me to shoot rifles at target ranges I've done a lot of it in the past and can confirm that the same obsession with safety applies to them too, and it's virtually impossible for a shooting accident to occur. Which makes shooting one of the very safest of sports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top