PDA

View Full Version : We reap what we sow, a seven year old granted a licence to own a shotgun in UK



Anfield
24-Mar-11, 13:56
I suppose like most people I am horrified when I see pictures of young children, usually in war torn countries, holding real guns and rifles.
Imagine my surprise then when I read that (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12840557) in the UK that children as young as seven have been issued with a shotgun licences.
It emerges that between 2008 and 2010, 7,071 licences were issued to children under the age of 18, including 10 licenses to 9 year olds, two to eight year olds and Gloucester Police issued one to a 7 (yes seven) year old.
A spokesman for a gun lobby group said that “age was irrelevant" as the decision on granting a licence was made by a very experienced police officer who would visit the family involved.
Strange then that last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers proposed that under-10s should be banned from not only being licensed, but also that they should not be using shotguns in any situation

Walter Ego
24-Mar-11, 15:55
I knew it, I just knew it! Eating my toasty eggys this morning I thought "I bet I know someone who'll bring this up on Caithness .org"!

Bang on cue, Anfs!


Seriously though, is the issuing of shotgun certificates to juveniles linked to some sort of crime? If not, then it isn't a problem IMO.

Anfield
24-Mar-11, 17:55
Seriously though, is the issuing of shotgun certificates to juveniles linked to some sort of crime? If not, then it isn't a problem IMO.

I am sure that "Statto" from Strathy will have all relevant clippings showing links to teenage gun crime, but do think that is both morally and socially acceptable to have young children, for that is what they are, to be exposed to firearms?
By encouraging the use of firearms by youngsters are we not sending out a signal saying "Yes it is OK to use guns" .
If that culture develops, then God knows what future society is going to be like.

Kirdon
24-Mar-11, 18:08
Maybe!!!!! the child has shown to be good at clay pigeon shooting and is hoping when older to shoot for Britain. It is a sport and not at all barbaric or harmful to anyone. typical every mention of gun and the anti gun lobby start.

Metalattakk
24-Mar-11, 18:20
By encouraging the use of firearms by youngsters are we not sending out a signal saying "Yes it is OK to use guns" .

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z55/Metalattakk/f_doh.gif

But it is OK to use guns.

And by being licensed, they understand the need for control and that not just anyone can participate whenever they feel like it. Regulation is a good thing, Anfield.

Anfield
24-Mar-11, 18:21
Maybe!!!!! the child has shown to be good at clay pigeon shooting and is hoping when older to shoot for Britain. It is a sport and not at all barbaric or harmful to anyone. typical every mention of gun and the anti gun lobby start.

Not at all.
If a person wants to take part in clay pigeon shooting, why do they have to keep guns at home? Why cant guns be left at shoot, or better still signed in and out of a Police station.
Last week in local papers there was a case of a woman who was prosecuted for having 3 rifles/shotguns lying around her house. Her excuse for not having weapons in gun safe? she was decorating!

buggyracer
24-Mar-11, 18:32
More rubbish :( the 7 year old will not be allowed to actually have use of the shotgun without adult supervision, Anfield I rarely read your posts as IMO your a few sausages short of a BBQ .....

Anfield
24-Mar-11, 18:34
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z55/Metalattakk/f_doh.gif

But it is OK to use guns.

And by being licensed, they understand the need for control and that not just anyone can participate whenever they feel like it. Regulation is a good thing, Anfield.

So you think that seven year olds do everything they are told?
Regulation is only good when it works.
Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria + hundred more killed in gun related incidents prove otherwise

Metalattakk
24-Mar-11, 18:44
So you think that seven year olds do everything they are told?
Regulation is only good when it works.
Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria + hundred more killed in gun related incidents prove otherwise

Wait! Wait! Stop the lily-liberal bleeding-heart reactionary Daily-Mail-reader outrage bus. Anfield wants to get on.

starfish
24-Mar-11, 18:50
i was brought up with guns we learnt to respect them they were not locked up many years ago in later years the ruling come in to have them in a locked cabinet but as kids we knew not to touch them without my dad god help us if we did . i not grown up to be a gun wilding nutcase more gun crime is caused by un licenced gun handlers and any one time a person could just snap and kill someone wether it with guns or not i know a gun can kill a lot more people but as i said most gun crimes are by thugs that buy the guns of the black market let not paint everyone the same colour most people with guns ebjoy ther sport and treat guns with respect

oldmarine
24-Mar-11, 19:16
i was brought up with guns we learnt to respect them they were not locked up many years ago in later years the ruling come in to have them in a locked cabinet but as kids we knew not to touch them without my dad god help us if we did . i not grown up to be a gun wilding nutcase more gun crime is caused by un licenced gun handlers and any one time a person could just snap and kill someone wether it with guns or not i know a gun can kill a lot more people but as i said most gun crimes are by thugs that buy the guns of the black market let not paint everyone the same colour most people with guns ebjoy ther sport and treat guns with respect

I support what starfish has posted here. I believe in gun registration and along with that lessons on how to handle guns properly such as this. I personally believe that the Japanese did not attack our West Coast of the USA during WW2 primarily because they knew we had an armed population.

bekisman
24-Mar-11, 19:42
I suppose like most people I am horrified when I see pictures of young children, usually in war torn countries, holding real guns and rifles.
Imagine my surprise then when I read that (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12840557) in the UK that children as young as seven have been issued with a shotgun licences.
It emerges that between 2008 and 2010, 7,071 licences were issued to children under the age of 18, including 10 licenses to 9 year olds, two to eight year olds and Gloucester Police issued one to a 7 (yes seven) year old.
A spokesman for a gun lobby group said that “age was irrelevant" as the decision on granting a licence was made by a very experienced police officer who would visit the family involved.
Strange then that last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers proposed that under-10s should be banned from not only being licensed, but also that they should not be using shotguns in any situation
Oh come on Anfield, how on earth are they going to kill the foxes?

bekisman
24-Mar-11, 19:51
I am sure that "Statto" from Strathy will have all relevant clippings showing links to teenage gun crime, but do think that is both morally and socially acceptable to have young children, for that is what they are, to be exposed to firearms?
By encouraging the use of firearms by youngsters are we not sending out a signal saying "Yes it is OK to use guns" .
If that culture develops, then God knows what future society is going to be like.
Statto? had to check my newspaper cuttings for that one.. something to do with football or something - can't stand the stupid game (let's face it if someone from Bettyhill had billions, they could buy all the best players in the world and Bettyhill would be world champions - it's all so silly).. anyway..

What's tup lad, don't trust Coppers?, they check 'em out you know - they don't just issue licences willy-nilly, and the youngsters today who are taught responsible control, will make them a better and more cosmopolitan citizen - our best Shooters in the Olympic squad started at a very young age..
Me? I trust the decision making of the senior Police Officer in these cases..

sandyr1
24-Mar-11, 20:37
Imagine my surprise then when I read that (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12840557) in the UK that children as young as seven have been issued with a shotgun licences.
It emerges that between 2008 and 2010, 7,071 licences were issued to children under the age of 18, including 10 licenses to 9 year olds, two to eight year olds and Gloucester Police issued one to a 7 (yes seven) year old.
A spokesman for a gun lobby group said that “age was irrelevant" as the decision on granting a licence was made by a very experienced police officer who would visit the family involved.
Strange then that last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers proposed that under-10s should be banned from not only being licensed, but also that they should not be using shotguns in any situation[/QUOTE]

I grew up in a house with shotguns and rifles, my grandfather being a Game Keeper. He taught me to shoot at a young age and never thought to touch the guns unless he was with me.
Perhaps things have changed thus the Police Mgmt wanting some restrictions on Weapons to a specific age. So perhaps those who are concerned about children having guns should lobby their Members of Parliament in support of said Polis. They only enforce the Laws as they are......and administer them.

weezer 316
24-Mar-11, 21:10
I support what starfish has posted here. I believe in gun registration and along with that lessons on how to handle guns properly such as this. I personally believe that the Japanese did not attack our West Coast of the USA during WW2 primarily because they knew we had an armed population.


Are you sure? Im fairly certain there was some other small factors like the monumental size of the pacific and the infrastructure needed to move men and machine across it, whilst keeping them as a fighting force. Japan has a series of islands leading to it, america's west coast does not, hence the US had to island hop.

And if you think the mad men that fought to death against enourmous odds on Iwo jima would be scared of Ma' carter and her 12 bore then you got another thing coming im afraid.

Anyway, to the original point. Im actually a bit for guns to be honest. The licensing of them should be tightly controlled, but I have nothing against someone keeping a gun in their own home and using it for self defence. In this instance defence obviously isnt an issue, but if they are shotting for sport then as long as there are adequate checks in place to make sure it aint some ned running about a street then go for it

sandyr1
24-Mar-11, 21:13
Anyway, to the original point. Im actually a bit for guns to be honest. The licensing of them should be tightly controlled, but I have nothing against someone keeping a gun in their own home and using it for self defence. In this instance defence obviously isnt an issue, but if they are shotting for sport then as long as there are adequate checks in place to make sure it aint some ned running about a street then go for it[/QUOTE]

Weezer...Self defence, self defence...No such thing. Then the 'thing' becomes an offensive weapon..Come on............

weezer 316
24-Mar-11, 21:21
No such thing as self defence? You cant be serious. Imagine some girl, 17yo living on her own. 3 guys break in and are gonna rape her. She has no chance. But.......if she has a shotgun and the full weight of the law behind her using it then it fair evens things up.

If you want to go down that road, ban knives, razor blades, hammers, big potatoes even. All be used to kill someone.

sandyr1
24-Mar-11, 21:28
No such thing as self defence? You cant be serious. Imagine some girl, 17yo living on her own. 3 guys break in and are gonna rape her. She has no chance. But.......if she has a shotgun and the full weight of the law behind her using it then it fair evens things up.

If you want to go down that road, ban knives, razor blades, hammers, big potatoes even. All be used to kill someone.

Anything can be used as a weapon...Aye Beeg tatties!
But Guns are a wee bit different....and your story is a bit to the extreme. I know what you are saying....but an example.....
A man in a truck...lorry.... has a thing tha looks like a baseball bat...and it says tire checker on it. OK as long as he doesn't say it is for protection!
And then there is the 'Bear Spray'....Good in Bear Country but at the dance...Don't think it's goint to be believed!

orkneycadian
24-Mar-11, 21:35
Hmmm, who would I rather trust in 15 years time....

Someone who has been brought up from an early age to respect firearms in a controlled environment and is a competent and legitimate owner / user
Someone who has been brought up on "shoot em up games" where the actual consequnces of "shooting" somone on screen are not understood, who has gotten pissed up, gotten hold of a gun and thinks in real life its just like in the video games where you can shoot folk, but it doesn't really matter - its only a "game"


Hmmm, no contest really.....

weezer 316
24-Mar-11, 21:40
I dont think they are really different at all. Remember its not them that kill people, its people. Like I say, I have no issue with them at all. And making something illegal doesnt stop it being available. Far better to regulate that market and teach poeple of the dangers of firearms than outlaw them. They could apply that to the drug laws too

sandyr1
24-Mar-11, 21:48
Yes & Yes.....so very true.

weezer 316
24-Mar-11, 21:48
Hmmm, who would I rather trust in 15 years time....


Someone who has been brought up from an early age to respect firearms in a controlled environment and is a competent and legitimate owner / user
Someone who has been brought up on "shoot em up games" where the actual consequnces of "shooting" somone on screen are not understood, who has gotten pissed up, gotten hold of a gun and thinks in real life its just like in the video games where you can shoot folk, but it doesn't really matter - its only a "game"



Hmmm, no contest really.....

What? read that back to yourself. Shooting aint the issue there, its taking a life. I assume we should ban cars seeing as I have used them to mow down thousands of innocent pedestrians on GTA? Or is it just guns? What about the snooker cues I have got out the car and bludgeoned poeple to death with too? Like I say, if you cnt see the difference between a game and real life then banning guns wont protect society from you.

Amazingly I havent killed a soul in real life and actually felt bad when I trapped my cats tail in the living room door the other day.

orkneycadian
24-Mar-11, 21:51
Yep, read it back - Still makes sense to me!

weezer 316
24-Mar-11, 21:56
Yep, read it back - Still makes sense to me!

Really? Guns or perception of reality?? As you so adequately say I know who Im going to trust......not you.

So, should we ban snooker cues and cars?

sandyr1
24-Mar-11, 22:01
Perception is reality.. If u perceive it to happen, then it is or can be in one's mind!

ducati
24-Mar-11, 22:11
Are you sure? Im fairly certain there was some other small factors like the monumental size of the pacific and the infrastructure needed to move men and machine across it, whilst keeping them as a fighting force. Japan has a series of islands leading to it, america's west coast does not, hence the US had to island hop.

And if you think the mad men that fought to death against enourmous odds on Iwo jima would be scared of Ma' carter and her 12 bore then you got another thing coming im afraid.

Anyway, to the original point. Im actually a bit for guns to be honest. The licensing of them should be tightly controlled, but I have nothing against someone keeping a gun in their own home and using it for self defence. In this instance defence obviously isnt an issue, but if they are shotting for sport then as long as there are adequate checks in place to make sure it aint some ned running about a street then go for it

Trouble is weezy, if you applied for a gun licence sighting self defence as a reason you would be visited by 60 armed coppers and a helicopter, helped down the stairs and locked up forever you crazy mmffghly!

gleeber
24-Mar-11, 22:17
Whats an mmffghly. :eek:
BTW I agree weezers crazy but I widna call him a mmffghly until I know what it is.

ducati
24-Mar-11, 22:23
Whats an mmffghly. :eek:

weezy is :lol:

equusdriving
24-Mar-11, 22:38
138,728 firearm certificates were on issue in England and Wales on 31 March 2009, covering 435,383 firearms; and
574,946 shotgun certificates were on issue in England and Wales on 31 March 2009, covering 1,366,082 shotguns.

In Scotland there were 26,072 firearm certificates, covering 70,856 firearms, and 50,308 shotgun certificates, covering 137,768 shotguns, on issue at the end of 2009.There are also estimated to be in the region of seven million air guns in circulation, owned by around five million individuals.


And considering the small percentage of gun crime thats carried out by license holders, the licencing process doesnt seem to far out imo

ducati
24-Mar-11, 22:51
138,728 firearm certificates were on issue in England and Wales on 31 March 2009, covering 435,383 firearms; and
574,946 shotgun certificates were on issue in England and Wales on 31 March 2009, covering 1,366,082 shotguns.
In Scotland there were 26,072 firearm certificates, covering 70,856 firearms, and 50,308 shotgun certificates, covering 137,768 shotguns, on issue at the end of 2009.There are also estimated to be in the region of seven million air guns in circulation, owned by around five million individuals.


And considering the small percentage of gun crime thats carried out by license holders, the licencing process doesnt seem to far out imo

Yes, what's the odd thirteen or so citizens a year between friends :roll:

weezer 316
24-Mar-11, 23:10
I know if you applied for it stating self defence at the moment you would be getting a knock on your door, what I am saying is you should be able to have a gun in your own home for defence, and that should be legislated for. Tightly controlled yes, but perectly legal

equusdriving
24-Mar-11, 23:23
Yes, what's the odd thirteen or so citizens a year between friends :roll:

And these are "carried out by license holders" are they?

gleeber
24-Mar-11, 23:24
I know if you applied for it stating self defence at the moment you would be getting a knock on your door, what I am saying is you should be able to have a gun in your own home for defence, and that should be legislated for. Tightly controlled yes, but perectly legal


You mean a bit like America? :eek:

Bazeye
24-Mar-11, 23:50
Suppose it makes a change from the wee lambs running round with knives.

oldmarine
25-Mar-11, 01:02
Are you sure? Im fairly certain there was some other small factors like the monumental size of the pacific and the infrastructure needed to move men and machine across it, whilst keeping them as a fighting force. Japan has a series of islands leading to it, america's west coast does not, hence the US had to island hop.

I made my original statement as a result of what some of the Japanese leaders commented after they were defeated. After their success at Pearl Harbor they had become very confident.

squidge
25-Mar-11, 07:56
I don't have a problem with children learning to shoot guns if their parents think that is a suitable pastime for a child. I don't like guns and would never want them in my house but that's my perogative. I have to admit however that I find the granting of a shotgun licence to a child a little shocking too. It suggests the onus for keeping the gun safe and using it responsibly is placed on the child. Where children are allowed to use guns this should only be allowed under the supervision of an adult who is ultimately responsible for the gun. The ADULT should be the licence holder and the responsible person. With the best will in the world a seven year old is not responsible enough to take charge of a gun. And before you all jump down my throat about mad massacres by seven year olds being the stuff of fantasy I'll just reassure you I'm not worried about being gunned down in the street. It's about the attention span, the ability to take responsibility and to focus enough to be a licence holder.

Crikey I wouldn't let a seven year old have a key to the front door never mind a gun cabinet. The parent must be the licence holder unti the child reaches a responsible age. That maybe 13, 14 or 16 but it isn't 7.

ducati
25-Mar-11, 08:04
And these are "carried out by license holders" are they?

Quite frequently, don't you watch the news?

_Ju_
25-Mar-11, 09:05
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics :
•In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
•This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
•The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
◦214 unintentional
◦1,078 suicides
◦1,990 homicides
◦83 for which the intent could not be determined
◦20 due to legal intervention
•Of the total firearms-related deaths:
◦73 were of children under five years old
◦416 were children 5-14 years old
◦2,896 were 15-19 years old

In 2002 in the USA there were 1375 berefting reasons for children not to have acess to guns in the home. Yes, pool cues and cars also kill people, including children. But they are not designed for killing. I would not feel comfortable with teaching a 7 year old to handle a gun of any type under any circumstances.

theone
25-Mar-11, 09:13
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm


I understand your sentiment but fail to see the relevence with the original topic.

The figures you quote are from America, where gun laws are VERY different to here. Gun culture is also very different.

Of all the deaths for under 19 year olds, how many were carried out by children, and how many of these children were the licensed firearm owner? Without these facts the comparison is chalk and cheese.

northener
25-Mar-11, 09:51
Juvenile SC holders MUST be supervised by someone over the age of 21. They're not allowed to wander around by themselves. IIRC.

_Ju_
25-Mar-11, 11:33
They are children with access to guns. Laws are not really relevant when a child (with or without a licence) takes a gun from the home and kills themselves or some other child by mistake. Law does not prevent this, licencing does not prevent this and parental supervision goes only so far in preventing this. You cannot legislate perfect parental supervision. You cannot legislate comon sense. You cannot legislate against mistakes and you certainly cannot legislate childrens' behaviour. Whether or not a gun is licensed, the owner of the gun is licensed or every child in the household is licensed to handle a gun, a firearm in a home is a dangerous thing as the accidental deaths and suicides by gun shot in children in the USA shows (25 times higher than in anyother country). The more of them that are licensed, the more frequently children will die by them. Call it chalk and cheese if you want, and talk about how everything will be perfectly regulated (in a very imperfect world), but the way I look at it, the end results can be tragic and any gun owner should think if the worse were to happen would it really be worth it?

northener
25-Mar-11, 11:43
They are children with access to guns. Laws are not really relevant when a child (with or without a licence) takes a gun from the home and kills themselves or some other child by mistake. Law does not prevent this, licencing does not prevent this and parental supervision goes only so far in preventing this. You cannot legislate perfect parental supervision. You cannot legislate comon sense. You cannot legislate against mistakes and you certainly cannot legislate childrens' behaviour. Whether or not a gun is licensed, the owner of the gun is licensed or every child in the household is licensed to handle a gun, a firearm in a home is a dangerous thing as the accidental deaths and suicides by gun shot in children in the USA shows (25 times higher than in anyother country). The more of them that are licensed, the more frequently children will die by them. Call it chalk and cheese if you want, and talk about how everything will be perfectly regulated (in a very imperfect world), but the way I look at it, the end results can be tragic and any gun owner should think if the worse were to happen would it really be worth it?

I had access to guns from an early age, so did most of my friends.

Nobody died and nobody did anything stupid because we were brought up to respect guns and act responsibly. The problem is one of social attitude, anyone who thinks guns are a status symbol to be waved around in acts of bravado or are 'cool' has not come from a legitimate shooting background. The SC holders are the responsible ones.


How many handgun crimes have been comitted since they were banned after Dunblane? You cannot blame legitimate holders for those statistics - regardless of how much you attempt to moralize on the issue.

Guns are not the problem - societies attitude towards them is.

Leanne
25-Mar-11, 14:15
They are children with access to guns. Laws are not really relevant when a child (with or without a licence) takes a gun from the home and kills themselves or some other child by mistake. Law does not prevent this, licencing does not prevent this and parental supervision goes only so far in preventing this. You cannot legislate perfect parental supervision.

But you can - all guns have to be locked away. There would be no way for the child to get hold of the gun unsupervised...

sandyr1
25-Mar-11, 15:35
You are correct Leanne. Common sense would be that guns should be locked away.
Here, altho' we are a bit of a gun totin' Country, all guns must be stored with a trigger guard, and in a specially constructed metal box. Ammunition must also be stored securely in another place.
I grew up with guns that were unsecured, but that was a 'few' years ago. The World has changed.
I don't know the now requirements of safe storage of firearms in the UK, but if people are worried about the state of the Law, then they should lobby their MP's.
Actually I didn't realize that such young people could have access to such weapons...There again as you say, 'all Guns should be stored Securely'.

orkneycadian
25-Mar-11, 18:40
Really? Guns or perception of reality?? As you so adequately say I know who Im going to trust......not you.

So, should we ban snooker cues and cars?

Potentially - Its already been well discussed on this forum that the number of road deaths exceeds the number of gun deaths in the UK by an enormous amount. You may then have a point.

An potentially interesting statistic I cannot quite yet track down on Google is number of deaths arising from drivers under, say 17, vs gun deaths from licensed gun users under the same age. Although I can't quite find it, I have a sneaking suspicion I know where the balance will lie....

equusdriving
25-Mar-11, 19:51
Quite frequently, don't you watch the news?

Yes i do, so are you sticking with Quite frequently or 13 a year?
and should motorcycles be banned as they are more often than not driven way above the speed limit and are responsible/involved in a lot more than 13 deaths a year?

ducati
26-Mar-11, 09:00
Yes i do, so are you sticking with Quite frequently or 13 a year?
and should motorcycles be banned as they are more often than not driven way above the speed limit and are responsible/involved in a lot more than 13 deaths a year?

There are more than enough very well publicised instances. How many deaths a year by licenced gun holders should be allowed do you think?

I can't think of one instance when a motorcycle was used by someone who went mental to kill a whole bunch of people, but I haven't googled it!

Corrie 3
26-Mar-11, 09:49
Even dog poo plays its part in firearms arguments!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12869141


C3......:roll:;)

orkneycadian
26-Mar-11, 11:21
I can't think of one instance when a motorcycle was used by someone who went mental to kill a whole bunch of people, but I haven't googled it!

I guess it depends on your definition of "going mental" and who the "whole bunch of people" are. If "going mental" means riding too fast for the conditions, leaving the road and doing a Marc Bolan, and the bunch of people are the rider and pillion, with the occaisional innocent member of the public thrown in, then yes, there is plenty on Google on bikers going mental and killing a whole bunch of people.

Above (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?139359-We-reap-what-we-sow-a-seven-year-old-granted-a-licence-to-own-a-shotgun-in-UK&p=834029#post834029) there is a statistic quoted by Equusdriving that suggests there are a total of 2.01 million firearms and shotguns in legal ownership in the UK, owned by 790,000 (ish) licensed keepers.

Meanwhile, this page (http://uk.prweb.com/releases/motorbikeinsurance/cheapmotorbikeinsurance/prweb3839444.htm) suggests there are around 1.3 million motorcycles in the UK (at this time last year, but its close enough). So there are something like 50% more firearms / shotguns in the UK than there are motorbikes.

You mention a figure of 13 deaths per year (presumably in the UK) above. So the death rate per licenced gun is 6.47 x 10^-6

With motorbikes, the number of fatalities is reported here (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008) at 493 (2008 figure), a death rate of 3.79 x 10^-4

So not only are there only only 65% the number of motorbikes in the UK than there are licenced firearms / shotguns, 38 times more citizens are killed by them!

Now, which one is the more shocking statistic?

Oh, and you can buy a mini motorbike / quad bike for a 7 year old for them to operate off road, with no licence, no legal requirement for supervision and which does sadly result in the fatalities of said 7 years olds. :(

orkneycadian
26-Mar-11, 11:32
Whoops, just realised that when totting up the firearms / shotguns for the UK, Equusdrivings figures did not include Northern Ireland, whilst I assume the DFT figure for motorbikes does. That will swing the balance even further I guess!

ducati
26-Mar-11, 12:23
I guess it depends on your definition of "going mental" and who the "whole bunch of people" blah blah:(

Facinating and completely irrelevant to point of the thread. We could discuss all day the things from toothbrushes to chimneys that kill people, but the point of the thread is do we think licencing 7 year olds to shoot shotguns is a good idea.

I don't..

and the side issue is the amazing number of licenced gunners who turn their guns on friends, neighbours and random passers by.

The gunners on here seem to think that's fine.

orkneycadian
26-Mar-11, 12:43
I think its a case of the "gunners" and those who can keep things in perspective think its, perhaps "less unacceptable"

Again, using Google, a search of "Quad Bike Accident" reveals the sad cases of an 11 year old boy killed in Devon just last week, a 9 year old in Bute last year, a 12 year old in 2008, a "teenager" in Greece on holiday in June last year. Thats all just what comes up in the first 10 hits in Google for quad bikes. 2 wheelers, scramblers, etc not included.

So keeping to the issue of the thread, it appears that far more kids (for thats what they are) are being killed by quad bikes than are being with shotguns. In fact, in reply to your thoughts on licencing 7 year olds for a shotgun, it appears even less of a good idea for youngters to be let loose on quad bikes, for which no licence is required when used off road.

picturegifts
26-Mar-11, 14:05
Juvenile SC holders MUST be supervised by someone over the age of 21. They're not allowed to wander around by themselves. IIRC.


But you can - all guns have to be locked away. There would be no way for the child to get hold of the gun unsupervised...

If we lived in a world, where everyone behaved in the correct manner and followed all rules and regulations to the letter, then yes the above posts are valid. However the world we live in is not perfect, and time and time again deaths occur by the misuse of legally ownned guns.

DeHaviLand
26-Mar-11, 16:15
If we lived in a world, where everyone behaved in the correct manner and followed all rules and regulations to the letter, then yes the above posts are valid. However the world we live in is not perfect, and time and time again deaths occur by the misuse of legally ownned guns.

What an absolutely idiotic statement. If we lived in a world where everyone behaved in the correct manner there wouldnt be a need for any rules and regulations. Honestly, with such a poor argument as that, anyone would think you were related to Anfield!

bekisman
26-Mar-11, 16:25
If we lived in a world, where everyone behaved in the correct manner and followed all rules and regulations to the letter, then yes the above posts are valid. However the world we live in is not perfect, and time and time again deaths occur by the misuse of legally ownned guns.

Bit ironic maybe, as by your signature link you seem to like Che Guevara - one of the most murderous gunman in South America

weezer 316
26-Mar-11, 22:56
There are more than enough very well publicised instances. How many deaths a year by licenced gun holders should be allowed do you think?

I can't think of one instance when a motorcycle was used by someone who went mental to kill a whole bunch of people, but I haven't googled it!

Well there in a sentence is the hole in your argument. Guns clearly arent the issue, the issue is "someone who went mental to kill a whole bunch of people".....and lets say they havent a gun. They go mental, they jump in a car and then kill a load of people. Simples really. I couldnt have said it better myself.

We must ban people now I feel. Its the only way to protect people

weezer 316
26-Mar-11, 22:58
If we lived in a world, where everyone behaved in the correct manner and followed all rules and regulations to the letter, then yes the above posts are valid. However the world we live in is not perfect, and time and time again deaths occur by the misuse of legally ownned guns.


Lol. What need would there be for rules if everyone behaved? Dont think you thunk that one out, as turkish would say

ducati
26-Mar-11, 23:36
Well there in a sentence is the hole in your argument. Guns clearly arent the issue, the issue is "someone who went mental to kill a whole bunch of people".....and lets say they havent a gun. They go mental, they jump in a car and then kill a load of people. Simples really. I couldnt have said it better myself.

We must ban people now I feel. Its the only way to protect people

I disagree. There are very few instances where people go mental with a car or indeed a chimney. People with guns go mental and use the citizenry for targets with a degree of frequency.

equusdriving
26-Mar-11, 23:48
I disagree. There are very few instances where people go mental with a car or indeed a chimney.

Yes, what's the odd few citizens a year between friends

orkneycadian
26-Mar-11, 23:58
People with guns go mental and use the citizenry for targets with a degree of frequency.

Or cars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7sQuUjzA5U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQLnEv5akks&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4c8aWeieN8&feature=related

Fortunately, no mentality going on there putting any citizenry at risk!

ducati
27-Mar-11, 09:10
So to recap, getting shot is OK?

Because it isn't the only thing that kills you?

orkneycadian
27-Mar-11, 10:36
Well, that appears to be the argument put forward by the "pro car / bike / any form of motorised transport" camp to justify the appalling death toll on the roads.

In a number of threads now, it comes across that road accidents / deaths appear an insufficient justification for us to change our habits and love affair with the car (and lets include motorbikes as well....). On the one hand, threads are started asking the question "How do we reduce the death toll on the road", with the conclusion that we don't really want to change anything as we like our cars and the way we drive them too much. Its almost like thousands of deaths a year are what we are prepared to pay to continue to drive / ride in the manner in which we have become accustomed.

Whilst every death is indeed a tragedy, we appear to lose sight of perspective, often due to media coverage. Its a sad fact, but across the UK, statistically, quite a number of folk will be killed in motorbike accidents today, being a proportion of the annual death toll divided by 365, compounded by the fact its a Sunday, and one of the first Sundays of the spring (:roll:?? - allegedly!) so the bikes will be getting dusted down for their first outing of the year. Unless they happen close to home, chances are we won't hear about them as the media have no interest in telling the whole country "routine news". They would however tell us if someone goes daft with a gun somewhere in the country and dispatches half a dozen citizens in one fell swoop because thats "non-routine". On that subject, the recent reports on the news remind me that Derrick Bird didn't just loopy with a gun and despatch some citizens in one place. He also used a car to evade detection and get from point A to point B in order to have another go. Seems that the car was a part of his armourey just like his gun was.

Compared to cars, shotguns and firearms are a "minority interest" in this country, albeit not as minority an interest as motorbikes. Accordingly, it appears that the majority of the population are able to dismiss guns as "un-necessary evils", even though they are responsible for 58 times less deaths per gun as there are deaths per motorbike, according to Ducatis suggestion of 13 citizens "lost" per year to guns.

Anyway, back to the original gist of the thread. It would appear that if I wanted to buy my 6 year old nephew something different for his 7th birthday, then a shotgun and a certificate to go with it would be statistically much safer for him than say a quad bike or a mini scrambler. Neither as statistically as safe as a game of Ludo, granted, unless he left it lying around and his little sister choked on the pieces!

billmoseley
27-Mar-11, 16:14
heres a point to add to this thread 8 males have just had a very enjoyable few hours blasting clay pigeons from the sky (or not in some cases). the group contained a wide range of ages from 16 up to 70. we had a good laugh safely was adhered to at all times we used real guns and we all came home safely. my point of this post is to say we live in a village and once a month get together young and old alike and do something together where is the harm in that

orkneycadian
27-Mar-11, 17:13
A question Bill. Would you have been comfortable had there been any juvenile members in your group?

Phill
27-Mar-11, 17:21
Yeah, lets keep guns at home for 'self defence':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12869141

Just back from a week away in that crazy gun toting 'land of the free' so not read through all the posts here but a point that may be relevant (most probably not): I've seen, known of, been shot at by and could most probably get hold of an illegal firearm.

The SC licensing of a 7 year old as far as I can see has little or no relevance on gun crime in the UK or the near future.

Yes, the system needs looking at to see where it went wrong and sensible changes may need applying to try and prevent any future incidents.

Illegal firearms and firearms incidents are just that, illegal. Back in Mancunia I was aware of a number of people known to have guns, I witnessed a handful being waved around and knew of the kind of people from which I could purchase a gun should I wanted one. Needless to say without any background checks or certificates but a handful of pound notes (and not many at that).

I'd be more concerned about teenagers in cities tearing round on a BMX with a revolver at the ready trying to 'prove' their place and gettin respect man!

billmoseley
27-Mar-11, 17:26
A question Bill. Would you have been comfortable had there been any juvenile members in your group?

yes i would as the older members would have given them instruction on safety and and respect for a weapon

ducati
27-Mar-11, 20:57
Just cos it's a good thread. Bill, all firearms cert. holders are fine upstanding sensible citizens when they get a certificate or they would'nt get one, agreed?

Why do you and the others think that (it feels like) a disproportionate number of these citizens fall off their trolly and wind up murdering their family/friends/neighbours/business associates?

equusdriving
27-Mar-11, 21:23
Just cos it's a good thread. Bill, all firearms cert. holders are fine upstanding sensible citizens when they get a certificate or they would'nt get one, agreed?

Why do you and the others think that (it feels like) a disproportionate number of these citizens fall off their trolly and wind up murdering their family/friends/neighbours/business associates?

So is this disproportionate no the original 13 (you quoted and then changed to quite frequently) out of the near 1million license holders in the UK because i would have to agree this is a Disproportionately LOW Number at 0.0013%

ducati
27-Mar-11, 23:29
So is this disproportionate no the original 13 (you quoted and then changed to quite frequently) out of the near 1million license holders in the UK because i would have to agree this is a Disproportionately LOW Number at 0.0013%

No, I still think I see a lot of news storys about licenced gun owners going bonkers.

And an exercise for the student, check out how many, on average, ordinary citizens going about there lawful business, get cut down in the street or other places by the above mentioned, every year , say over the last 20 years.

canadagirl
28-Mar-11, 01:27
I think there's a big difference between a 7 yr old getting a licence in order to go skeet/clay pigeon shooting, and a 7 yr old getting a licence to have a gun just because. The whole thing needs to be in context. I suspect they wouldn't give one to a kid who didn't have a sport related reason. Not very many years ago lots of kids shot at clay pigeons without benefit of a licence and I'm going to assume with new insurance and liability regs that is no longer possible, so they have to get the licence. So do you blame the insurance companies?

DeHaviLand
28-Mar-11, 01:35
I think there's a big difference between a 7 yr old getting a licence in order to go skeet/clay pigeon shooting, and a 7 yr old getting a licence to have a gun just because. The whole thing needs to be in context. I suspect they wouldn't give one to a kid who didn't have a sport related reason. Not very many years ago lots of kids shot at clay pigeons without benefit of a licence and I'm going to assume with new insurance and liability regs that is no longer possible, so they have to get the licence. So do you blame the insurance companies?

Your assumption is wrong and your question is, therefore, redundant.

canadagirl
28-Mar-11, 03:42
Kids are allowed to shoot at firing ranges there without a licence? Holy smokes! In America you can get an exemption (if the club has that coverage) for occasional use, but for regular use even kids have to have a licence. Just like for operating power watercraft.

upolian
28-Mar-11, 16:56
If a 7year old is responsible enough to own a gun then why isn't a 20 year old responsible enough to own a powerful car????? Referring to the 'how can we cut down crashes thread'

orkneycadian
28-Mar-11, 17:53
Probably because the 7 year old can only legally use said gun under adult supervision, whilst the 20 year old can act like a loony with all his / her mates in the back doing donuts in a supermarket carpark (see earlier You Tube postings)

If the 20 year old in the powerful car had to have his mum as passed driver on every outing, like the 7 year old with the gun would, then I expect a lot less road crashes as well.

Anfield
28-Mar-11, 18:46
“.. the 7 year old will not be allowed to actually have use of the shotgun without adult supervision.”


“..Someone who has been brought up from an early age to respect firearms in a controlled environment and is a competent and legitimate owner /user


But you can - all guns have to be locked away. There would be no way for the child to get hold of the gun unsupervised...


yes i would as the older members would have given them instruction on safety and and respect for a weapon

Quite a lot of assumptions about both 7 year olds and the people who supervise them.
Hindsight unfortunately has taught us that some people who legally own and use guns do have a predilection for misusing them. So how can we be so sure that 7 year olds, will not follow this pattern of gun misuse and add to the ever increasing toll of deaths caused by licensed gun holders

orkneycadian
28-Mar-11, 18:57
What is incredidibly difficult to fine online, is the split of incidents involving legally, and illegally held firearms and shotguns. I can find lots of other statistis for all sorts of other things, here (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs11/hosb0111.pdf) for example, but a simple legal / illegal split is very hard to find (read impossible for me so far!)

This page (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm) says it takes its data source as the report linked to earlier in this posting. It suggests that of the 40 homicides in England and Wales involving guns in 2009/2010, 28 involved handguns. As handguns are by definition, illegal to hold in the UK (with very few exceptions), then for a start 28 of the 40 are illegally held guns. 7 involved shotguns, but as shotguns can be legally held, it is not immediately clear how many of the 7 shotgun fatalities involved legally held guns, and how many illegally. My feeling is that the split is more likely to be inclined to the use of illegally held shotguns, reducing the number from legally held guns to a very low proportion of the total. Not zero I agree, but a very low figure.

The figures for Scotland (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF04.htm) show a different picture. For a start, the homicide totals are proprtionately much less than England and Wales. i.e. there are 10 times more folk in England / Wales as there are in Scotland, but the number of homicides in England / Wales is 20 times than in Scotland. Of the very few that are recorded for Scotland, its about 50/50 shotgun/handgun. Again, no indication of legally owned / illegally owned shotguns, but the very few instances of handgun homicides perhaps points to a very different gun culture in places like London and Manchester to what we have in Scotland.

The outcome of all this is that it appears to me that the vast majority of UK citizens who are fatally shot, are done so with illegally held guns. The absolute maximum number of fatalities in England Wales and Scotland from legally held guns would be 14. As the figures are presented as 2009/2010, my guess that the Cumbria ones are not included in these, as they occurred in June 2010. With a maximum of 14, I am hazarding a guess that the number of fatalities from legally held guns would be in the order of 2 or 3. OK, a few guesses there on my part, but I don't think they will be too many orders of magnitude out.

Back to the point of the thread. The juvenile mentioned would be holding a legally owned shotgun, therefore statistically much less likely to be involved in a homicide. Not impossible, I'll grant you, but in perspective, a very very low probability. Whether or not a legal owner is permitted or denied a certificate will have very little bearing on the majority of the homicide figures, as these are being carried out using illegally owned weapons. As Britains gun culture develops, its these illegal weapons we need to worry about, not the legally held ones.

I would welcome sight of a report that shows how the split of homicides is made up from illegal and legally held weapons. If anyone can point me to such a link / document, I would very much appreciate it!

bekisman
28-Mar-11, 19:48
Oh come on Anfield, I was out with my old man as a ten year old, shooting rabbits, I also had an air rifle and apart from my friend shooting me in the foot as a 9 year old (Kids!), no problems, I did not grow up shooting people.. oops sorry forgot I was in the Army for 15 years..
Never mind the winging about nutters who shoot folk with legal guns, need to sort this lot out:(Only this year though)
(Liverpool Echo)

15 Mar 2011 ... A DAD was found guilty of murdering a promising medical student for his stash of designer drugs.
21 Jul 2010 ... THREE men were remanded in custody in connection with the murder of a Liverpool University medical student.
21 Jan 2011 ... A MURDER hunt was underway today after a man was gunned down in a north Liverpool street.
14 Mar 2011 ... A MAN appeared in court accused of murdering a man found stabbed and strangled in his own home.
21 Jan 2011 ... A MURDER hunt was underway today after a man was gunned down in a north Liverpool street.
4 Mar 2011 ... A MAN was arrested on suspicion of murdering a Warrington man found stabbed and strangled in his own home.
25 Feb 2011 ... A FIFTH suspect this week was arrested over the street murder of Norris Green man Eddie Pybis.
28 Jan 2011 ... A MURDER investigation was launched today after a 40-year-
20 Jan 2011 ... A MAN was quizzed by murder squad detectives over the gangland execution of a Liverpool dad-of-three.
14 Feb 2011 ... A 20-YEAR-OLD man was in custody today after being arrested on suspicion of the “murder in the mist” killing of Liverpool FC fan Joey ...
5 Mar 2011 ... A MAN was arrested and charged with murder after police discovered the body of a 45-year-old man at a Merseyside address.
18 Jan 2011 ... During a trial into his brother's murder Barry Wootton said he sent anonymous emails to a woman that both he and Graham Wootton liked, ...
9 Feb 2011 ... TWO men were arrested in connection with the murder of Liverpool chef Colin Hughes and later released on bail.
5 Feb 2011 ... A WOMAN accused of murdering a convicted sex offender insisted it was her co-accused that was “laying into him”.
3 Feb 2011 ... A MAN denied the murder of another man who was found strangled.
1 Feb 2011 ... POLICE launched a murder investigation after disabled man was found strangled and stabbed in his home.
24 Feb 2011 ... A MURDER hunt was underway today after a man was gunned down outside a city pub.
8 Feb 2011 ... Two men have been arrested in connection with the murder of Colin Hughes in Old Swan, Liverpool.
22 Feb 2011 ... FOUR men appeared in court charged with murdering a dad-of-five.
2 Mar 2011 ... THE former doorman gunned down in an apparent execution outside a Liverpool pub A MAN was appearing in court today charged with the murder of a homeless Merseyside man.
29 Jan 2011 ... TWO men were arrested after Merseyside Police launched a murder investigation into the death of a 40-year-old man.
15 Mar 2011 ... Awan, 23, from Blyth, Northumberland, and Ness were convicted of conspiracy to murder police officers and the attempted murder of Pc ...
16 Mar 2011 ... A 34-year-old man arrested in Camden, north London, on suspicion of his murder was bailed by police in December to return to a north London ...
16 Mar 2011... his killing by ensuring he was drugged and allowing Howell into her home. They found the mother of two guilty on two counts of murder. ...
12 Mar 2011 ... Jury retire in Muneeb Naseer murder trial. Mar 12 2011; Man admits delivering fatal blow to man with learning difficulties ...
14 Mar 2011 ... Mar 6 2011; Murder victim Bahman Faraji fled to UK after being tortured in Iran Mar 2 2011

barmar62
28-Mar-11, 19:59
Looked out my kitchen window today to see a young boy, about 14 years old carrying a shot gun !

ducati
28-Mar-11, 20:11
A certain Mr Bird would have beggered up your averages for 2010/11. Killed 12 injured 11 and then himself.

orkneycadian
28-Mar-11, 20:22
Most true. Fortunately, that doesn't happen every year.

ducati
28-Mar-11, 20:26
But it has happened, in several of the last 20 years, that has been my point.

equusdriving
28-Mar-11, 20:33
No, I still think I see a lot of news storys about licenced gun owners going bonkers.

And an exercise for the student, check out how many, on average, ordinary citizens going about there lawful business, get cut down in the street or other places by the above mentioned, every year , say over the last 20 years.

Couldnt find any stastistics on that but did find these Statistics released by the Government in its Reported Road Casualties Results 2009 reveal there were 472 motorcyclist deaths in 2009 (and neatrly all of them were licensed)

orkneycadian
28-Mar-11, 20:39
But it has happened, in several of the last 20 years, that has been my point.

It indeed has. But its like having a coach crash with multiple fatalities every now and again. Ordinarily, road fatalities happen in small numbers - 1, 2, 4, that sort of thing. Every now and again, a coach or a train comes to grief and the number is 10 or 20 or more. Or its a plane and its 100 or 200 or more. But that doesn't stop us travelling in planes, trains and coaches (couldn't quite get that pun to work....), or calling for them to be banned!

In all statistics there will be variations from year to year. Mr Bird showed that the same year to year variation can apply to folk flipping their lid with a gun as it does to train travel. Even in a year when there is a statistical blip in gun deaths, it is still many many times lower than the average year for motorcycle deaths.

equusdriving
28-Mar-11, 20:44
it is still many many times lower than the average year for motorcycle deaths.

One per cent of traffic is down to bikers but they account for fourteen per cent of road deaths and serious injuries, so should they be banned ? No of course not

ducati
28-Mar-11, 20:45
It indeed has. But its like having a coach crash with multiple fatalities every now and again. Ordinarily, road fatalities happen in small numbers - 1, 2, 4, that sort of thing. Every now and again, a coach or a train comes to grief and the number is 10 or 20 or more. Or its a plane and its 100 or 200 or more. But that doesn't stop us travelling in planes, trains and coaches (couldn't quite get that pun to work....), or calling for them to be banned!

In all statistics there will be variations from year to year. Mr Bird showed that the same year to year variation can apply to folk flipping their lid with a gun as it does to train travel. Even in a year when there is a statistical blip in gun deaths, it is still many many times lower than the average year for motorcycle deaths.

Yes but people might choose to ride a bike or go on a train or a plane and there is a statistical risk which, if they think about, you accept. Being shot at random by a looney that has been approved to have a gun is not something you tend to think about as a normal risk of going about your daily life. The comparisons you are making make no sense.

Phill
28-Mar-11, 20:56
So the next question is: If we ban all guns, shotguns, airguns etc. will that stop the loony with a gun going about and taking pot shots?
Or will it just make a technical difference and the outcome the same.

orkneycadian
28-Mar-11, 21:02
Being shot at random by a looney that has been approved to have a gun is not something you tend to think about as a normal risk of going about your daily life.

Because, they are so much lower than the other risks you illustrate. Theres a small risk that one of the 25 idle satellites banging about above Caithness might come crashing down, and with a slight southerly wind, might kill me. But the odds are so long, I can't say it stops me going outside!


So the next question is: If we ban all guns, shotguns, airguns etc. will that stop the loony with a gun going about and taking pot shots?
Or will it just make a technical difference and the outcome the same.

There might be a potential very minor reduction in gun deaths in the country, but alas eclipsed by the rise in deaths from illegal handguns as drug barons, gangs and general neds run riot. Oh, and we'll be over-run with foxes, geese and rabbits! ;)

ducati
28-Mar-11, 23:18
I'm not argueing for a ban. I'm just pointing out that it's hard to go loopey and run riot with a chimney :lol:

Although a phsyc. test as part of the licence application would seem to be sensible, and let's make it retrospective....just in case.:Razz

Phill
29-Mar-11, 00:29
I'm just pointing out that it's hard to go loopey and run riot with a chimney

You've not lived!!!

_Ju_
29-Mar-11, 09:36
Familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds complacency. When we become complacent over the ever increasing acess and use of guns (legally and illegally), we will also become complacent about the violence puposfully perpetrated with them and the accidents that happen with them. As more people become exposed to guns and at younger ages, they will become more and more common. As they become (legally and illegally) more comon in the general public, it will become necessary for the police to be armed as well. A few generations down the line, we might be living in a society with very similair values and statistics to the USA. I prefer that acess to guns be something difficult and remarkable in it's rarity. And, to me, licencing a 7 year old or minor of any age makes no sense as does holding guns in the home.

orkneycadian
29-Mar-11, 13:42
Although a phsyc. test as part of the licence application would seem to be sensible, and let's make it retrospective....just in case.:Razz

I think you might be surprised how much checking like this is done already. You have to give permission for the police to contact your GP to discuss your medical history, with particular reference to any mental health issues, the police come you your house and check you out, as police, they already know everything you have been up to and if you have a tendency to get bladdered on a Saturday night and pick fights, etc. Certificates last for 5 years, then the process repeats. Of course, certificates can be revoked at any time if they have a valid reason to do so. Its already a very tightly regulated matter.


Familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds complacency. When we become complacent over the ever increasing acess and use of guns (legally and illegally), we will also become complacent about the violence puposfully perpetrated with them and the accidents that happen with them. As more people become exposed to guns and at younger ages, they will become more and more common. As they become (legally and illegally) more comon in the general public, it will become necessary for the police to be armed as well. A few generations down the line, we might be living in a society with very similair values and statistics to the USA. I prefer that acess to guns be something difficult and remarkable in it's rarity. And, to me, licencing a 7 year old or minor of any age makes no sense as does holding guns in the home.

I would be surprised if any of these predictions ever come true. Firstly, guns will not (legally) become more prevalent "just because" - Remember, to legally hold a gun you have to demonstrate justifiable reason, and maintain that reason. Legally owned guns cannot multiply in ownership "just because everyone else has one". However, that might be the case with illegally held guns, particularly in the more shady areas of society.

I can predict that the police will become armed - Some already are. But that will be in response to the rise in illegal weapons in the possession of shady characters who are more than happy to take a shot at a police officer. Remember, these characters usually have a lot more than an illegal handgun to hide!

Gun ownership is indeed a rarity, and certainly very difficult. Bear in mind that the Olympic Shooting squads (pistol and rapid fire) have had to leave the UK or go to Northern Ireland to train, so restrictive are the rules. How that works with the 2012 Olympics, I am not sure (not checked). But I think its fair to say that if sportsmen have to leave our country to train for an event in our country, then our laws are pretty tight! I can't see it being anything other than tighter, so the prediction that in a few years, we will be like the USA will never happen in relation to legally held guns. Illegally held ones are a different story though, and as long as we have a wooly approach to immigration (where folk can come and go relatively freely in and out of our boundaries, complete with their criminal activities illegal weapons), and a ridiculously soft approach to murder convicts, then its the illegal ones that will be the major recurring problem, year on year.

John Little
29-Mar-11, 20:24
Bit ironic maybe, as by your signature link you seem to like Che Guevara - one of the most murderous gunman in South America

Ah now - I cannot agree with that tag. There was far more to Guevara than just a gunman. If I had been in Guatemala in 1954 and seen the CIA come steaming in to overthrow a democratically elected government in the interests of the United Fruit Company then I think that I too might have been rather radicalised by the experience. Guevara's stance was a creation of US foreign policy towards Latin America after 1828 - because after that date they intervened in every single country south of them - and in some more than once. I've read some stuff on the CIA in the 40s and 50s and the likes of Kermit Roosevelt and Miles Copeland thought they could get away with anything.

They got away with stopping a government implementing a much needed land reform, buying it compulsorily from a foreign banana company and selling it, with subsidies, to peasants. Ask me who was on the side of the angels, Roosevelt or Guevara and I would choose Guevara.

bekisman
29-Mar-11, 21:15
Hmm sounds a delightful chap..

It is ironic that this Communist lout should be such a huge source of income for T-shirt sellers in the free world. It is likely that many of the people who flaunt his face across their chest have no idea of the barbaric acts this man committed in the name of his beliefs.

Che Guevara and bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed balistic missiles which precipitated the 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis..
During the guerrilla campaign, Guevara was also responsible for the sometimes summary execution of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies. "The situation was uncomfortable for the people and for Eutimio so I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain, with exit orifice in the right temporal lobe" Conversely, Jacobo Machover, an exiled opposition author, dismisses the hero-worshipping and portrays him as a ruthless executioner.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#cite_note-Machover-224) Detractors have theorized that in much of Latin America, Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism and internecine conflict for many years.

In an assessment of Guevara, British historian Hugh Thomas opines that Che was a "brave, sincere and determined man who was also obstinate, narrow, and dogmatic." At the end of his life, according to Thomas, "he seems to have become convinced of the virtues of violence for its own sake", while "his influence over Castro for good or evil" grew after his death, as Fidel took up many of his views.

In Thomas' assessment "as in the case ofMarti or Lawrence of Arabia, failure has brightened, not dimmed the legend."Alvaro Varges Llosa of The independent Institute has hypothesized that Guevara’s contemporary followers "delude themselves by clinging to a myth", while describing Guevara as "Marxist Puritan" who employed his rigid power to suppress dissent, while also operating as a "cold-blooded killing machine". Llosa has also accused Guevara's "fanatical disposition" as being the linchpin of the "Sovietization" of the Cuban revolution, speculating that he possessed a "total subordination of reality to blind ideological orthodoxy." Guevara remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exciles and Cuban-American community of the United States, who view him with animosity as "the butcher of La Cabana."The real Guevara was a reckless bourgeois adrenaline-junkie seeking a place in history as a liberator of the oppressed. But this fanatic’s vehicle of “liberation” was Stalinism, named for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, murderer of well over 20 million of his own people. As one of Castro’s top lieutenants, Che helped steer Cuba’s revolutionary regime in a radically repressive direction. Soon after overthrowing Batista, Guevara choreographed the executions of hundreds of Batista officials without any fair trials. He thought nothing of summarily executing even fellow guerrillas suspected of disloyalty and shot one himself with no due process".

The exact number of Che’s Cuban victims has not been verified, but include people he personally executed and those put to death under his orders. Che’s biographers consistently report that he sent thousands to the firing squad. Over 4,000 deaths are documented to have taken place in Cuba, mostly firing squad execution, in the first three years after Fidel Castro’s takeover (1959-1962). Che Guevara was one of the regime’s chief executioners during this period and is said to have acknowledged ordering “several thousand” executions. All took place without affording the victims fair trials and due process of law.

John Little
29-Mar-11, 21:25
You make my point most eloquently. As you demonstrate in your usual thorough fashion, there was far more to him than just murderous gunman.

You misunderstand me Bekisman; I am not defending Guevara, nor am I lauding him. But he was a creature of his time and created by forces outside his society.

The CIA supported people who were just as ruthless if not more so than Guevara. I recall one of the Us's best buddies was Anastasio Somoza who used to drop his political opponents out of helicopters into volcanoes... Another was Batista - a vicious little beast who ran Cuba.

I neither condemn nor applaud Guevara- but I think I understand why he was the way he was.

Communist he may have been - but lout? He was a very highly educated man.

ducati
29-Mar-11, 21:26
Insightful filum is Motorcycle Diaries. Gives a good account of his early years as a doctor travelling through South America with his friend and biographer (whos name escapes me but he only died recently). He was well on the way to becoming radicalised by the experiences he had during this period.

Phill
29-Mar-11, 21:38
:eek:

From 7 year olds with a gun licence to Che Guevara in one thread, Oh what a circus.

John Little
29-Mar-11, 21:43
I blame Bekisman for thread drift!

It wasn't me guv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86LSuXi5TLU&feature=related

bekisman
29-Mar-11, 22:03
Sorry folks - lost it again.. I see Tesco............... nah

John Little
29-Mar-11, 22:06
Tescos was founded by a gunman.... (back to thread)...

northener
29-Mar-11, 22:22
:eek:

From 7 year olds with a gun licence to Che Guevara in one thread, Oh what a circus.

'Oh what a circus'...didn't David Essex do a cover version of that?

Phill
29-Mar-11, 22:37
'Oh what a circus'...didn't David Essex do a cover version of that?
And Hank Marvin, but he didn't play a convincing Che :confused

ducati
04-Apr-11, 12:43
Er I noticed a while ago a thread about wanting a shotgun. And the threadies were asking each other if they have a licence. So I assume it is left to licence holders to police the licence of the person they are selling or passing a gun to?

orkneycadian
04-Apr-11, 13:04
In the first instance yes. But both parties are legally obliged to notify the police of the transaction. To not do so is an offence.

So if you legally held the gun, it would be in your interests to check the certificate of the buyer, and then notify the police. If you don't, then theres a fair chance you would lose your certification and have to surrender any other guns you have. And get "done" under the generic "firearms offences" charge.