Mighty Gem

"Let people have as many guns as they wish,
just severly restrict the sale of ammunition."

Er, quite a few people make their own ammo. It's called reloading.

I guess the problem is that most of the world just doesn't get America. :ugh:

MightyGem
Let people have as many guns as they wish, just severly restrict the sale of ammunition.

What rubbish, what about people who reload ammunition, from your location in the UK I guess you are another one of those ill informed gun control nuts.

F900 Ex

That comment, about restricting ammo is IMHO
always a dead giveaway.

Gov't restricts ammo sales, then just buy the ammo factory.
Plenty of private people in the US can produce hundreds of thousands
of rounds a day, and that's not counting individuals who can produce
1000 rounds an hour on a manual machine. 6 of the in a row and
you have a good set up !

Well, the UK never had a problem with handguns until the gummt banned them in one of their irrational brainstorms . As soon as that happened there was an explosion of illegally held handguns being used in crimes and a whole new industry of importing and distributing them sprang up. Why? Because banning made them "bad" and thus trendy - and suddenly the must have accessory for every unemployed bum in a gang...

It isn't legally held weapons that are the problem so please don't punish responsible legal owners. That is undemocratic, irrational and bloody unfair.

AB

And the other thing is, as soon as you "ban" something like a pistol,
the price goes sky high which makes them much more attractive
because of the profit margin, which then feeds itself as more people
get intot he act of importing / selling them.


"don't punish responsible legal owners."

The problem is here, pollies like to be seen to be doing something
and they can't crack down in one fell swoop on crims because the
crims ignore them so they crack down on the LAFO's.

It always amazes me how a doctor, Harold Shipman can murder 200+ innocent victims, football hooligans with violence, cars killing people every day but when does the media and politicions spout of about banning these.

But as soon as guns are involved every tree hugging gun control nut comes out of the woodwork looking for their 15 minutes of fame trying to ban everything.

Im a legal gun owner in the UK. I just dont like the fact billy bob and his half sister-mother are entitled to walk round Ok with a loaded pistol in public if they attend a safety course.

I have no issue with sensible people owning sensible weapons. I have a big issue with civilians thinking they need semi and fully automatic weapons, including pistols, when they are capable of complete carnage.

Now I may be wrong, but the Newtown killings were done with legally owned weapons.

"Bloody unfair". I guess it isn't bloody unfair that 20 innocent kids were robbed of their lives.

VinRouge
I have no issue with sensible people owning sensible weapons. I have a big issue with civilians thinking they need semi and fully automatic weapons, including pistols, when they are capable of complete carnage.

Well I live in the UK as well and hold all you mentioned except for fully automatic weapons and I am a civilian and licenced to hold what I have, including pistols, so your point is?

CGB

The nutcase doing the shooting did not legally own the guns he used. He killed his mother to get them, and she was a legal gun owner. No amount of checks and legislation on his mother would have prevented that nutcase from getting at his mother's legally owned guns once he decided to do that. Criminals are like that, they don't obey the law!

"No amount of checks and legislation on his mother would have prevented that nutcase from getting at his mother's legally owned guns once he decided to do that."

You are correct. However, if his mother did not have a gun, he would have had to go through a much more rigourous process in order to kill a load of children. And in the end, he might have settled for a w@nk!

Duncs:ok:

DDS
You are correct. However, if his mother did not have a gun, he would have had to go through a much more rigourous process in order to kill a load of children. And in the end, he might have settled for a w@nk!

No he wouldn't he would have just gone somewhere else to easily find a gun and commit the same crime because that was the way his mind was programmed, you cannot legislate for nut cases, and if he couldn't find a gun he would have used a knife, petrol bomb, car, baseball bat, where do you stop legislating.

May I ask what, why, and also how.

In my naivety I though pistols were banned.

PN
May I ask what, why, and also how.
In my naivety I though pistols were banned.

Colt 1911, 357 Taurus, AR 15, because I can, target disciplines, legally.
Not in all parts of the UK

F900 Ex,

That's the whole point. He would have had to go somewhere else. Not picked up a gun in his own house where - I suspect - he knew where it was. He would have had to do more. Maybe, just maybe, that would have been enough to make him do something else. I guess that we will never know.

Duncs:ok:

Duncan

On that point then, because a group of terrorists hijacked
4 planes and did what they did, we ban all private flying ?

Banning everything on the basis of "if she didn't have the guns
he would have done something else", is crap.

I'm not suggesting a ban.

I'm not suggesting a ban; I'm simply commenting on the posts of others.

"If his Mum didn't have a gun, he'd just have got one from someone else" doesn't wash with me. Everyone gets pissed off at some point; those with 'more issues' are, IMHO, more likely to do something like Newtown if it is as easy as it appears to be to get weapons in the US. If it is a bit more difficult, it might be less likely to happen. That, however, is only one side of the arguement. No doubt, if everyone at Newtown was armed, it may not have happened either.

That said, it doesn't affect me. I sleep easy at night knowing that it is most unlikely that I am going to be a victim of gun crime - whether legally owned or not. Moreover, I have already indicated that this issue needs to be resolved by those in the US, and I will accept whatever they choose - because I can't do anything about it.

Duncs:ok:

DDS
That's the whole point. He would have had to go somewhere else. Not picked up a gun in his own house where - I suspect - he knew where it was. He would have had to do more. Maybe, just maybe, that would have been enough to make him do something else. I guess that we will never know.


Of course move the problem somewhere else, as I said you will never ever legislate for the nut cases, so why penalise the law abiding.

If you are going to penalise law abiding gun holders lets start using that principle for all other walks of life, murdering doctors, football hooligans, knife crime, killer drivers, pub landlords for supplying alcohol.