14 Dead In Batman Movie Shooting

[TRL]

Yes, so in addition to blowing someone's head off the other useful purposes for guns we've now got are pretending to blow someone's head off for sport, pretending to blow a bird's head off for sport, or blowing an animal's head off?

Look if people want to go shooting guns for their own enjoyment at carefully secured clubs, that's fine with me so long as they aren't allowed to have them at home or in public.

But let's stop pretending eh? Useful - nope - flimsy excuses at best.

Pest control or putting down horses - poison and bolt guns. Easy.

fair nough, but can you let me know your opinion on darts

Baseball bats

cricket bats

That goes for tins too

All lethal weapons in the wrong hands, all used in violent attacks, more than guns, all used just for recreational sport. Should they be locked up, after all ,unlike a locked up gun, you could go and pick one of these up and stove someones head in in minutes, with out the safe guards that are put in place when owning fire arms.

By your reckoning, many recreational sports that we know and love in this country should be stopped or utensils used locked up in a club house under secure facilities, after all, these Baseball bats, Cricket bats etc are used a hell of a lot in violent crime!

[TRL]

So people should be allowed guns to kill foxes and badgers and put down horses?

There is other way to kill things, plus it still doesn't make the gun "useful" to the average person.

Gun's shouldn't be allowed unless totally needed. Poison kills most animals, bolt guns are used for horses.

My point is people shouldn't be allowed them unless in a secure environment.

I think you are trolling cause I bet you do none of the things you have said a gun is "useful" for.

Farmers still have them just for this. you can't poison pheasants as you then can't sell them on to eat (just an example), most birds that fly get shot, granted you may not eat these types of meat, but many do.

At the end of the day, guns in the UK are held in a secure environment, i am guessing you know nothing about it, or you wouldn't be making anything of it if you actually knew.

Most bad things that happen with guns are with illegal guns, and there is nothing you can do about that, as we do not live in a utopia.

[Nibor]

fair nough, but can you let me know your opinion on darts

Baseball bats

cricket bats

That goes for tins too

All lethal weapons in the wrong hands, all used in violent attacks, more than guns, all used just for recreational sport. Should they be locked up, after all ,unlike a locked up gun, you could go and pick one of these up and stove someones head in in minutes, with out the safe guards that are put in place when owning fire arms.

By your reckoning, many recreational sports that we know and love in this country should be stopped or utensils used locked up in a club house under secure facilities, after all, these Baseball bats, Cricket bats etc are used a hell of a lot in violent crime!

No, not by my reckoning, by your strawman argument.

Guns have one single purpose - to kill.

None of those other items you mention have that single purpose.

None of those other items you mention are anywhere even remotely approaching as lethal as a gun.

There's a reason the murder rate per capita in a gun lax yet developed and prosperous country like the USA is three times as high as ours.

I wonder if you can figure it out?

[Mr Mosquito]

If the German people still had possession of their guns circa 1939, 6 million jews would still be alive today. That is why the founding fathers of America gave every American the inalienable right to bear arms. If a murdering nutcase like Hitler ever rose to power, they had the right tools to protect their families and take their country back.

If a nutcase is hell bent on killing a whole bunch of people, banning guns is not going to stop them.There are a thousand ways to kill people besides guns. For example, you can make a bomb capable of killings hundreds using nothing more than a kiddies chemistry set and the liquids under the kitchen sink.

Guns are not inherently evil or harmful. They are an extremely useful tool to have, and banning them won't make one bit of difference in preventing atrocities like this because the bad guys still end up owning guns whether they're legal or not. So what is better for society.....Good people AND bad people owning guns, or just the bad people owning guns.?

Gun laws need to be more relaxed, especially in the UK.

Sensible comments Sir, there is real substance in what you write as explained by the following captions..........

[TRL]

No, not by my reckoning, by your strawman argument.

Guns have one single purpose - to kill.

None of those other items you mention have that single purpose.

None of those other items you mention are anywhere even remotely approaching as lethal as a gun.

There's a reason the murder rate per capita in a gun lax yet developed and prosperous country like the USA is three times as high as ours.

I wonder if you can figure it out?

That my friend is utter bollocks, some guns are designed to kill, such as army issue, colts magnums etc.

Others like anschutz target rifles etc, are designed to aim at paper targets, and not ones with humans drawn on them.

But clearly you think all guns are designed with the purpose to kill. So I shall leave this argument, as you clearly have a very one dimensional view of firearms. I.e, they are all built with the aim to kill. You could not be further from the truth.

But I will leave you in your little world of all guns are designed to kill. Open your eyes mate. I think you need to read up on your subject matter.

[Nibor]

That my friend is utter bollocks, some guns are designed to kill, such as army issue, colts magnums etc.

Others like anschutz target rifles etc, are designed to aim at paper targets, and not ones with humans drawn on them.

But clearly you think all guns are designed with the purpose to kill. So I shall leave this argument, as you clearly have a very one dimensional view of firearms. I.e, they are all built with the aim to kill. You could not be further from the truth.

But I will leave you in your little world of all guns are designed to kill. Open your eyes mate. I think you need to read up on your subject matter.

I find it amusing that when someone obviously can't answer the points made they respond by focusing everyone's attention on a bit of trivia and flouncing out.

Firstly, what about the rest? Can you come up with a valid reason for having a gun on your person or in the home? Can you explain why a private citizen needs to own one? Can you explain how you would prevent the prevalence of guns from escalating violence to death? Can you explain why the USA's violent death rate is three times ours?

Second, bollocks. Guns are designed to kill, they fire an object at high speed, they are deadly. You can split hairs over some fine points of design if you like, it's beside the point.

[Duesseldorf Citizen]

Just compare the numbers of firearm killing from the US with just any other country with gun control.

Enough said, no discussion necessary.

[TRL]

I find it amusing that when someone obviously can't answer the points made they respond by focusing everyone's attention on a bit of trivia and flouncing out.

Firstly, what about the rest? Can you come up with a valid reason for having a gun on your person or in the home? Can you explain why a private citizen needs to own one? Can you explain how you would prevent the prevalence of guns from escalating violence to death? Can you explain why the USA's violent death rate is three times ours?

Second, bollocks. Guns are designed to kill, they fire an object at high speed, they are deadly. You can split hairs over some fine points of design if you like, it's beside the point.

Already answered your questions why its safer to keep in the home, you seem to have ignored them every time, apart from an expensive non solution as you seem to know little about firearms.

I've explained how much more difficult to stop a moment of madness by how you lock them up. How America does it is plain wrong as I have already stated. If you pre plan to kill with a gun in this country, that is different, and you will more likely get an illegal gun, so it can't be traced back to your license. If the us followed our gun control ideas, rather than their lax measures, things would be remarkably different.

Okay I'll give you cross and longbows, many more powerful than guns., all designed primarily to kill. Should they be banned?

[Nibor]

Already answered your questions why its safer to keep in the home, you seem to have ignored them every time, apart from an expensive non solution as you seem to know little about firearms.

With a complete lack of logic, which I pointed out. I also pointed out why it was more economical to keep them securely at a range, and you ignored that too. And now you're falling back on a baseless assertion that I know little about firearms just because I don't agree with you that they have any place whatsoever outside secure ranges/clubs. It's pretty indicative of a shit argument to be honest.

I've explained how much more difficult to stop a moment of madness by how you lock them up. How America does it is plain wrong as I have already stated. If you pre plan to kill with a gun in this country, that is different, and you will more likely get an illegal gun, so it can't be traced back to your license. If the us followed our gun control ideas, rather than their lax measures, things would be remarkably different.

Do you really need explaining how half arsed that theory is? Of course sensible people will lock them up. And those that aren't? The people who walk around with them despite legislation?

And the pre-meditated psychos like Derrick Bird? Someone going postal with any other type of weapon isn't going to do nearly as much damage. What you haven't done is managed to explain in any way why someone needs ownership or possession of a gun. Not one sensible explanation that doesn't have better alternatives.

Okay I'll give you cross and longbows, many more powerful than guns., all designed primarily to kill. Should they be banned?

They're nowhere near as lethal as a gun, they can't be used effectively by amateurs and are there even any recorded incidents in the modern era of them being used violently?

No, they shouldn't be banned. Guns should though.

I think your views are just massively biased because you are an ex hobbyist shooter and they lack any logical reaso

[TRL]

With a complete lack of logic, which I pointed out. I also pointed out why it was more economical to keep them securely at a range, and you ignored that too. And now you're falling back on a baseless assertion that I know little about firearms just because I don't agree with you that they have any place whatsoever outside secure ranges/clubs. It's pretty indicative of a shit argument to be honest.

Do you really need explaining how half arsed that theory is? Of course sensible people will lock them up. And those that aren't? The people who walk around with them despite legislation?

And the pre-meditated psychos like Derrick Bird? Someone going postal with any other type of weapon isn't going to do nearly as much damage. What you haven't done is managed to explain in any way why someone needs ownership or possession of a gun. Not one sensible explanation that doesn't have better alternatives.

They're nowhere near as lethal as a gun, they can't be used effectively by amateurs and are there even any recorded incidents in the modern era of them being used violently?

No, they shouldn't be banned. Guns should though.

I think your views are just massively biased because you are an ex hobbyist shooter and they lack any logical reaso

You keep coming back to this store them.altogether argument, ludicrous expensive, and just doesn't work, someone will have to sign the guns in and, meaning they need to know every single members gun. Otherwise you are suggesting all members have access to this safe area! Now if you were unlucky enough to have a fruitloop member, he now had access to a plethora of guns.... Great idea, well thought out. Alternative scenario, someone takes you to said gun club, wanting the guns, you now have access to more than one gun. It may make sense to you. But it makes zero sense in practice. Things like this work in the army or police force as you have a full time quater master to sign guns in or out.

You clearly know little about archery either, the power some of those bows is immense, and a lot more powerful than your bog standard recreational rifle or pistol. Granted, much harder to get on target than a rifle, pistols, they are different, not quite so accurate as they seem in the movies, unless you really know how to handle them, one thing is for certain, you won't hit much holding them on their side like some wide boy posing pimp! Dunno about recorded use of archery equipment, but then you had non for baseball bats and cricket bats vs guns in the UK.

My views maybe slightly biased as I used to shoot, you are correct, but then that allows me to see how they are stored and controlled, rather than dismissing them out of had as being built for violence, which granted, some are, and these should be kept only by police and army. If I were to rub amok with a .22 rifle, I would get maybe 1 shot away, before someone rammed it up my ass. With a pistol, maybe 6 shots. With a bat, well I'm sure I could get a few head shots away with indiscriminate swings.

The biggest issue I see is the type of gun. And there lays the difference between UK and US. A member of the public would not be allowed a machine gun, hell, hand guns are not allowed anymore.

But your stand point, if based on they are designed to kill, should also be the case for bows. Because they were designed to kill, and this seems to be the basis of your argument.

Recreational use of killing equipment should be banned, is your stand point, you cannot pick and choose.

Yes the use of guns is mainly for recreational hobbies or competitions. But why should that be banned? Smoking is a hobby that kills millions of passive smokers a year, and states that it kills. Plenty of things in this world that ate dangerous are based on hobbies.

So I'm sorry I just cannot agree with your standpoint either. It seems to change to help your standpoint. Either is can kill and it is a hobby so it should be banned, or it can kill and it is a hobby, but it is okay.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Already answered your questions why its safer to keep in the home, you seem to have ignored them every time, apart from an expensive non solution as you seem to know little about firearms.

I've explained how much more difficult to stop a moment of madness by how you lock them up. How America does it is plain wrong as I have already stated. If you pre plan to kill with a gun in this country, that is different, and you will more likely get an illegal gun, so it can't be traced back to your license. If the us followed our gun control ideas, rather than their lax measures, things would be remarkably different.

Okay I'll give you cross and longbows, many more powerful than guns., all designed primarily to kill. Should they be banned?

Expensive to who?.

[Nibor]

You keep coming back to this store them.altogether argument, ludicrous expensive, and just doesn't work, someone will have to sign the guns in and, meaning they need to know every single members gun. Otherwise you are suggesting all members have access to this safe area! Now if you were unlucky enough to have a fruitloop member, he now had access to a plethora of guns.... Great idea, well thought out. Alternative scenario, someone takes you to said gun club, wanting the guns, you now have access to more than one gun. It may make sense to you. But it makes zero sense in practice. Things like this work in the army or police force as you have a full time quater master to sign guns in or out.

What are you on about? I'm suggesting that the range owns the guns, they are only ever borrowed by a member, used under supervision and never leave the secure premises and that full time staff guard them and police each other. Far easier to do than check thousands of gun stores in people's homes annually and run a flawed licensing system. This is wholly more secure than the present system and more economical.

You clearly know little about archery either, the power some of those bows is immense, and a lot more powerful than your bog standard recreational rifle or pistol. Granted, much harder to get on target than a rifle, pistols, they are different, not quite so accurate as they seem in the movies, unless you really know how to handle them, one thing is for certain, you won't hit much holding them on their side like some wide boy posing pimp! Dunno about recorded use of archery equipment, but then you had non for baseball bats and cricket bats vs guns in the UK.

My views maybe slightly biased as I used to shoot, you are correct, but then that allows me to see how they are stored and controlled, rather than dismissing them out of had as being built for violence, which granted, some are, and these should be kept only by police and army. If I were to rub amok with a .22 rifle, I would get maybe 1 shot away, before someone rammed it up my ass. With a pistol, maybe 6 shots. With a bat, well I'm sure I could get a few head shots away with indiscriminate swings.

The biggest issue I see is the type of gun. And there lays the difference between UK and US. A member of the public would not be allowed a machine gun, hell, hand guns are not allowed anymore.

But your stand point, if based on they are designed to kill, should also be the case for bows. Because they were designed to kill, and this seems to be the basis of your argument.

This is a load of total rubbish for many different reasons.

Different weapons have different levels of lethality. It's got little do with how fast the projectile moves, everything to do with how easy they are to use, conceal and set up. I've not used a crossbow but I've used several different types of firearm and a bow, and I know what's a million times easier to use. Bows and crossbows aren't a problem and have nothing to do with it. Your idea that they all have to be treated the same is utter poppycock with no rational basis.

My point of view was not as simple as your strawman. I didn't say that if it was designed to kill it should be banned. I said that guns have that one single purpose and no other, and that guns were far more lethal, and this was in response to you gibbering on about cricket bats.... it's not relevant.

As for running amok with a 22, perhaps you should check what Derrick Bird used. What a silly comment.

Recreational use of killing equipment should be banned, is your stand point, you cannot pick and choose.

Yes the use of guns is mainly for recreational hobbies or competitions. But why should that be banned? Smoking is a hobby that kills millions of passive smokers a year, and states that it kills. Plenty of things in this world that ate dangerous are based on hobbies.

So I'm sorry I just cannot agree with your standpoint either. It seems to change to help your standpoint. Either is can kill and it is a hobby so it should be banned, or it can kill and it is a hobby, but it is okay.

I bloody well can pick and choose, it's called thinking, and that is not my standpoint it's your misunderstanding. As I've already told you, I was arguing against people suggesting our gun laws should be more lax. I don't know where you get the idiotic notion that you have to have one rule for every weapon you can dream up from but I can assure you it's not valid.

I am not saying that recreational use should be banned, how many ******* times? Here is my point, once more, so you can't misunderstand it: No private citizen has any valid reason whatsoever to own or possess a gun, or have one on their person outside of a secure range. It's not that hard to understand is it?

You haven't once managed to explain a legitimate reason for having a gun, you just keep going off on irrelevant tangents arguing against points I didn't actually make. If you want to convince somebody, try explaining why people should be allowed to keep a gun. Not why they shouldn't be allowed to play cricket or american rounders. Stick to the actual point.

[TRL]

What are you on about? I'm suggesting that the range owns the guns, they are only ever borrowed by a member, used under supervision and never leave the secure premises and that full time staff guard them and police each other. Far easier to do than check thousands of gun stores in people's homes annually and run a flawed licensing system. This is wholly more secure than the present system and more economical.

This is a load of total rubbish for many different reasons.

Different weapons have different levels of lethality. It's got little do with how fast the projectile moves, everything to do with how easy they are to use, conceal and set up. I've not used a crossbow but I've used several different types of firearm and a bow, and I know what's a million times easier to use. Bows and crossbows aren't a problem and have nothing to do with it. Your idea that they all have to be treated the same is utter poppycock with no rational basis.

My point of view was not as simple as your strawman. I didn't say that if it was designed to kill it should be banned. I said that guns have that one single purpose and no other, and that guns were far more lethal, and this was in response to you gibbering on about cricket bats.... it's not relevant.

As for running amok with a 22, perhaps you should check what Derrick Bird used. What a silly comment.

I bloody well can pick and choose, it's called thinking, and that is not my standpoint it's your misunderstanding. As I've already told you, I was arguing against people suggesting our gun laws should be more lax. I don't know where you get the idiotic notion that you have to have one rule for every weapon you can dream up from but I can assure you it's not valid.

I am not saying that recreational use should be banned, how many ******* times? Here is my point, once more, so you can't misunderstand it: No private citizen has any valid reason whatsoever to own or possess a gun, or have one on their person outside of a secure range. It's not that hard to understand is it?

You haven't once managed to explain a legitimate reason for having a gun, you just keep going off on irrelevant tangents arguing against points I didn't actually make. If you want to convince somebody, try explaining why people should be allowed to keep a gun. Not why they shouldn't be allowed to play cricket or american rounders. Stick to the actual point.

gonna have to agree to disagree.

there are many reasons both you and I could carry on with, i doubt either of us will change our own ideas on this.

Don't want to get into a usual petty mud slinging that can happen, that wasn't the reason I replied.

So I will go back to football. I should know not to talk about things like Guns or religion on a forum.

So i will sign off this thread

[Esmond Million's Bung]

gonna have to agree to disagree.

there are many reasons both you and I could carry on with, i doubt either of us will change our own ideas on this.

Don't want to get into a usual petty mud slinging that can happen, that wasn't the reason I replied.

So I will go back to football. I should know not to talk about things like Guns or religion on a forum.

So i will sign off this thread

EXPENSIVE TO WHO????????

[TRL]

EXPENSIVE TO WHO????????

A club I would suggest. Someone would have to host it. Not to those who own the firearms, who can still keep them is a designated secured cabinet. As they are not a required option, I doubt no one would invest, other than those who have experience days, those who own all the guns on their premises

STOP SHOUTING I have a headache

[Esmond Million's Bung]

A club I would suggest. Someone would have to host it. Not to those who own the firearms, who can still keep them is a designated secured cabinet. As they are not a required option, I doubt no one would invest, other than those who have experience days, those who own all the guns on their premises

STOP SHOUTING I have a headache

Some hobbies are expensive and if the law ever did change, although the club would have to pay initially ultimately it would be it's members that would pay and that is right and proper. I have to say apart from farmers and hunters, my feeling is nobody should be allowed to keep a firearm at home.

Why would anyone need to keep a firearm at home that they can only legally fire at a range anyway? and the transporting of that firearm to a range is a weak link in it's safe storage.

if you can afford a gun you can afford it's safe storage at a high security range with state of the art security arrangements, if not join a club and use one of theirs, all the fun of the fair with no personal risk.

IMO.

[TRL]

Some hobbies are expensive and if the law ever did change, although the club would have to pay initially ultimately it would be it's members that would pay and that is right and proper. I have to say apart from farmers and hunters, my feeling is nobody should be allowed to keep a firearm at home.

Why would anyone need to keep a firearm at home that they can only legally fire at a range anyway? and the transporting of that firearm to a range is a weak link in it's safe storage.

if you can afford a gun you can afford it's safe storage at a high security range with state of the art security arrangements, if not join a club and use one of theirs, all the fun of the fair with no personal risk.

IMO.

But your issue is with storage and transport. What happens here is you can keep the gun at home, leave the bolt at the club in one safe, leave ammo in another safe. Hence gun bolt and ammo never near one another at any point until you are at the range. I wouldn't be surprised if people were just as happy to keep guns all locked up together, as it takes away the responsibility of ownership somewhat, which I am not entirely sure is a good thing.

Imo so much safer than leaving the whole shebang at one point. Nothing worse than a single point of failure.

If you leave it all together, you are asking for trouble, split it all up, like what happens, then you have at worst, a lump of metal and wood.

Clearly you cannot legislate for someone that flips, but if you flip, you can use anything, wasn't there a bloke a few years ago that killed a couple of people with a samauri sword?

The thing is, if you completely ban guns you have not done anything. After all drugs are banned, if you want them you can get them.

Anyway, my last say on this subject.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But your issue is with storage and transport. What happens here is you can keep the gun at home, leave the bolt at the club in one safe, leave ammo in another safe. Hence gun bolt and ammo never near one another at any point until you are at the range. I wouldn't be surprised if people were just as happy to keep guns all locked up together, as it takes away the responsibility of ownership somewhat, which I am not entirely sure is a good thing.

Imo so much safer than leaving the whole shebang at one point. Nothing worse than a single point of failure.

If you leave it all together, you are asking for trouble, split it all up, like what happens, then you have at worst, a lump of metal and wood.

Clearly you cannot legislate for someone that flips, but if you flip, you can use anything, wasn't there a bloke a few years ago that killed a couple of people with a samauri sword?

The thing is, if you completely ban guns you have not done anything. After all drugs are banned, if you want them you can get them.

Anyway, my last say on this subject.

it all depends on the the type, strength and sophistication of the storage. Quarries where huge quantities of explosives are stored in magazines for instance by their very nature are remote and rural and so you would believe very vulnerable, yet with very few exceptions and even during the height of the IRA UK mainland initiative has there been a major breach of security, because of the quality of construction, the level of security and laws and regulations set in place, so it can be done.

IMO.

[Rednready]

At 70 and the senior poster on Otib and possibly the only poster who has lived in the USA for 15 years, Australia for 16 years, Asia for 3 years and been in a front line war for 2 years, I will add the following and only post.

I had a great gun collection in the USA and they had a hunting season, state by state regulated to the number of critters. Missouri had 155,000 deer killed with permissible tags for one season. The following year the deer population was up. If allowed to breed and live, the grasses meant for cattle, sheep, buffalo and elk would be at risk. The corn and wheat crops would be lowered. That's the mid west.

Lets go to the cities. The highest number of pistols sold in major cities are sold to women over 55. Why , because they are targets. Most robbers being African Americans and Mexican gangs looking for easy drug money.

Sure there are white cocas-ion house breakers, but consider this. If someone invades your house or property and you are " threatened ", you are within your rights to shoot and kill them on your property. That keeps the level of home attack to a minimum, because most assailants assume they will face an armed occupant.

The mental deficient' s responsible for mass killings are imo products of the wider American movie and media hollywood garbage productions. At the other end of the scale, who do you blame for Islamic suicide bombings killing thousands across the world every year. Drive by bombings in Iraq and Aghanistan, is it the desire for a bunch of virgins ?

All of us have an opinion, but not I, TRL or Nibor have the definitive answer and I have always respected their opinions.

I currently am down to an old collectable Bowie knife and an old English long bow with target and hunting arrows, fully legal in England as are power cross bows.

I live in a Veterans Medical Military apartment block which was recently visited twice by some new African refugees. They were after money from old helpless men, just a day in the life of an old man.

The English Long bow still works as a deterrent.

[Barrs Court Red]

Just compare the numbers of firearm killing from the US with just any other country with gun control.

Enough said, no discussion necessary.

Not true

[Red-Robbo]

At 70 and the senior poster on Otib and possibly the only poster who has lived in the USA for 15 years, Australia for 16 years, Asia for 3 years and been in a front line war for 2 years, I will add the following and only post.

I had a great gun collection in the USA and they had a hunting season, state by state regulated to the number of critters. Missouri had 155,000 deer killed with permissible tags for one season. The following year the deer population was up. If allowed to breed and live, the grasses meant for cattle, sheep, buffalo and elk would be at risk. The corn and wheat crops would be lowered. That's the mid west.

Lets go to the cities. The highest number of pistols sold in major cities are sold to women over 55. Why , because they are targets. Most robbers being African Americans and Mexican gangs looking for easy drug money.

Sure there are white cocas-ion house breakers, but consider this. If someone invades your house or property and you are " threatened ", you are within your rights to shoot and kill them on your property. That keeps the level of home attack to a minimum, because most assailants assume they will face an armed occupant.

The mental deficient' s responsible for mass killings are imo products of the wider American movie and media hollywood garbage productions. At the other end of the scale, who do you blame for Islamic suicide bombings killing thousands across the world every year. Drive by bombings in Iraq and Aghanistan, is it the desire for a bunch of virgins ?

All of us have an opinion, but not I, TRL or Nibor have the definitive answer and I have always respected their opinions.

I currently am down to an old collectable Bowie knife and an old English long bow with target and hunting arrows, fully legal in England as are power cross bows.

I live in a Veterans Medical Military apartment block which was recently visited twice by some new African refugees. They were after money from old helpless men, just a day in the life of an old man.

The English Long bow still works as a deterrent.

Nothing wrong with home protection, but why does anyone need to own a semi-automatic weapon? Who do they think is going to invade their home - the Medellin Cartel?

You can't uninvent guns in the States, but by banning the most lethal types of weapons, making hunters registered and properly regulated and limiting other households to one gun (only bought after certain criteria were satisfied) - other weapons owned for fun could be kept at gun clubs like they are in the UK - then you would save literally thousands of lives.

Nearly 9,000 were murdered with guns in the US last year whereas 39 people lost their lives in this way in the UK.

Easy access to OTT firearms and lax regulation of how they are kept means that the US gun death rate per head of population is only just behind South africa, El Salvador and Colombia.

Not a record a 'civillised' country should be proud of.

Deer damage crops in the UK too, but we tend to control them with culls from qualified professional marksmen, rather than by having tens of thousands of amateurs with weapons blundering about the woods.

[bucksred]

Well, duh! Stating the bleeding obvious. Arguments like "Dave down the road has a gun and hasn't shot anyone yet" are absolute lunacy.

There are lots of dangerous people out there that can't control their tempers, if they had easier access to guns we'd have many, many more tragedies. Guns escalate violence to a lethal level very quickly.

You categorically cannot devise a system that identifies these dangerous people well enough to be safe.

So it's simple: Nobody needs a gun, nobody gets one.

It's not like the USA where there are vast numbers in circulation, we should never, ever introduce that massive problem over here.

If people want to own guns, let them **** off over to the states and live with the rednecks.

Wrong there Nibor, possession of firearms aint the problem, its the inadequate checking done by the useless police, whereever they are in the world. Over 98% of gunowners are responsible. They shouldnt be made to pay in a knee jerk reaction, which wont lead to significant drop in deathtolls from the nutter brigade..

PS I aint a redneck...

[Nibor]

Wrong there Nibor, possession of firearms aint the problem, its the inadequate checking done by the useless police, whereever they are in the world. Over 98% of gunowners are responsible. They shouldnt be made to pay in a knee jerk reaction, which wont lead to significant drop in deathtolls from the nutter brigade..

PS I aint a redneck...

No, I'm not wrong. Not until someone, anyone, can explain rationally why anybody in the UK needs to keep a gun on their person or in their home.

You haven't actually made any points here that haven't been covered multiple times in the thread already.

[eastonboy]

No, I'm not wrong. Not until someone, anyone, can explain rationally why anybody in the UK needs to keep a gun on their person or in their home.

It's obvious isn't it?

To protect the family homestead from bears, crocodiles, mountain lions and dinosaurs.

Duuuuhhhh!

[Nibor]

It's obvious isn't it?

To protect the family homestead from bears, crocodiles, mountain lions and dinosaurs.

Duuuuhhhh!

Although I know you're kidding, it's interesting to note that in the good ole US of A, homeowners who keep guns are more likely to die of gunshot wounds than those who don't.

[eastonboy]

My work neighbour asked to borrow something from me the other day. So dutifully, I collected said item from my unit and walked to his workplace.

On entering the door, I fair nearly shat my pants as I was confronted by a rifle pointed at my head(legally owned). It just so happened that I was disturbing him as he was disposing of a rat he had captured in his rat trap.

Guns - for gangsta and Rambo wannabes only, yet if anyone saw the tv footage of the poor bystander that was caught in the crossfire in Easton last year, the gun toting hard men were seen scurrying away like the same terrified rats that my friend decides whose innards it is appropriate to decorate his walls with.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Most if not all of these random massacres are carried out with legally owned firearms, so something ain't right that is for sure.

[sephjnr]

My work neighbour asked to borrow something from me the other day. So dutifully, I collected said item from my unit and walked to his workplace.

On entering the door, I fair nearly shat my pants as I was confronted by a rifle pointed at my head(legally owned). It just so happened that I was disturbing him as he was disposing of a rat he had captured in his rat trap.

Guns - for gangsta and Rambo wannabes only, yet if anyone saw the tv footage of the poor bystander that was caught in the crossfire in Easton last year, the gun toting hard men were seen scurrying away like the same terrified rats that my friend decides whose innards it is appropriate to decorate his walls with.

You didn't knock?