Right to bear Arms- Do you support this?

[Harbornite]

And for the grouse moor owners, etc., who say they will lose money, I say "tough" - there are better ways to earn money from that land.

Some of these people are pretty despicable. They encourage the burning of heathland and the shooting of birds of prey. Real nature lovers and protectors of the countryside. :roll:

 

[AlterEgo]

I think that the private possession of guns & other weapons should be prohibited. That includes their use for murdering defenceless birds, etc. To enable farmers to curb pests such as rabbits or foxes, there should be a facility to hire (at reasonable cost) trained soldier maksmen - these are likely to be better "shots" than amateurs, and so less likely to cause excessive suffering by the animals.

And for the grouse moor owners, etc., who say they will lose money, I say "tough" - there are better ways to earn money from that land.

Reminds me of a recent story from Ireland, where the state army gets bored.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36731195

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Some of these people are pretty despicable. They encourage the burning of heathland and the shooting of birds of prey. Real nature lovers and protectors of the couuntryside. :roll:

Not to mention the impact that the burning of heathland has on flooding in the valleys below... :roll:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do many of the criminal fraternity in Britain have an unquestioned belief in holding (and using) firearms?

It is not all that long ago that Manchester had the nickname of "Gunchester".

 

[EssexGonzo]

USA gun murders per capita 2012: 2.9 per 100,000

UK gun murders per capita 2012: 0.1 per 100,000

Absolute no-brainer.

As for "under certain circumstances, strictly controlled blah blah....I'd vote yes", well......the constitution from which all of this hangs did describe why the right to bear arms existed at the time it was written. Any such control or definition is just stretched by time, precedence and sheer stupidity.

 

[DarloRich]

no - we don't need this silliness!

 

[Phil.]

I think that the private possession of guns & other weapons should be prohibited. That includes their use for murdering defenceless birds, etc. To enable farmers to curb pests such as rabbits or foxes, there should be a facility to hire (at reasonable cost) trained soldier maksmen - these are likely to be better "shots" than amateurs, and so less likely to cause excessive suffering by the animals.

And for the grouse moor owners, etc., who say they will lose money, I say "tough" - there are better ways to earn money from that land.

You sound like a dreaming vegan leftie. Your remarks and observations are borne of one who knows little of the real countryside.

 

[DarloRich]

I think that the private possession of guns & other weapons should be prohibited. That includes their use for murdering defenceless birds, etc. To enable farmers to curb pests such as rabbits or foxes, there should be a facility to hire (at reasonable cost) trained soldier maksmen - these are likely to be better "shots" than amateurs, and so less likely to cause excessive suffering by the animals.

And for the grouse moor owners, etc., who say they will lose money, I say "tough" - there are better ways to earn money from that land.

that is barmy and has zero connection with the realities of farming business! I doubt there is another way to make as much money out of grouse moors. I assume you are aware of the rules regarding ownership and storage of domestic firearms that are allowed ( shot guns/rifles etc). Anyway we seem to be talking about routinely arming members of the public and having little in the way of controls.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

To enable farmers to curb pests such as rabbits or foxes, there should be a facility to hire (at reasonable cost) trained soldier maksmen - these are likely to be better "shots" than amateurs, and so less likely to cause excessive suffering by the animals.

So if a farmer walks out one night and sees a fox going hell for leather through a chicken coop, or one morning during lambing season and sees a dog attacking pregnant ewes he's supposed to go back inside, ring the trained military marksmen, await their arrival and let them shoot them, hoping he doesn't loose too much of his livelihood in the process, or grab a rifle and put an end to it in thirty seconds? I also would have thought if someone's used a gun on a semi-regular basis for years, such as a farmer probably will have, that you would be a pretty keen eye yourself, certainly enough to shoot an animal first time.

 

[Blamethrower]

I would say yes.

Pro's - thin out the human numbers, easier to commit suicide rather than throw yourself under a train, I could easily take a gun out to all those people who feel the need to thrive in getting in everyone way, shoot all those annoying kids shouting and screaming in restaurants.......

Con's - Can't think of any

really not in a good mood today, kill everyone and everything I say

 

[Flamingo]

Reminds me of a recent story from Ireland, where the state army gets bored.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36731195

Trained marksmen requested by Gardai to destroy escaped dangerous animals after attempts to capture them have failed, and they were presenting a risk to the public.

It comes under the heading of "Aid To The Civil Power" (ATCP). No different than the TA (or Reserve Forces) filling sandbags in Cumbria for flood defence.

Not exactly bored squaddies using a herd of cows for target practice "just for laughs"...

 

[Harbornite]

I would say yes.

Pro's - thin out the human numbers, easier to commit suicide rather than throw yourself under a train, I could easily take a gun out to all those people who feel the need to thrive in getting in everyone's way, shoot all those annoying kids shouting and screaming in restaurants.......

Con's - Can't think of any

Really not in a good mood today, kill everyone and everything I say

Interesting advice. Good thing that no one plans to take heed of this post and act on it.

 

[Bevan Price]

that is barmy and has zero connection with the realities of farming business! I doubt there is another way to make as much money out of grouse moors. I assume you are aware of the rules regarding ownership and storage of domestic firearms that are allowed ( shot guns/rifles etc). Anyway we seem to be talking about routinely arming members of the public and having little in the way of controls.

Sorry, but I disagree. Hen harriers, eagles, etc. would be much safer if some the grouse moor shower did not turn a blind eye to the killing of birds of prey by their gamekeepers, etc..

Yes - I know there are rules about where & how guns are supposed to be kept & stored - but some of them still get stolen by burglars. And the rules are totally inadequate - they did not stop several mass killers from obtaining guns (Dunblane, Hungerford, etc.).

Of course, USA will never vote to curb gun sales - well not unless they prevent the gun industry from giving money to politicians.

 

[Blamethrower]

Interesting advice!

Ah mondays.....

 

[Harbornite]

Ah mondays.....

It was a pretty sick comment, no one in their right mind would shoot up a restaurant full of innocence people.


Now exam board offices on the other hand...

 

[NSEFAN]

I would say yes.

Pro's - thin out the human numbers, easier to commit suicide rather than throw yourself under a train, I could easily take a gun out to all those people who feel the need to thrive in getting in everyone's way, shoot all those annoying kids shouting and screaming in restaurants.......

Con's - Can't think of any

Really not in a good mood today, kill everyone and everything I say

I think you've just demonstrated by example why allowing citizens to carry firearms is a bad idea.

 

[GB]

And the rules are totally inadequate - they did not stop several mass killers from obtaining guns (Dunblane, Hungerford, etc.).

Todays laws were passed in reaction to both those incidents.

 

[DarloRich]

Sorry, but I disagree. Hen harriers, eagles, etc. would be much safer if some the grouse moor shower did not turn a blind eye to the killing of birds of prey by their gamekeepers, etc..

that is a may be - it wouldn't return the grouse moor owners a good profit - which was your argument.

Yes - I know there are rules about where & how guns are supposed to be kept & stored - but some of them still get stolen by burglars. And the rules are totally inadequate - they did not stop several mass killers from obtaining guns (Dunblane, Hungerford, etc.). .

I am sorry but you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The law was changed massively after those awful events. Do some research please.

 

[EM2]

And the rules are totally inadequate - they did not stop several mass killers from obtaining guns (Dunblane, Hungerford, etc.).

The law was changed after those events. And how many mass shootings have there been since?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

The law was changed after those events. And how many mass shootings have there been since?

Just one with killings unrelated to the perpetrator - the 2010 Cumbria shootings and the killer had the guns legally.


No amount of laws will ever stop people from getting guns if they really want - criminal gangs will still manage to get firearms, but the difference is it stops normal people from routinely owning guns and many of the worst massacres in the USA occurred when random, regular people seemingly just snapped and happened to have a gun to hand.

 

[Busaholic]

Just one with killings unrelated to the perpetrator - the 2010 Cumbria shootings and the killer had the guns legally.


.

And so many of those killed might well have been saved but for the pig-headedness of the Chief Constable in not accepting the offer by North Yorkshire police to lend their helicopter and crew so the killer could be headed off (Cumbria had no helicopter of their own).

 

[bnm]

What about a poll asking whether we should arm bears?

 

[Rich McLean]

Personally I think the following should have the right to bear arms:

• All Police officers (excluding PCSOs)
• Armed forces personnel.

All to have carried out yearly weapons handling tests and annual range firing, including issued guidelines on when firearms should/shouldn't be used.

With the advent of Terrorist groups, these professions, either on duty of off duty, can act to protect human life.

Anybody else shouldn't be able to carry firearms.

There are not enough armed police in the UK, and armed forces personnel carrying their own weapon would be added protection.

 

[Flamingo]

Personally I think the following should have the right to bear arms:
All Police officers (excluding PCSOs)
Armed forces personnel.

All to have carried out yearly weapons handling tests and annual range firing, including issued guidelines on when firearms should/shouldn't be used.

With the advent of Terrorist groups, these professions, either on duty of off duty, can act to protect human life.

Anybody else shouldn't be able to carry firearms.

There are not enough armed police in the UK, and armed forces personnel carrying their own weapon would be added protection.

Good idea in theory, unworkable in practice. One major issue would be weapon storage, and security of said weapons. A significant number of them would fall into the wrong hands.

This is also assuming all off-duty police and HMF are always going to be willing and able to carry said firearms, and stay sober enough 24/7 to use them safely. That's one hell of an assumption!

 

[DarloRich]

What about a poll asking whether we should arm bears?

but bears are hard enough - they don't need guns

 

[AlterEgo]

Personally I think the following should have the right to bear arms:

• All Police officers (excluding PCSOs)
• Armed forces personnel.

All to have carried out yearly weapons handling tests and annual range firing, including issued guidelines on when firearms should/shouldn't be used.

With the advent of Terrorist groups, these professions, either on duty of off duty, can act to protect human life.

Anybody else shouldn't be able to carry firearms.

There are not enough armed police in the UK, and armed forces personnel carrying their own weapon would be added protection.

As an interesting bit of trivia, the PSNI are routinely armed. They are armed with a personal weapon and they are permitted to carry it off-duty. The usual weapon is a Glock, but in some areas rifles are issued.

 

[DarloRich]

As an interesting bit of trivia, the PSNI are routinely armed. They are armed with a personal weapon and they are permitted to carry it off-duty. The usual weapon is a Glock, but in some areas rifles are issued.

a hold over from more violent times in Norn Iron

 

[AlterEgo]

a hold over from more violent times in Norn Iron

Sort of. The current situation is that officers routinely face attempts on their life, so it's a problem of the present as much as it is the past.

Of course, we've got two jokers who voted that people should have the right to bear arms. :roll:

 

[DarloRich]

Sort of. The current situation is that officers routinely face attempts on their life, so it's a problem of the present as much as it is the past.

Of course, we've got two jokers who voted that people should have the right to bear arms. :roll:

thanks - there should have been a question mark at the end of my sentence

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Allowing or indeed requiring off duty soldiers to carry weapons would be a bad idea and probably do little to help.

Using weapons in policing style situations is very different training to that received by soldiers using weapons in combat scenarios. Soldiers are trained to neutralise hostile threats quickly using whatever means they can, police are required to try and apprehend suspects, having to answer for every bullet fired.

The big roving shooter attacks in world cities have happened very fast and required immediate response, having a bunch of off duty soldiers running homes to grab rifles is probably going to make no difference, by the time they get to the scene the suspects should already have been stopped. Then there comes the decision of when a situation is serious enough to warrant "mobilising" soldiers and giving commands that they can use their weapons which means having a dedicated officer to make these decisions.

Interestingly though, soldiers are routinely armed now for personnel moves around the country, presumably because in their military transports they could be a target.