OMG. What is the world coming to?

[SoggyFox]

Originally Posted by Andy C

Don't confuse the right to own a gun with it's misuse.

to make a point here, its misuse????? aren't all guns designed to kill?

[frosty the snowman]

Originally Posted by Andy C

You're confusing the right to own a gun with it's misuse.

I can assure you I'm not. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. What else are they for? My point was that the most basic human right is the right to life and somewhere along the way a group of people have become convinced that the right to gun ownership superceeds that.

[Andy C]

Originally Posted by SoggyFox

to make a point here, its misuse????? aren't all guns designed to kill?

Not necessarily, specifically designed target rifles wouldn't work very well.

The point I was trying to make, probably badly, is that a gun on it's own won't do anything (apart from rust), it's the use it's put to that matters.

I would also like to say that this is a tragedy that should never have happened and would offer my condolences to family and friends of those affected.

[frosty the snowman]

Originally Posted by GLOC

Depends on what you are teaching them....

Absolutely.

[Twinset & Wing]

I am not disagreeing with you frosty, but i am not 100% sure that it does succeed that, maybe carrying a gun is all about right to live and not be killed by that nutter with the un-regstered blackmarket firearm

[SoggyFox]

Originally Posted by Andy C

The point I was trying to make, probably badly, is that a gun on it's own won't do anything (apart from rust), it's the use it's put to that matters.
.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people."

the point i was making is its a weapon, like a tank or a missile, not built or designed to do anything other than take life and do it as effectively and efficiently as possible.

[Andy C]

Originally Posted by frosty the snowman

My point was that the most basic human right is the right to life

Agreed

Originally Posted by frosty the snowman

somewhere along the way a group of people have become convinced that the right to gun ownership superceeds that.

I doubt any-one would argue from that position, or even hold it.

Just because you own a gun, doesn't mean you have to use it to shoot people. As we've shown in this country, banning legal guns hasn't stopped their illegal use, in fact it's probably made them even more attractive. Isn't it usual that the more you're told you can't have something, the more attractive it becomes ?

Wouldn't it be better to find out why a very small minority of people do these things and deal with that ?

[frosty the snowman]

Originally Posted by Twinset & Wing

I am not disagreeing with you frosty, but i am not 100% sure that it does succeed that, maybe carrying a gun is all about right to live and not be killed by that nutter with the un-regstered blackmarket firearm

I take your point but the basis of that idea is still that it's socially acceptable to own (and therefore be prepared to use) lethal weapons. I can't accept that.

I've seen the results of many shootings in my hospital career and time and time again, what would have been resolved by an argument or a couple of punches has resulted in serious injury or death purely because a gun was involved. I remember talking to a deeply disturbed man who had shot his wife and two children dead then turned the gun on himself. He survived and said that had the gun not been available, his wife and kids would be alive now. That's only one example of course but it made a huge impact on me.

Of course other weapons are used too but in my experience, gunshot wounds prove to be more fatal more often than assaults from other weapons. I stand by my statement that the right to life is the most basic right of all. The sole purpose of a gun when used in violence is to deprive someone of that right. To me that makes widespread gun ownership wrong.

[Mark Davies]

Andy does have a bit of a point and a fair grievance. The effect of Dunblane was to destroy a sport - and one which we were particularly good at. Now at the time I'd never fired a gun in my life and like many others thought it wasn't too high a price to pay - but now that I'm involved with firearms I have more of an appreciation of the sport and do think it is a shame it has been lost.

I very much doubt there were ever any competition shooters involved in any kind of crime, so it would probably have been sufficient to closely control the supply and ownership of the particular weapons used in competitive shooting, instead of banning all hand guns, including them. That said, it's fair enough to ban large calibre and self-loading hand guns - which are not competition weapons but are designed for only one use - to inflict injury and kill.

The problem we have in the UK is that banning firearms does not reduce the criminal demand for them, and it is big industry to supply them. My old division last year shut down a little cottage industry that was bringing in deactivated weapons from eastern Europe and re-activating them again. In six months they had imported over 400 guns. That's a lot of firepower in the wrong hands. The problem is not that the law is failing to control the issue - it's one of lack of resources in Customs to be able to check everything that is coming into the country. Added to that, we have a very active arms trade in Britain so a huge quantity of weapons illegal for the public to own here still cross in and out of our borders on a daily basis - quite legitimately. Smuggling guns is not hard.

So, agreed, our rather strict laws have not eradicated the problem of gun crime - that could never be done - but they do help. The one success is that while guns can be obtained quite easily good ammunition cannot. The gangs of Manchester have long since had to resort to making their own bullets and for the most part they really are not much use. I know of one guy who was shot square between the eyes from 5 feet and is still walking around today, because the bullet used was home made. So the post-Dunblane legislation has saved lives.

[Lazlo]

Originally Posted by frosty the snowman

More than thirty people have been denied their basic right to life by one persons questionable right to own a gun

Originally Posted by frosty the snowman

My point was that the most basic human right is the right to life and somewhere along the way a group of people have become convinced that the right to gun ownership superceeds that.

That sort of talk is perilously close to the rhetoric used to justify various civil liberties violations in this country, the US and elsewhere. For example consider Tony Blair:

We have to balance protection for the public from terrorism with safeguarding civil liberties. But there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack.

Or that "thug-in-a-suit" Doktor John Reid:

"Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the modern world,"

As I say, I also don't agree with the "right to carry guns", but I'd be careful about using human rights arguments to justify that view. It's a double-edged sword.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by frosty the snowman

The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. What else are they for?

I agree - and that should be enough.