Firearms/reaction of politicians in the aftermath of (undeniably horrible) events

[Humakt]

Did I swear?
I'll look back over...

...oh yes, so I did.
To be honest it's such a common-or-garden phrase I didn't even realise. Sorry if I offended any delicate little wall flowers. It wasn't being used offensively or obnoxiously, just an everyday turn of phrase, so doubtful to cause offence. Anyway, I've edited out.

[Humakt]

Again, just to reiterate, I am not anti-firearms.
I suppose I am playing devil's advocate in this debate.

But I think 'should we/shouldn't we' debates on this subject are going nowhere, and if all we do is pat each other's backs and agree with each other then what's the point? So, to try to make the debate meaningful and fruitful I want to return to the question I proposed and which no-one has addressed - are unfortunate incidents a price worth paying for freedom? Potentially you, or I, or a loved one, could be a victim of the 'freedoms' we are so certain should be ours. But what about the freedom of the victim to live a fruitful life? OK, so the chances of it happening to any of us is very slim. But how do you reconcile that if such events were to come your way? How do you explain that to the friends and family of someone who is killed? Again, the question is, are such unfortunate incidents a price worth paying for freedom?
And I'm not just talking about the actions of criminals (in fact that's a dead-end argument - they'll always be criminals), I'm talking about legal owners who have their guns stolen (even if it's just one and that one is used to kill just one person), or legal owners who flip and go shoot someone. If just one of those events happens once, how do you justify that? Is it justifiable? Is it, (trying to find a word that won't offend) a case of freedom comes at the cost of such occasional wicked actions? However seldom these things may happen, is it worth it? Just so you can let off a few rounds down at the local range? How would you explain that to someone?
Maybe by examining the ramifications of increased firearm use we can get at the root of the dilemma and come to a meaningful decisioin. Just saying 'we shouldn/shouldn't' doesn't help anyone.

[Silverback]

Did I swear?
I'll look back over...

...oh yes, so I did.
To be honest it's such a common-or-garden phrase I didn't even realise. Sorry if I offended any delicate little wall flowers. It wasn't being used offensively or obnoxiously, just an everyday turn of phrase, so doubtful to cause offence. Anyway, I've edited out.

Thanks....and its not wall flowers but the parents of the children that may view this forum.

[Silverback]

SORRY!!!
Just sometimes there appears to be double standards!
Whats good for one !should be good for all!

The reason some folks posts don't get edited is because the admin and mod team have full time jobs which prevent us from viewing every post... As such some slip through.

Please don't think that its some kind of personal crusade against you...because quite frankly we have better things to do.

[headshot]

Again, just to reiterate, I am not anti-firearms.
I suppose I am playing devil's advocate in this debate.

But I think 'should we/shouldn't we' debates on this subject are going nowhere, and if all we do is pat each other's backs and agree with each other then what's the point? So, to try to make the debate meaningful and fruitful I want to return to the question I proposed and which no-one has addressed - are unfortunate incidents a price worth paying for freedom? Potentially you, or I, or a loved one, could be a victim of the 'freedoms' we are so certain should be ours. But what about the freedom of the victim to live a fruitful life? OK, so the chances of it happening to any of us is very slim. But how do you reconcile that if such events were to come your way? How do you explain that to the friends and family of someone who is killed? Again, the question is, are such unfortunate incidents a price worth paying for freedom?
And I'm not just talking about the actions of criminals (in fact that's a dead-end argument - they'll always be criminals), I'm talking about legal owners who have their guns stolen (even if it's just one and that one is used to kill just one person), or legal owners who flip and go shoot someone. If just one of those events happens once, how do you justify that? Is it justifiable? Is it, (trying to find a word that won't offend) a case of freedom comes at the cost of such occasional wicked actions? However seldom these things may happen, is it worth it? Just so you can let off a few rounds down at the local range? How would you explain that to someone?
Maybe by examining the ramifications of increased firearm use we can get at the root of the dilemma and come to a meaningful decisioin. Just saying 'we shouldn/shouldn't' doesn't help anyone.

i do respect your veiws honestly i do but if we thought like that about everyday life then we wouldent live..example..i need to drive to work..but what if i crash and kill someone..or what if i slip with the chainsaw at work and bleed out..its all what if's.
at the end of the day i'm not prepared to put my life on hold just incase a criminal steals my gun,its a bit like running scared of the taliban..thats what they want.
its also a well known fact the goverments dont want any private gun ownership as in the event of a breakdown of society the masses are eisier to controll un-armed,we could go on and on really lol...atb kev

[rawfish111]

Ok reference the legal guns providing a source for illegal uses point. Does this mean that cars should be banned as people still drive without MOT/Tax/Insurance?

The other point is. One could argue that freedom is always won at a blood price but that is over simplistic I feel as it ties in with your other point regarding responsibility. Any unfortunate incident would indeed be regrettable and one death is always one too many. However the onus should be on us as gun owners to comply with the strict conditions under which we are duly licenced and permitted to possess weapons. Not only that but for us to impose strict conditions and training on any person able to gain access to the same. My kids are taught marksmanship. They will not be permitted, ever, to act as though a weapon were a toy. Should they be caught doing so then they will *insert expletive* learn fast.

Not to be pedantic but if a legal owner has there guns stolen then we are back to the actions of criminals so that one doesn't fly I'm afraid.

For the legal owner to 'flip' and hurt/kill someone. Well it happens I'm afraid. Two years ago on Brixham road a taxi driver decided he'd had enough and drove his car, head on, at speed into an oncoming car. He killed himself as was his intention and also the family man innocently about his business driving the other way. Again the car analogy but that seems to be the weapon of choice for the moment. If just one of those events happens once, how do you justify that? Is it justifiable? Is it a case of freedom comes at the cost of such occasional wicked actions? Sorry to paraphrase but the same argument could be applied to absolutely anything with a lethal potential.

What it boils down to I guess is that acceptable risk is extremely subjective and what is acceptable to the uneducated masses regarding one thing does not necessarily apply in another environment. I own Guns therefore I must accept a certain degree of risk. That risk is mitigated by my security being over and above what is required by law and my insistence that any involved with my weapons are supervised, trained and competent to be in that position.

The devils advocate position is a useful one though mate. It adds interest and perspective to the debate.

The petition is not popping up I'm afraid. Would love to sign but can't get the flippin thing to work.

[rawfish111]

Got it to work

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/62588

see if it works any better from here.

[jbrown14]

The same arguments could be made for knives, screwdrivers, bats (baseball here in the states, cricket there in the mother land.) I don't hear an outcry of cricket bat control AND gun control after Oscar Pistorius murdered that beautiful young lady. Why should my freedom be further infringed because of the actions of some deranged people?

[rawfish111]

A shameless plug.

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/62588

[claverhouse]

surely that's no reason for letting you own a item that can easily kill.

I wonder, how exactly do you practie bushcraft without a knife or axe? After all, the VAST majority of murders in the UK are committed with a bladed weapon, so the peaceable and legal enjoyment of activities using them is surely no reason for letting you own an item that can easily kill, is it? You DO practice what you preach, don't you, sfter all, to do otherwise would be ..... inconsistent, at best.