"New Year's Day massacre in Co Durham"

[FestiveFreddy]

A tragic event, for sure but just one request from me - can we please not have the usual "all guns are bad and should be banned" rubbish on here.

I'd like to think PH is above the Daily Wail sensationalism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081190/Sh...

[carmonk]

Another taxi driver. You have to wonder why shotgun licenses are given to people who clearly don't need them.

[shauniebabes]

FestiveFreddy said:

A tragic event, for sure but just one request from me - can we please not have the usual "all guns are bad and should be banned" rubbish on here.

Why not ?

It is a matter of concern that so many gun enthusiasts have chosen to share their hobby with their famillies and local communities.

[FestiveFreddy]

carmonk said:

Another taxi driver. You have to wonder why shotgun licenses are given to people who clearly don't need them.

Now you mention it, I realise that the common link between the Cumbrian massacre and this one is that both men were taxi drivers.

It seems obvious to me now that taxi drivers should be banned from owning guns.

Many thanks for pointing that out.

shauniebabes said:

It is a matter of concern that so many gun enthusiasts have chosen to share their hobby with their famillies and local communities.

Why would that be a matter of concern?

[BruceV8]

carmonk said:

Another taxi driver. You have to wonder why shotgun licenses are given to people who clearly don't need them.

How do you know that?

He had a Firearms Certificate so he would have had to demonstrate to the police a good reason for owning the firearms. For a Shotgun Certificate the situation is - in theory - reversed. Anyone can have one unless the police have a good reason not to grant one. I say in theory because, in practice, the police would like you to demonstrate good reason for these too.

Good reason doesn't just mean you have to be a farmer or gamekeeper. Most firearms and shotguns are owned by recreational shooters - of which I am one.

This is a terrible tragedy but he could just as well have committed these murders (as they seem to be) with a kitchen knife or a hammer.

[carmonk]

BruceV8 said:

carmonk said:

Another taxi driver. You have to wonder why shotgun licenses are given to people who clearly don't need them.

How do you know that?

He had a Firearms Certificate so he would have had to demonstrate to the police a good reason for owning the firearms. For a Shotgun Certificate the situation is - in theory - reversed. Anyone can have one unless the police have a good reason not to grant one. I say in theory because, in practice, the police would like you to demonstrate good reason for these too.

Good reason doesn't just mean you have to be a farmer or gamekeeper. Most firearms and shotguns are owned by recreational shooters - of which I am one.

This is a terrible tragedy but he could just as well have committed these murders (as they seem to be) with a kitchen knife or a hammer.

Need = need, as in gamekeeper or farmer, want = want, like someone who wants to play with guns as a hobby.

But I'm interested to know why you think he could have committed those murders with a hammer? What evidence have you for the idea that someone with a hammer can kill four people as easily as with a gun? Would Bird have killed 12 with a hammer too? Seems a little unlikely being that there is no precedent I'm aware of, anywhere in the world, unless you count Samson and his ass's jawbone.

[BruceV8]

Peter Sutcliffe killed thirteen people with a hammer.

[carmonk]

BruceV8 said:

Peter Sutcliffe killed thirteen people with a hammer.

I think you'll find he didn't do it in one fell swoop, so I'd ask you to at least compare like with like if you want to address the point.

[0a]

carmonk said:

Need = need, as in gamekeeper or farmer, want = want, like someone who wants to play with guns as a hobby.

But I'm interested to know why you think he could have committed those murders with a hammer? What evidence have you for the idea that someone with a hammer can kill four people as easily as with a gun? Would Bird have killed 12 with a hammer too? Seems a little unlikely being that there is no precedent I'm aware of, anywhere in the world, unless you count Samson and his ass's jawbone.

Bang on, much easier to kill multiple people with a gun. If you go hunting with a gun, would using a hammer be as effective? No of course not.

The argument here is whether we are justified limiting the freedom to own a gun to reduce the frequency and impact of these incidents.

[oyster]

Why can't people who use guns for sport keep them locked at the gun/hunting club?

And are taxi drivers really into sports shooting? On their income?

[BruceV8]

carmonk said:

Need = need, as in gamekeeper or farmer, want = want, like someone who wants to play with guns as a hobby.

It might just be me reading too much into this, but is that laden with some value of yours? Its just that those who do shoot wouldn't describe their sport 'as playing with guns as a hobby'.

[Pesty]

there are a few things already emerging about this case it may be wise to hold on for a moment not that that has ever stopped us

3 people escaped a man who escaped has been arrested? don't know what that is all about yet.

It has bee reported that the 'main' suspect was reported by a member of his own family to the police for threatening to kill them with one of his shot guns in 2008.

why did he still have a licence?

[BruceV8]

oyster said:

Why can't people who use guns for sport keep them locked at the gun/hunting club?

Not everyone is a member of a club. Those who only shoot game or go deer stalking, for example. Besides, few clubs would have enough secure storage for all of their members.

oyster said:

And are taxi drivers really into sports shooting? On their income?

Why not? Must it be only a sport for the rich?

[oyster]

BruceV8 said:

oyster said:

Why can't people who use guns for sport keep them locked at the gun/hunting club?

Not everyone is a member of a club. Those who only shoot game or go deer stalking, for example. Besides, few clubs would have enough secure storage for all of their members.

oyster said:

And are taxi drivers really into sports shooting? On their income?

Why not? Must it be only a sport for the rich?

Fair points.
So how do we eliminate (or even reduce) these crimes?

[BruceV8]

Pesty said:

there are a few things already emerging about this case it may be wise to hold on for a moment not that that has ever stopped us

3 people escaped a man who escaped has been arrested? don't know what that is all about yet.

It has bee reported that the 'main' suspect was reported by a member of his own family to the police for threatening to kill them with one of his shot guns in 2008.

why did he still have a licence?

I'll try not to comment on the details of this particular case- as we know so few of them at the moment. I'm responding to the immediate knee-jerk of 'ban all evil guns'

[carmonk]

BruceV8 said:

carmonk said:

Need = need, as in gamekeeper or farmer, want = want, like someone who wants to play with guns as a hobby.

It might just be me reading too much into this, but is that laden with some value of yours? Its just that those who do shoot wouldn't describe their sport 'as playing with guns as a hobby'.

I'm sure they wouldn't, any more than a model railway enthusiast would describe his hobby as playing with trains but that's what it boils down to. I don't understand why tighter controls aren't placed on people who want to use guns yet have no demonstrable need. Why, for one, are they allowed them in their homes? Do they shoot in the living room or something? (well, this one clearly did). The vast majority of gun owners don't go around shooting people, of course not, but I'd hope they have enough collective responsibility to understand that this can and does happen, and when it happens its often with very serious consequences, and to stop this annoying whining when people validly suggest there should be tighter controls on their hobby.

[BruceV8]

0a said:

Bang on, much easier to kill multiple people with a gun. If you go hunting with a gun, would using a hammer be as effective? No of course not.

Well, people did hunt with clubs and spears and bows before firearms. And of course it is easier with guns. But if you are hunting live game you are working at a distance - 30 yards or so with birds, maybe several hundred yards with larger animals - and against the quarry's senses and instincts. In this case it appears that three people were killed inside a house, where a weapon other than a firearm could feasibly be used.

0a said:

The argument here is whether we are justified limiting the freedom to own a gun to reduce the frequency and impact of these incidents.

This is indeed the crux of the debate.

[Pesty]

BruceV8 said:

I'll try not to comment on the details of this particular case- as we know so few of them at the moment. I'm responding to the immediate knee-jerk of 'ban all evil guns'

I know, they were going mental at the press conference about him having multiple weapons.

we are going to get the usual knee jerk whether we like it or not.

the aspect of this case that does concern me is that he has been interest to teh police in the past. I'm hoping that this is not going to turn out to be something that MAY have been provented. Of course hindsight is marvelous.

[BruceV8]

carmonk said:

I'm sure they wouldn't, any more than a model railway enthusiast would describe his hobby as playing with trains but that's what it boils down to.

OK, well if you describe all sports and hobbies, including our cars as 'playing with XXX' then thats fair and even handed. But if you say in that sneering, half winking 'look at these pathetic wannabe rambos' way that you sometimes see then its not. And on a computer screen its difficult to tell.

carmonk said:

I don't understand why tighter controls aren't placed on people who want to use guns yet have no demonstrable need. Why, for one, are they allowed them in their homes? .

See my response to Oyster's post.

carmonk said:

The vast majority of gun owners don't go around shooting people, of course not, but I'd hope they have enough collective responsibility to understand that this can and does happen, and when it happens its often with very serious consequences, and to stop this annoying whining when people validly suggest there should be tighter controls on their hobby.

This annoying whining is called debate. You are allowed to air your opinion, I'll have mine. You are right about the vast majority of gun owners. The last time I checked there were something like 750,000 Shotgun Certificate holders and over 100,000 Firearm Certificate holders in the UK. There are perhaps a handful of crimes committed with legally held firearms each year, but as you say they have the potential to be serious. British shooters are already among the most tightly regulated and safety and security conscious in the world.

My point is that short of banning all gun ownership completely you can never stop the occasional person flipping. Banning would have no effect on crime with illegal guns and if you really want to commit a murder - even multiple murder - you can do it without a gun, as the majority of murders in the UK are. Incidents like these stand out precisely because they are unusual.

As a final point in this post, I would wager (because I don't know the figures of the top of my head) that more people are killed each year as a result of dangerous driving than are with legally owned guns. That should spell bad news for car ownership .......

[carmonk]

BruceV8 said:

carmonk said:

I'm sure they wouldn't, any more than a model railway enthusiast would describe his hobby as playing with trains but that's what it boils down to.

OK, well if you describe all sports and hobbies, including our cars as 'playing with XXX' then thats fair and even handed. But if you say in that sneering, half winking 'look at these pathetic wannabe rambos' way that you sometimes see then its not. And on a computer screen its difficult to tell.

Not at all, it's a hobby like any other. It's no less worthy than many other hobbies but at the same time it's not the all-holy passtime of the gods that some (not you) make it out to be. It's just something people do to avoid being bored.

BruceV8 said:

carmonk said:

I don't understand why tighter controls aren't placed on people who want to use guns yet have no demonstrable need. Why, for one, are they allowed them in their homes? .

See my response to Oyster's post.

I don't think that's much of an answer to be honest because you seem to be just stating, "This is how things are." We know that, what I'm suggesting is that they change. I would only grant shotgun 'ownership' licenses to people who need them for their livlihood. Others would be forced to apply for 'usage' licenses, which would mean their guns are kept for them at a club. If the club doesn't have the secure storage then that's unfortunate. If they wanted to go game hunting then they'd check the guns in and out. There's no reason to have a gun lying around in a suburban house.

BruceV8 said:

carmonk said:

The vast majority of gun owners don't go around shooting people, of course not, but I'd hope they have enough collective responsibility to understand that this can and does happen, and when it happens its often with very serious consequences, and to stop this annoying whining when people validly suggest there should be tighter controls on their hobby.

This annoying whining is called debate. You are allowed to air your opinion, I'll have mine.

I wasn't referring to you, I was talking in this instance about the OP who starts a thread then warns people that anybody who disagrees with him shouldn't post in it, and proceeds to be a sarky tt when people ignore him.

BruceV8 said:

You are right about the vast majority of gun owners. The last time I checked there were something like 750,000 Shotgun Certificate holders and over 100,000 Firearm Certificate holders in the UK. There are perhaps a handful of crimes committed with legally held firearms each year, but as you say they have the potential to be serious. British shooters are already among the most tightly regulated and safety and security conscious in the world.

My point is that short of banning all gun ownership completely you can never stop the occasional person flipping. Banning would have no effect on crime with illegal guns and if you really want to commit a murder - even multiple murder - you can do it without a gun, as the majority of murders in the UK are. Incidents like these stand out precisely because they are unusual.

As I said, I wouldn't ban them. All I'm saying is that the right to polish your gun in front of the fire of an evening should not trump the rights of several people a year to remain alive. And the multiple murder contention is easily dispelled by looking at case histories. The number of times a spree killer has killed multiple people with knives or hammers in comparison to guns is negligable.

BruceV8 said:

As a final point in this post, I would wager (because I don't know the figures of the top of my head) that more people are killed each year as a result of dangerous driving than are with legally owned guns. That should spell bad news for car ownership .......

It's a very poor comparison because if you banned car ownership then this country would fail completely. Cars are necessary and tighter controls are introduced every year; having a gun in your living room is not necessary, by any stretch of the imagination, and it needs to be addressed.