A model engineer gone wrong?

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

I don't agree or like keeping guns in private homes. Up until Dunblane all my firearms were kept in secure armouries supervised by the army. Absolutely ideal! After Dunblane, the army brass woke up to the fact that civilian firearms were kept in their armouries! The result was all private firearms were banned from service armouries and hence had to be kept at home.

Can you believe that idiocy! I am more than happy that firearms are kept in secure armouries at the range, but no.!

Silly Old Duffer, please note that you are talking about the lunatic antics of the American NRA and their stupid members. I take offence that you imply FAC holders in this country are of the same ilk.

Andrew.

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

I don't agree or like keeping guns in private homes. Up until Dunblane all my firearms were kept in secure armouries supervised by the army. Absolutely ideal! After Dunblane, the army brass woke up to the fact that civilian firearms were kept in their armouries! The result was all private firearms were banned from service armouries and hence had to be kept at home.

Can you believe that idiocy! I am more than happy that firearms are kept in secure armouries at the range, but no.!

Silly Old Duffer, please note that you are talking about the lunatic antics of the American NRA and their stupid members. I take offence that you imply FAC holders in this country are of the same ilk.

Andrew.

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 19/11/2017 15:37:34:

…Up until Dunblane all my firearms were kept in secure armouries supervised by the army. Absolutely ideal! After Dunblane, the army brass woke up to the fact that civilian firearms were kept in their armouries!

…

Silly Old Duffer, please note that you are talking about the lunatic antics of the American NRA and their stupid members. I take offence that you imply FAC holders in this country are of the same ilk.

Andrew.

As I put in a previous post, that's very far from my experience. In more than 30 years holding FAC under 2 different clubs, I never came across any requirement to hold firearms in secure armouries, military or otherwise, before or after Dunblane. It was always a matter of satisfying a local Firearms officer on in-home security.

IMO, SOD is right. Since it's gin-clear that both murderous religious nutters and murderous spree-shooters are all quite prepared to pay the ultimate penalty, upping sentence tarrifs for existing offences can have no effect in bringing the bloodshed to a halt.

We need to address the very difficult faults in society that are driving the urge to commit atrocities, and until we can make some progress there, prohibition of means is the only blunt instrument we have.

[Martin DowingParticipant @martindowing58466]

I care little about guns being legal to keep at home or not, having no interest in these. Aside of shooting hobby they may only come useful in large scale societal collapse scenarios for the purpose of self defence. In such scenarios criminal underworld and renegade police/military will supply plenty to anyone willingful to pay. In working, organized society they are of no use, perhaps with the exception of most remote areas.

However there is an issue with knee jerk reactions within legislative bodies to call for ban of anything used in spectacular attack here or there. Also to ban something because of rare incidents of illicit use of otherwise legitimate technology. We should realise that most of technology has something what one can describe as *dual use*.

So are we going to ban cars/lorries because of recent spread of successful car attacks?

Ban cough/cold medicines because it is possible to convert some of these into illegal drugs?

Ban computers because pedophiles are storing indecent images of children there?

Ban money because criminals are using them for illicit activities?

Etc.

It seems that "ban mentality" will lead us to nowhere.

Martin

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 19/11/2017 15:37:28:

…

Silly Old Duffer, please note that you are talking about the lunatic antics of the American NRA and their stupid members. I take offence that you imply FAC holders in this country are of the same ilk.

Andrew.

I implied nothing of the sort Andrew! I think you're sensible. But as you've mentioned lunatic antics in this country, don't forget that Thomas Hamilton, Derrick Bird, and Michael Ryan were all FAC holders. And the subject of this thread is a Registered Firearms Dealer.

My point about some pro-gun opinion being unacceptable wasn't intended to offend. Rather I'm saying that if Firearms Law in the UK is to be relaxed then enthusiasts have make a well reasoned case. Ill-considered notions featuring knives, heavier punishments, what happens in other countries, 'rights' or denying links to crime don't help, rather they reduce the groups credibility.

Gun owners have to tackle the big questions head-on. How do you stop someone like Thomas Hamilton flipping out and murdering 16 children? How do you stop guns falling into the wrong hands? Don't take offence chaps, come up with answers. If you do people will support gun ownership again.

Dave

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

Thomas Hamilton showed signs of mental instability, His gun club asked the police to remove his FAC and guns, not once, but several times. Unfortunately they did not. This never came out at the time. I think the banning of pistols came about as a screen to absolve the police of their laxity. Maybe, maybe not, obviously I don't know the motives of the government of the time.

I have never asked for firearms legislation to be relaxed, in fact there are several ways it could be effectively tightened up with minimal effects on licensed firearms holders. I would certainly not oppose sensible legislation . I would have no objection to having to store guns in an armoury, this would enable much tighter security, than could be had at home.

I am glad that you are not tarring us with the same brush as the US, NRA and their lunatic supporters. I have nothing but contempt for them, it did seem as if you were, reading your post.

Regards,

Andrew.

[jimmy bParticipant @jimmyb]

idiots "stocking up" on chemicals, that's going to help.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 18/11/2017 18:05:20:

I'm afraid the statistics don't support the belief that gun-crime hasn't fallen as a result of stronger gun control in the UK.

Even more worrying are the 2010/2011 figures for misappropriations. In that year 2534 firearms were misappropriated. Of those nearly half were taken from private owners. (1590 were taken from residential premises and 116 from private cars.) In comparison the military lost none and gun clubs 3. This suggests that private owners can't or don't secure their weapons, and by failing to do so put weapons into criminal hands. It also suggests that owning a gun does not protect you from thieves.

I'm not anti-gun on principle. What changed my mind was mainly the series of massacres of innocents here and abroad. I must also say that many of the ill-considered arguments made in favour of gun-freedom have reduced my confidence in hobbyists. Even worse, some pro-gun opinions are completely unacceptable. Imagine how painful it must be for a Sandy Hook parent to be told that their child's murder was either faked or a government plot intended to blacken gun owners? Imagine being a bereaved parent persecuted on social media by nutters like the Sandy Hook Truther Movement.

Sorry gun owners, but if you want to get my vote you have to explain how you will protect the rest of us.

Dave

 

 

 

Dave

Can you show me in that graph where gun crime has increased?

And a link to the source, or a credit, would be useful.

Thanks

 

 

 

Edited By David Standing 1 on 19/11/2017 20:04:35

[Ian Skeldon 2Participant @ianskeldon2]

I wish I lived in the same world as SOD and Mick B, ban guns instantly, then we will all be safe, phew good thinking chaps, it never occured to me that criminals are far too stupid to import them illegaly, or have them made illegaly or use other devices like explosives, vehicles, chemicals oh yeah knives, nearly forgot them.

So I am with you all the way, but just to be sure we should also ban any sharp instruments, any use of engineering equipment such as lathes, mills etc in case the're used to make weapons and what about 3d printing, I bet the people owning them are printing off undetectable guns as I type, better ban them as well, now if we could also get rid of the internet and mobile phones we can stop criminals communicating and buying all the things we just banned.

Ahhhh safe at last

 

Edited By Ian Skeldon 2 on 19/11/2017 20:24:44

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

I'm a gardener – but I don't grow cannabis or magic musrooms.

I have a lathe and milling machines – but I don't make guns (or ammunition cases).

I'm chemist – but I don't make hallucinogenic drugs.

I'm a chemist – but I don't make explosives.

I have both a car and a lorry – but I don't go round mowing down pedestrians.

If I were to have guns, I would not go around shooting people.

I could go out and find a source of prohibited drugs and become a pusher – but I don't.

I have potential house breaking tools around (jemmy bars, glass cutters, bolt ctoppers, gloves, etc) – but I don't go breaking into other people's homes (or raiding their sheds, even).

Just some of the 'possibilities' that I choose not to follow. Not even considered, except as an example list here. I expect there are millions out there who might fall into one, or more, of the above categories. Millions are honest, but there is a small minority who 'break the rules of society'. Clearly that minority cannot be easily persuaded to conform to normal social rules, often for some sad reasons, but more often for other reasons. That minority will never be reduced to zero. If there were no non-conformists there would be no need for a police force.

But we need a police force, and other agencies to help keep us safe from those minorities. Even armed forces to deter international interference.

This is just one case of possible cheating the rules, that needs to be proved – but he will never be a registered firearms dealer again as he will most likely be convicted of having an over-powered air rifle in his possession. That is the fall-back charge, as I see it. So there is a risk that the other charges cannot be proven (even if he did all that has been made public) because he has covered his tracks.

I doubt he has ever been a model engineer, so this thread is mostly irrelevant, if answering the topic title.

[Martin DowingParticipant @martindowing58466]

Posted by not done it yet on 19/11/2017 21:03:14:

But we need a police force, and other agencies to help keep us safe from those minorities. Even armed forces to deter international interference.

Americans already need someone to keep them safe from their police forces and other agencies (which can be even more dangerous and abusive than the police). They also need someone to keep them safe from corrupt courts and lawyers.

Sadly, no such an entity exist.

They also need armed forces to turn some most retarded countries into an utter ruin and prompt millions of desperados to move to Europe and also to America and from time to time blow themselves up between unsuspecting members of public. I bet, they would be much safer having next to none of such armed forces at all. Maybe few thousands of personell manning few dosens of nuke launchers and supportive infrastructure would be enough. No external actor would dare to meddle.

The same coming here soon? Hmmm……

Martin

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Yeah, ban guns. Banning worked so well with drugs.

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Got a story about guns that seems funny now. Back in the 1950s, probably 1958, there was an arms amnisty, my Grandpa had a collection of bits and pieces, his Webley service revolver, and about a dozen rounds of ammunition, a Mills Bomb/ hand grenade, and a German "potato masher" grenade. To hand them in he had to take them about three miles to the army drill hall. He put it all in a little suit case and off he went. That same day the Queen Mother was visiting Dunedin, and about half way on Grandpa's trip he came to where a crowd had gathered to see her, so he stopped until she passed by, then he continued to the Drill Hall. That's it, but think of that today you could be bundled off to the lock up. All those pieces were normally stored in an old tin "hat box" in an unlocked shed, open to the street, although he kept the ammo in a box in his bedside cabinet.

Ian S C

Edited By Ian S C on 20/11/2017 10:41:51

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by Ian Skeldon 2 on 19/11/2017 20:23:41:

I wish I lived in the same world as SOD and Mick B, ban guns instantly, then we will all be safe, phew good thinking chaps…

Edited By Ian Skeldon 2 on 19/11/2017 20:24:44

You're misinterpreting what was said, possibly deliberately. Nobody's claiming that such bans will make anybody safe, and I made it clear that I think it's an unsatisfactory, blunt instrument. But it's clear that it has some effect.

What I'm trying to get at is the change in personal/societal relations (or mental stability or whatever…) that's occurred since the 1950s and 60s, when in UK at least there were far more guns around and far less pointless massacres. Crack that one and the bans wouldn't be needed.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

In the 50's and 60's I remember there were a lot of damaged people around. Us kids knew who to avoid, who to taunt and who was harmless. They hung you if you went off the rails so repeat offending was unlikely. Everyone had a job. My point being, it was a different world.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by David Standing 1 on 19/11/2017 20:04:16:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 18/11/2017 18:05:20:

I'm afraid the statistics don't support the belief that gun-crime hasn't fallen as a result of stronger gun control in the UK.

…

Dave

Dave

Can you show me in that graph where gun crime has increased?

And a link to the source, or a credit, would be useful.

Thanks

Edited By David Standing 1 on 19/11/2017 20:04:35

Hi David,

Misunderstanding I think – I didn't say that the graph shows gun crime is increasing, I said the opposite. The graph shows that, in the period following tighter gun-controls, gun crime decreased. The graph is from the 2012 Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2010/11: Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 – ISBN 978 1 84987 623 0

The line showing the number of offences involving hand-guns shows the downward trend. Hand-gun offences didn't suddenly peak in 2001; before then they were counted elsewhere. (For example recording Burglary with a firearm as one offence, rather than Burglary with a Firearm as two offences.) Before the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in 2001 UK Police Forces collected crime data inconsistently: consequently earlier statistics on hand-guns are unreliable.

I'm not using the forum to beat up gun owners or to demand a total gun-ban. In the interest of balance, it's a shame that one of my earlier posts has gone missing. In it I said that I wasn't against gun-ownership provided the harm can be contained. For example, I think there's a good case for allowing shotguns (vermin control, clay pigeons etc), black-powder hobby shooting, and long range target shooting or culling with rifles. In my mind the pleasure and value of access to carefully constrained weapons outweigh the potential damage: a deranged individual with a shotgun is much less dangerous with than the same chap with a semi-automatic pistol or – god forbid – an Assault Rifle.

My other point is that too many pro-gun arguments are self-defeating. As engineers we should know that 'Man in pub' ideas cut no ice compared with statistical reports and news of yet another blood-bath. Opinions suggesting you don't care about victims, or have a bad attitude to H&S, or believe that guns and knives are equivalent, or that the government is conspiring against you, damage the cause. My advice to forum members is simply that, if you want gun laws to be relaxed, be very careful not to undermine your own case with faulty logic and other flaws.

I should also add that I'm talking about guns in Europe. The situation in the USA, for example, is much more difficult. There guns are already out of control, and the situation is not only tolerated but self-sustaining. Expect between 80 and 90 people to be killed by a firearm somewhere in the US today. And every other day. I'm not keen to see that here.

Dave

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Normalise for approx 0.7 % population growth and you get a bigger reduction.

One comment regarding "bans'. Laws are primarily made so that offenders can be prosecuted. They obviously do not directly stop something happening but they do act as a deterent where there are good chances of successfull prosecutions and stiff enough sentences. A real threat of prosecution does change behaviour.

regards Martin

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

I always remember about the German POW, during WWII, who was supplied with a gun and ammunition. He did not go round shooting people, but provided a good service to the people where he was set to work.

Charlie Smidth was captured early in the war and had no desire to escape. Most certainly there were some (probably quite a lot) who may not have acted that way. Maybe Charlie was in the minority, but it does demonstrate that, when given a gun, one does not need to use it irresponsibly. From what I gleaned from him, when he visited for a couple weeks in around 1963/4, he did not really have any real desire to fight a war either. He was a soldier, not a political extremist, and did as he was ordered to do, before his capture

[mark costello 1Participant @markcostello1]

A friend was walking along a creek bed next to a small cliff. A (friend?) popped up at the top of the cliff and said boo and took a pot shot from a .22 next to Him to scare Him. The bullet ricocheted and went into His calf slightly. They were about 1 block from the City Hospital and walked there and had the bullet removed. Hospital said be more careful and sent them away. Try that today.

[Author]

Posts