Gun Control....

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Letterwritingman, Jan 17, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This came from the Telegrath, dated 17.01.05

    Pro-gun lobby targets parents of dead boy
    (Filed: 16/01/2005)

    The parents of a two-year-old British boy who was shot and killed in Turkey have become hate figures for the US pro-gun lobby.

    Plus.net

    David and Ozlem Grimason, whose son Alistair was killed in 2003 as he slept in his pram in a cafe, have been targeted over their campaign for gun control.

    A contributor on one website describes them as "idiots" who should stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.

    Another labels them "emotionalists (who) want to force Turkey into the same miserable gun control failure that was implemented (post Dunblane) in the UK."

    Yet another said: "Not satisfied with their own gun control failures, the Brits are attempting to disarm citizens of other countries as well."

    Mr Grimason, 33, of Edinburgh, said he found the web campaign disturbing but insisted it would not deter them from their crusade for more gun controls.

    "It's upsetting but what is really surprising is that some of the people posting these messages are women," he said.

    "I wonder if any of them are mothers and how they would feel if their own child was taken away by a bullet.

    "Their mentality is that they have a right to guns to protect themselves from thugs but in my opinion they're the thugs as they are the one's who are armed. We certainly won't let them distract us from our own campaign."

    After Alistair's death in July 2003, the Grimasons launched a major campaign in Turkey against the country's firearms culture.

    Daimi Akyuz, a 32-year-old car salesman, was jailed for 36 years last July for the murder of Alistair and a man who died in the same gunfight.


    Do they have a point?
     
  2. If you dig around on the internet, you will find posted views that are out of line with those of rational people.
    I for one, see UK restrictions on the posession of firearms by law-abiding citizens as a restriction contrary to the Bill of Rights & Natural Justice.
    However I see thoughtless junk like those cretins have posted as an affront to any rational person.
    I frequent several US firearms websites & have never seen this sort of poisonous drivel.
    If there was a link to the place where this appeared, then I would like to have it, in order to get the posters exposed to the mainstream firearms & RKBA community in the US.
     
  3. I believe that people who have lost family to anything "un-natural", be it guns/cars/drugs/medical malpractice etc. are in absolutely no position to look at the issue objectively, therefore should stay out of the debate. However, the press and politicians are really not interested in objectivity, since they are interested only in selling papers & getting re-elected respectively.

    A few other points to note:

    Would a British style handgun ban have prevented the killing, which IIRC back to when it happened was caused by a shootout between criminals with illegal guns? No.
    Thinking that people who wish to protect their families are thugs? Tw@t.
    And finally, if you ban something, you are responsible for what replaces it; so if you banned self-defence with firearms in the states to try to prevent the few hundred accidental deaths a year, you are responsible for the thousands of extra burglaries, robberies, rapes & murders that this would entail...
     
  4. I'm far from being a gun grabber, but I was appalled to discover that the total of accidental firearms deaths in the US exceeds the total of their combat deaths in the 20th century. I believe the accidental firearm death rate is in the order of 1000 a year, which seems like a lot of people to me.

    I think they have a real problem there, but, as I say, I'm not convinced that prohibition would be an effective solution.
     
  5. It boils down to the society you live in.

    I believe you should have the right to protect your family and home, including having a gun for that purpose if you so wish BUT the trick is to create a society where no one feels the need to own a gun for self protection. Banning them simply plays into the hands of the criminals.

    Although there are steadily increasing controls, i think Norway is an example of a pretty decent middle ground.
     
  6. Switzerland apparently has the highest proportion of gun owners in the world (it's simpler than having an army), and yet they don't make a national pastime of killing each other.

    Maybe it's not the guns themselves, but rather the society in which they are kept that is the problem?
     
  7. Hmmm, coming from an American I presume, that is somewhat of a kettle and pot comment.
     
  8. This is one of the most offensive comments I've heard in a long time.

    It suggests he does not find it surprising if men (including fathers) are unperturbued by a child's death and also that women have no right to look objectively at the facts but should be ruled by the emotions which have led to ineffective,knee-jerk legislation the results of which have been to criminalise law-abiding member of the public whilst giving the real criminals carte blanche because they know they will not meet any effective legal resistance to their activities.

    I sympathise with him - the worst thing for any parent must be to lose a child, but his demands are unreasonable and would, IMO, be inappropriate.

    I am heartily sick of being told by emotionally-charged persons who are in no state to make rational decisions that those of us who refuse to jump on their bandwagons are heartless, inhumane etc etc. :evil:
     
  9. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    From yesterday's Sunday Times:

    4,000 shot in Britain in a year
    Will Iredale
    Figures show war on gun crime failing

    FOUR THOUSAND people have suffered shooting injuries in a single year as gun crime continues to rise across Britain. Figures released by the Home Office show that 81 people were shot dead and more than 500 were seriously wounded between April 2002 and March 2003.
    The details of gun casualties come as government statistics issued this month are expected to show that other violent crime — mainly fuelled by binge drinking — has risen by 11% compared with the same period last year.

    The gunshot injuries are revealed in a paper detailing crimes recorded by police in England and Wales. It is the most up-to-date analysis available of the type of weapons used and the scale of injury.

    The data show that 518 people needed to be detained in hospital after being shot and wounded in the 12-month period from 2002-03. More than one-third (187) were seriously injured by handguns while 41 were wounded with shotguns. In total, 3,995 people were shot, of whom about half (2,187) had minor wounds caused by air guns.

    The figures will be of great concern to the government, which has tried to convince the public it is winning the battle on gun crime. The 2003-04 figures are also expected to see the trend continue with even more injuries being caused by guns.

    Two years ago a guns amnesty was hailed a success by the government after more than 17,000 firearms and 450,000 rounds of ammunition were handed in to police stations across the country. There have also been recent high-profile operations to crack down on guns in inner cities.

    However, gun crime figures released last October showed a 3% rise to 10,590 incidents in England and Wales in the year to June — an average of 29 a day. Gun crime has more than doubled since Labour came to power in 1997.

    Yesterday, a man was taken to hospital after being shot in the neck while sitting in a parked car at a busy junction in Reading. The victim, who has not been named but is believed to be about 30, is being treated in Royal Berkshire hospital, which says his condition is serious.

    The high volume of injuries from gunshots is further highlighted in figures obtained by The Sunday Times from police forces under the Freedom of Information Act.

    In the past two years the Metropolitan police recorded 2,015 incidents, while in Manchester 95 people were seriously wounded last year, according to Greater Manchester police, and West Yorkshire police recorded 251 crimes where a firearm was fired causing injury.

    Experts say the number of people admitted to hospital with gunshot injuries is much higher than those released by the government because many hospitals do not record the treatment of gunshot wounds, or the method of collecting data differs between hospitals.


    I'm glad that, now gun control in the UK is so strict, that we live in a society safe from this menace :evil:
     
  10. Oh dear, bye bye air rifles I suppose?

    Thing is, if you report to Plod that some little scrotes are messing around with air-guns (often under age and without supervision) and shooting where they have no permission or at protected spieces or at cats or dogs or chickens or whatever Plod will do the square root of feck all about it most of the time. If you catch the little cretins and confiscate their guns though... plod will probably try to do you for theft.
    Anyone would think that they wanted airgun related incidents to rise :? . Mind you it is agood excuse for a ban isn't it?
     
  11. Ignorance, bias and lack of experiece would seem to be no bar on contriibuting to this forum.
     
  12. Perhaps I worded that badly. Insert "and are deeply psychologically affected by the experience" between "etc." and "are".
     
  13. Gun control doesn't work!

    There is substantial evidence that right to carry laws lower gun related crimes. In the US, John Lott, has found a decrease in crime in states that have enacted right to carry laws, while the district of Columbia (DC) has the highest crime rate in the US, and also has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books.

    Even the CDC has released a report after years of research and millions of dollars spent, where they conclude there is no substantial evidence that gun control reduces gun crimes.

    Losing any child for whatever reason has got to be terrible, but to focus your anger on an inanimate object instead of the real cause, the perp that pulled the trigger, is insane IMHO...emotions have no place in this debate, yet that is all the anti-gun crowd has; since the facts do not back up their argument(s).
     
  14. So former soldiers should not become aid workers or be better qualified to speak as peace protesters then?
     
  15. I said lost "family", and added "and are deeply psychologically affected by the experience". As for former soldiers as "peace protesters", are you perhaps thinking of JF Kerry???? Anyone that is so deeply affected by an event that they can't be rational about it is not in a position to join in a rational debate, although I guess the "peace" movement has never really been particularly rational :twisted:. In any case, losing your kid in a gunfight between gangsters in Turkey does not suddenly make you an expert on firearms law and make your opinion have more worth than the millions of dollars worth of academic research which has gone into the subjetc, whilst going to war for a few years & losing buddies might make you an expert on how that war really worked. There's a difference!