A pretty cogent and thought provoking article by philosopher/professor A C Grayling .

He would include banning guns for hunting (unnecessary and cruel), and also would ban farmers from owning guns for pest control (apparently they could borrow a gun from the government under strict conditions if necessary). The curiously American notion that private gun ownership keeps the government in line is rightly dismissed as fanciful and irrational nonsense: the government has more and bigger weapons. Elections tend to work better... including throughout the EU and much of the rest of the world.

There's probably more chance of spotting a flying pig than any global ban actually happening, but I am attracted to the idea that gun ownership is, simply, an immoral act and should be condemned as such. Let's start condemning.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Stevie Hill, you are a smart guy - so i'm thinking you know already they will take pot shots at your brave head.

--------------------
.. is this thing on?

Naive, ignorant and foolish IMHO


i mean, does he imagine all these drug running gangs buy legally registered firearms??


and that any such restriction on supply is actually possible to enforce on anyone other than the already completely law abiding????


Pest control, (even more, seeing as the townies won't let em hunt with dogs any more, ) true free-range livestock culling ( free deer, wild boar, etc.... ) , are NOT immoral , and require tools for the job, although to be fair, there ARE other tools than a gun, but they have their own drawbacks, and limitations.....





i'd completely agree with the derision of the american thing.... "keep the government in line" what utter pigswill, that's what elections are FOR!!!! (never mind the government having bigger nastier toys to bring to bear)


and "sport hunting" is just plain WRONG. if you kill it, it had better damn well be because it was a threat, (include pests that infect, or kill livestock in that) or because you're going to eat it.... (or sell it to be eaten.... )




Ultimately, many of these tragic killings, could also have been committed with a modern bow and arrows, or cross bow,

and a car is equally as effective a killing machine as a gun.

Guns do NOT kill people, People do.... sadly there are more sub-optimally balanced people than is ideal for a globally responsible attitude to tools......

a Gun is a tool, it's primary purpose is to kill another living thing....

there ARE occasions when that is okay,

but not that many.



only townies decide pest control is irrelevant.

and then get to impose their uneducated (in terms of country life reality) ideas on the farming communities,
and that slightly irritates me.....

I would agree that ownership of a gun for purposes OTHER than pest control and livestock management , could be more tightly controlled, Sport hunting should be considered dubious at best, but that mere ownership of a gun , if one has a valid , non recreational reason to.... is NOT immoral... and that such inflammatory remarks might not go down well in the local pub.... (although actually, i'm not so sure there's many farmers left round your way..... but still.... you get my point)

It would be very interesting to see how much support for uber tight firearms restrictions you would get in Norway this week, and say in a year's time. Hunting is a big thing over there. It was the events in Dunblaine that led to regulations becoming so tight in the UK that the gun clubs had to more or less call it a day, and shooting was one of our top Olympic sports. It hasn't resulted in any less gun crime of course. And as Prince Philip rather distastefully said at the time, had he wanted to he could have killed all those kids just the same with a cricket bat. Although that is arguable he could certainly have done enough damage to have achieved the same number of media column inches with one. That is beyond question.

The American analogy is a bit apples and pares compared the UK or EU position. In the urban areas I agree the same rules apply but not so in rural areas. They really do have far more dangerous wildlife wondering around in North America and when you're in it you kind of get a very clear idea of where you are in the food chain. Yet for all the deaths from gun crime in the USA, something like ten times per head of capita compared to that of the UK, there are twice as many deaths from firearms being used in suicides.

My view is that if you eliminate guns from the equation fewer people will die as a result of firearms abuse. Further, if you don't have a gun yourself you are far less likely to be shot, especially by your own gun (by your own hand or someone elses). You can't argue with that. But in the round it is not a black and white reason for a total ban and in any case, given the role the black market plays in the provision of guns, a blanket ban is about as likely to work as prohibition.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

I dislike the word 'Ban' - having said that - I wouldn't mind Banning ALL ownership of ALL guns !
- And u can add bombs to that as well.

Ban all ownership of all guns and all bombs.

And replace them with soothing eastern influenced musical healing themed albums to be sold in organic stores and museum shops.

That is all, I thank you.

Guns don't kill people...bullets do. Yet it appears I can currently purchase as many of these online as I want. Using google shopping FFS! Just click to add to basket...

Perhaps controlling/restricting the sale of ammunition would be the first step? Or making it a criminal offence to possess anything above a certain number of rounds?

I can't see the reasoning behind the idea that a car is an equally effective kiling machine. Even as a sub-urbanite I can see flaws in the logic of using one for pest control.

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Putting aside that there are legitimate reasons for owning a gun, and that possible alternatives don't make those reasons any less legitimate, there are already more guns in illegal private ownership in the UK and Europe than there are guns in legal private ownership. Essentially, the guns we worry about are already banned and that hasn't made the slightest difference because anyone who really wants one can get one for a price. And that price is a lot cheaper than even a half decent guitar.

And even if we could produce an effective ban, it's not that difficult to make a gun. Not really. It's happening all over the world as we speak. Another Genie that won't go back in the bottle, with the best will in the world.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

Steve, you do realize that any half-competent machinist
with cheap shop tools can MAKE a gun (pistol, rifle,
shotgun or machine-gun) don't you? Ammo, too.
It's not rocket science and there was no high-tech in the
15th through 19th centuries when they were made by local blacksmiths.

And banning guns wont stop people from killing people
(ask anyone in Washington D.C., New York or Chicago)
and if they can't get a gun they get you with a knife,
rock or pointy stick.

What i think isn't really the point here: I said pigs will fly first. But what I find interesting is Grayling equating gun ownership with immorality: it's just wrong. A gun owner deserves no more respect than someone with kiddie porn on his computer, or a Scientologist. Gun ownership is porn. Gun ownership is a weird, loony cult. You have to be deranged to want anything to do with it. The people who want to own guns are, by definition, the people least mentally suited to do so.

Grayling's point is why don't we socially ostracise these people for what they are.

I agree Grayling possibly overreaches himself on the question of farmers/pest control (and weakens an otherwise good case), but in principle I don't see why farmers could not rent or borrow guns held at say the local police station for short periods. To control pests, and not shoot fleeing teenage burglars in the back when the mood takes them.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

the analogy is flawed though.

if gun ownership = paedophilia, are paintball enthusiasts into "barely legal"? archers into retro?!

what about people who like to play with knives? that's just as dangerous, but you can buy a knife on any high street.

the fallacy of the argument is to associate the object itself (the gun) - which is JUST AN OBJECT - with a lack of morals.

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Grayling equating gun ownership with immorality: it's just wrong

---

That line is correct - and not in the sense Grayling (or you, perhaps?) intended.

I see no need to kill or hurt things for fun. I'm not a fan of fishing for that reason. But for pest control, or for culling herds of deer, or for shooting wild birds or other animals for food, what is the problem? It's a tool of the trade. Yes, you could have the guns locked up at your police station. (Remember that for most farmers, that's at least a half-hour drive each way, or more like an hour up in Scotland, so this isn't exactly a quick trip out.) But why should the tools of your trade be restricted in that way?

Then there's shooting as a sport. Yes, it's a valid sport, in the same way as archery. If we need to lock up guns, do we also need to lock up bows and arrows? A decent archer could put more arrows into more people in a shorter time than someone armed with a double-barrelled shotgun. Not to mention high-powered catapults.

"Ah", says Mr Grayling, "but people aren't regularly killed with bows and arrows." But most people aren't shot by sporting guns or utility guns either - people who are shot are overwhelmingly shot with military-spec handguns, which are already 100% illegal.

And then you get onto knives, which *have* to be legal otherwise you can't cook. Much more knife crime than gun crime.

And all that is a symptom of a problem, which is basically inner-city people being treated like crap by generations of politicians. Fix *that* and you're in business. Fix anything else, and you're just picking the flowers without hitting the roots.

The day after Robert Kennedy died I received a notice from the local railway express office
saying my walther P-38 automatic pistol had arrived. We shot it one afternoon, agreeing that
it had a very smooth action. And then I sent it back. Returning the P-38 solved nothing.
It only postponed the necessity of coming to grips with my gun problem. As the gun-control
argument raged closer to home, more and more people began telling each other that the gun,
was the ultimate cure for what ails us... The american way.

Hunter S. Thompson

Quote Steve Hill:

---

A gun owner deserves no more respect than someone with kiddie porn on his computer, or a Scientologist.

---

Oooh! Can I take this bit of bait?

I don't agree with Scientology, but I'll fight their corner in this case, because it's a really interesting debate...

What puts Scientologists on a par with paedophiles? Or indeed (I infer your stance from your choice of examples) what makes them 'inferior' or less deserving of respect than a Catholic? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

All groups of people who believe in something that cannot be proven (hence 'faith'). And if you're going to single the Hubbardists out for believing in a money-grabbing organisation that exploits people's beliefs for monetary gain, then... Watch Godfather Part 3! (It's underrated, IMO).

Cheers!

Chris

Quote grab:

---

"Ah", says Mr Grayling, "but people aren't regularly killed with bows and arrows." But most people aren't shot by sporting guns or utility guns either - people who are shot are overwhelmingly shot with military-spec handguns, which are already 100% illegal.

---

Not in every european nation they're not. Switzerland!!

This bloke is living in dreamland. Has he for instance thought of just going to the root of the problem and banning, murder? That would work, right?

Clarification: 100% illegal in the UK.

Quote Steve Hill:

---

What i think isn't really the point here: I said pigs will fly first. But what I find interesting is Grayling equating gun ownership with immorality: it's just wrong. A gun owner deserves no more respect than someone with kiddie porn on his computer, or a Scientologist. Gun ownership is porn. Gun ownership is a weird, loony cult. You have to be deranged to want anything to do with it. The people who want to own guns are, by definition, the people least mentally suited to do so.

Grayling's point is why don't we socially ostracise these people for what they are.

I agree Grayling possibly overreaches himself on the question of farmers/pest control (and weakens an otherwise good case), but in principle I don't see why farmers could not rent or borrow guns held at say the local police station for short periods. To control pests, and not shoot fleeing teenage burglars in the back when the mood takes them.

---

I think Mr Grayling's position is at risk of being a tad absolutist, however, the aspirations that fuel his thinking are laudible enough.

"Research featured in past editions of the Small Arms Survey reveals that there are at least 639 million firearms in the world. This number increases by approximately 8 million every year" --- drugs might be a better anaology than the somewhat darker call you made, Steve, and look at how successful we are in controlling them.

I applaud gun restictions in this country, along with total bans on activities such a bow-hunting. I am perfectly happy to target shoot arrows and have no real objection to shooting the rubber dummies used in the field shooting of arrows. This does not mean I have any inclination to shoot live animals or use a bow against a human being.

I am told that you can get the plans to make yourself an AK47 from the internet and assemble one with metalwork skills you can obtain in any secondary school.

The aspiration is interesting, achieving it... well short of a world totalitarian state... probably time to move on.

Anyway, does this mean I am to be reduced to clandestine meetings going "psst, 'ere Mister! Got any fletching? Is that a longbow or are you just pleased to see me?"

Reg

After reading the OP link i thik we should consider banning the private ownership of biros.

I think cops in major UK cities should carry guns. They should even be allowed to use them to stop suspects getting away. A shot in the back of the knee - disabled, not killed.

People should be allowed to own a gun for self defence at home. I have a cricket bat for that but I'd prefer a Walther PPK or even a Desert Eagle (:)). Its a deterrent. But if anyone ever broke into my place when my my family is there, I'd have to put one in them. Straight up.

But then I don't think the green and pleasant shires of Oxford can be compared to the Ghetto that is Hackney.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote:

---

I am told that you can get the plans to make yourself an AK47 from the internet and assemble one with metalwork skills you can obtain in any secondary school.

---

loads of machine guns and hand guns for sale on here

http://www.gunstar.co.uk/Submachine-Gun/Marushin-MP40-gun-for-sale-gs34151 .aspx

Quote ken long:

---

I think cops in major UK cities should carry guns. They should even be allowed to use them to stop suspects getting away. A shot in the back of the knee - disabled, not killed.

People should be allowed to own a gun for self defence at home. I have a cricket bat for that but I'd prefer a Walther PPK or even a Desert Eagle (:)). Its a deterrent. But if anyone ever broke into my place when my my family is there, I'd have to put one in them. Straight up.

But then I don't think the green and pleasant shires of Oxford can be compared to the Ghetto that is Hackney.

---

spoken like a true Texan!

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote ken long:

---

I think cops in major UK cities should carry guns. They should even be allowed to use them to stop suspects getting away. A shot in the back of the knee - disabled, not killed.

People should be allowed to own a gun for self defence at home. I have a cricket bat for that but I'd prefer a Walther PPK or even a Desert Eagle (:)). Its a deterrent. But if anyone ever broke into my place when my my family is there, I'd have to put one in them. Straight up.

But then I don't think the green and pleasant shires of Oxford can be compared to the Ghetto that is Hackney.

---

spoken like a true Texan!

---

I'm serious. The sooner they bring in zero tolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance) in this city, the sooner the economy will pick up (cause let's face it - the economy IS London). Tourists will come because they will feel safe. At the moment, criminals are walkin around like they own the place. Police officers are castrated, victims are sued for infringing human rights and illegal criminals can't be deported if they've sewn some seeds. Laughable.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote Korff:

---

What puts Scientologists on a par with paedophiles?

---

How about this?

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Quote Korff:

---

What puts Scientologists on a par with paedophiles?

---

How about this?

---

Sientology is a big Ponzi scheme, or pyramid selling scam, designed (intentionally) to enrich the guy at the top by e.g. selling "e-meters" containing $10-worth of Radio Shack components to unsuspecting mugs for $5,000. These wonderous machines prove that the human body is a conductor of electricity. And nothing else.

Scientology, as a "church" has been criminally convicted of fraud in France, and is banned as a dangerous sect in Germany (and elsewhere).

Then again, I can be equally unkind on the financing of the Roman Catholic Church, and the extraordinary lengths it is prepared to go to in order to ring-fence the wealth of the Vatican from the legitimate compensation claims of children its priests abused... but that's another debate... let's just say you can acquire a lot of assets over nearly 2,000 years, and nobody knows how to hide them better than these guys, whilst e.g. persuading the near-bankrupt UK government to raid its overseas aid budget to fund last year's Papal visit, after the faithful British Catholics failed dismally to raise the contribution they had promised to raise.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Problem with guns for self-defence against criminals is roughly the same as the US argument for guns as self-defence against the State. If you need to use them, it's too damn late. Unless you plan on sleeping with a handgun under your pillow, that is, in which case you have more serious things to worry about, like mental health issues perhaps.

Houses are usually full of perfectly good weapons, anyway. Knives, for instance. Or anything sufficiently heavy will do sufficient damage - lamps, toasters, kettles, irons... And in spite of what urban legend might have you think, the principle of "the best defence is a good offence" is perfectly legal. If you think you're at risk, you're entitled to take any reasonable measures in self-defence, including hitting hard and hitting first.

The only caveat is that you do have to be defending yourself. The reason Tony Martin was jailed was not that he shot and killed a burglar, but that he shot and killed the burglar when the burglar was already running away. More recently, a man stabbed and killed a burglar with no action taken. (It was correctly referred to the CPS for them to decide whether it was self-defence, and they decided it was.)

It's also worth pointing out that Tony Martin didn't Have that shotgun legally. So how much use do you think any extra laws would have been? If your answer was "f**k all", congratulations.

And rewinding to Dunblane, it's also worth noting that all *that* guy's guns *were* held legally, bcos the police were utterly incompetent at following up on firearms licenses. If they had done their job, they would have found out that his doctor knew he was a raving nutter.

Quote grab:

---

And rewinding to Dunblane, it's also worth noting that all *that* guy's guns *were* held legally, bcos the police were utterly incompetent at following up on firearms licenses. If they had done their job, they would have found out that his doctor knew he was a raving nutter.

---

Isn't that the point? Once you permit private ownership of guns, raving nutters will get round the legal checks and balances. They can play sane.

As I said above, you have to be mad to want to own a gun. By definition.

I've seen it (and had the odd gun pointed at me) dealing e.g. with bankrupt farmers. We had one loony who owned a veritable arsenal only tangentially related to the topic of pest control (unless "pest" includes receivers, liquidators etc) and was wholly serious in his intent to kill anyone who threatened to deprive him of his farm to pay his debts. I and my staff, at my firm's expense, were hooked up with enhance alarm systems and panic buttons. The police position was they couldn't do anything until he actually committed a crime (like killing me, presumably... whoop de doo).

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

just get some of this stuff.
http://www.miguelcaballero.com/cms/front_content.php

Quote ken long:

---

I think cops in major UK cities should carry guns. They should even be allowed to use them to stop suspects getting away. A shot in the back of the knee - disabled, not killed.

---

Despite what you see in the movies the chances of hitting a moving target (let alone choosing where to hit them) are pretty slim. Unless you issue sniper rifles and observe the following advice.

1. Distance between ref pts/time in seconds = distance per second
(I like to use meters. 1 mil=3.375 MOA, or use meters and mil)

2. [Distance per second X 3600] / (5280=mph) or (1000=kph)
(Now you have the tgt speed in mph or kph. Actually, this part is not required. But once you build lead charts for you and your rifle it aids in quick ref, and it is more dramatic to say "I shot a 7 mph runner" than "I shot a 12 fps mover."

3. Get a time of flight chart from a ballistics program for your particular load. Multiply time of flight to range by the speed of the target. This gives your required lead. Here is where working in metric pays off.
Lead in meters x 1000 / range to tgt = lead in mils
-OR-
[Lead in feet / 12] / [range in meters / 100] = lead in MOA

Here are some ToF values for a 173gn, 7.62mm bullet at 2600fps, sea level and 60 deg F, 78% RH:
100m .13 sec
150m .20 sec
200m .27 sec
250m .35 sec

At 100m, a 3mph walker requires about a 7 inch lead from desired POI, a slow walker is half that, a jogger double, and a track star triple. This data is based on trapping, and is very general. Since people percieve movement differently, and have different reflexes, these numbers get you into the ball park, but you have to refine your personal leads.

Or you could simply wait until they take their seat on the underground...

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

nicely put DM

There are already too many guns in the UK , no more thanks .
There also are plenty of armed police here too , They simply don't make a big show of it all the time .
I have seen plenty of armed officers on the streets , and been told to "piss off with that camera sunshine" by them ( at the aftermath of a bank robbery with a dslr in hand :P) .

Does zero tolerance work ?
I thought the prisons are already overcrowded .
The CPS seems to be falling on it's proverbial arse too , with many police prosecutions falling at many a hurdle .

I short , I am not in favour of any "man on the street" having access to firearms .

Quote:

---

Isn't that the point? Once you permit private ownership of guns, raving nutters will get round the legal checks and balances. They can play sane.

---

Perhaps you missed the part about the raving nutter having been diagnosed as a raving nutter by his doctor, and the police not caring to check this? I repeat, existing laws would have prevented Dunblane, *IF* the police had done their job.

Quote:

---

As I said above, you have to be mad to want to own a gun. By definition.

---

Like the entire British target-shooting squad perhaps, most of whom have to train abroad?

Or anyone interested in archery, where you're aiming to put an arrow in someone? Or how's about fencing - after all, that's all about sticking 3 foot of steel through someone's gut? Discus, hammer and shotput, where you're lobbing something heavy with the intention of killing someone on the receiving end? Javelin? Or the psychos training in unarmed martial arts, where the sole purpose of taking part is to beat the living [ ****** ] out of the other guy? Not to mention dressage, which might look all pretty but is actually all about using a horse as a weapon to trample people underfoot or put you in the right position to clout them with a sword?

When you get down to it, almost every sport we have is based on warfare, and therefore is based on how to kill people. (Even running - you're either running a distance to get to the battle quickly, or you're charging to attack your enemy before he can put an arrow in you.) So people wanting to shoot as a sport are no more mad than Katie Price is mad to train in dressage. If you think otherwise, you simply don't understand the nature of sports.

That's before we even get to people who need a gun to do their job of work. Good luck culling deer with your bare hands.

Sure there are nutters out there with legal weapons. How many people are killed by them? Damn few, is the answer. Most gun deaths (outside of wars) come from illegally held weapons.

I have no argument with *serious* control of who's allowed to own one. Nor of *serious* control of how they're stored, since you don't want criminals to be able to break in and nick them. But both these we have already, so it only needs the supervising authorities (i.e. the police) to properly monitor it, in the same way as drivers in control of a ton or more of lethal metal are properly monitored. 3000 people a year dead on the roads in the UK alone, by the way, if you want to talk about risk.

Quote grab:

---

you don't want criminals to be able to break in and nick them.

---

Good thinking 99.
That's the last thing we would want. After all why do we 'need' the wepon in the first place - 'cept to shoot the guy that's trying to steal it. Mad world! Guns rock!

--------------------
.. is this thing on?

Edited by Stan (03/08/11 01:46 AM)

Quote:

---

After all why do we 'need' the wepon in the first place

---

Why do you "need" your musical instruments?

Quote grab:

---

Why do you "need" your musical instruments?

---

To club intruders to death with, obviously.

there's a reason i have pointy headstocks on my guitars.......

Quote grab:

---

Or anyone interested in archery, where you're aiming to put an arrow in someone? Or how's about fencing - after all, that's all about sticking 3 foot of steel through someone's gut? Discus, hammer and shotput, where you're lobbing something heavy with the intention of killing someone on the receiving end? Javelin? Or the psychos training in unarmed martial arts, where the sole purpose of taking part is to beat the living [ ****** ] out of the other guy? Not to mention dressage, which might look all pretty but is actually all about using a horse as a weapon to trample people underfoot or put you in the right position to clout them with a sword?

---

You didn't mentioning boxing... that's the one that really worries me... at several levels...

The same can be said of irresponsible dog owners (read nutters) .

Quote ken long:

---

I'm serious. The sooner they bring in zero tolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance) in this city, the sooner the economy will pick up (cause let's face it - the economy IS London). Tourists will come because they will feel safe. At the moment, criminals are walkin around like they own the place. Police officers are castrated, victims are sued for infringing human rights and illegal criminals can't be deported if they've sewn some seeds. Laughable.

---

Ive lived in Austin and LA over various parts of my life..... London is a quiet country village in comparative terms.... and yes - I've lived in Brixton too.

Bit of a story and then a thought……….

Story
So I live in London and two years ago two youths tried to beak in. I heard the noise and went to investigate, watched and laughed silently as they could not get through the locks. I stopped laughing when one produced a hand gun and said he would “put a cap” through our fanlight (It’s quite nice). Odd what adrenalin does as I went down stairs and asked them what they wanted and then when they look confused told them to bugger off and take their guns with them. Oddly they looked shame faced and did leg it on a motorbike.

Thought
So hear is the thing, if I’d had a gun I would have taken it with me. The result at so close range would be either the kid would be dead or I would. I’m not sure I want to be a killer or for that matter killed.

Morality is an issue for the human hart not the means by which it is expressed, my belief is we should limit negative human expression through a combination of, yes positive schemes but also hard legislature.

I’m not sure that helps but......

Quote MarkyC:

---

So hear is the thing, if I’d had a gun I would have taken it with me. The result at so close range would be either the kid would be dead or I would. I’m not sure I want to be a killer or for that matter killed.

---

Or another scenario , their gun could have been a replica , then you would have essentially shot an unarmed "man" . (not sure how the law treats replicas)