Pages

Anti gun nuts pop out of the woodwork again

WHY WAS A THIRD MANIAC FREE TO KILL?

A third maniac was not 'free to kill'. Killing is against the law and he committed a criminal act. He didn't do it because he had access to guns, he did it because something was wrong in his head.
ANTI-GUN campaigners have accused the Government of ignoring warnings they made two years ago that could have helped prevent Michael Atherton from killing three people.
Members of the Gun Control Network told MPs on the Home Affairs Committee looking into firearms law in 2010 that urgent changes were needed. It followed Derrick Bird’s killing spree across Cumbria which left 12 dead in June 2010 and the gun rampage of Raoul Moat on Tyneside a month later.
The MPs agreed to “explore” their proposals, which had significantly cut domestic gun violence in other countries. Despite that, no change to the law was made.
Deaths and injuries involving legally owned firearms are very rare in England, yet you wouldn't know that because every time there is an incident it gets so hyped up by the media that is worries the sheep. Every time something like this happens, the anti gun lobby pop out of the woodwork and demand that legal gun owners like myself and others face a new raft of restrictions and bans.

Britain already has the most draconian gun laws in the world, way beyond what could really be deemed necessary. Every British citizen has had all means of armed self defence taken from them by the Government; not just firearms but anything that could be used in defence is illegal to carry.

Apart from the odd isolated incident, the only guns used to attack people are illegally owned ones. Illegal guns in the hands of criminals who use them against defenceless citizens.
The proposed changes included police interviews with current or ex-spouses and partners of anyone applying for a firearms licence, to ensure anyone guilty of domestic abuse would be blocked from getting a gun.
Anyone guilty (under law) of domestic abuse will have a record with the police and will not be granted a firearms licence. Approaching an ex-spouse or partner will not guarantee accurate information. Such a person may harbour bitter resentment to their ex and may use the opportunity to do them a mischief.
It has emerged that Atherton was allowed to keep an arsenal of six weapons (Six does not make an arsenal) despite a long history of domestic violence.
Durham Police confirmed they attended four domestic incidents at their home in Horden between 2002 and 2004.
His guns were taken off him in 2008 after police were told he had made threats to kill himself. But he denied it and the guns were returned.
If all this is true and documented then it would suggest a failing on the part of the police, not an excuse to ramp up restrictions on everyone else
Nick Herbert, Criminal Justice Minister, is to meet with the GCN, which was set up after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. Gill Marshall-Andrews at GCN said: “Every year we get a killing like this and the Government response is weak. 
I'm sorry but every year is not all that often in the grand scheme of things, and if you look at the stats for gun deaths, it's also a lie.

I know, I know, if it was my [insert family member] etc, etc...

The Government do not approach every single murder in the country with a strong response. Unfortunately murders occasionally happen. Only a tiny fraction of legally held firearms are ever used in a crime. The large majority of legal guns are used for their intended sporting or work purposes

We will be pushing for a much more rigorous firearms licensing process.” GCN also wants the firearms licence fee raised from £50 to £250.
Why? What could possibly justify that? Do you only trust rich people with guns? Do you want to price plebs like me out of shooting because you think I'm too stupid to handle a firearm?

And we all know it won't stop at 250 quid. The next time something goes wrong it will have to be raised again won't it?

11 Comments:

Dr Evil said...

Since the Bill of Rights says we can bear arms, then all these laws making carrying a gun or owning a pistol illegal are unconstitutional and surely therefore actually illegal?

Bucko said...

I don't think those that make the laws give a shit. As long as they make sure they are the only ones with a right to self defence.

JuliaM said...

"Why? What could possibly justify that? Do you only trust rich people with guns?"

Well, clearly! It's not like barristers ever get boozed and coked up and go berserk with a shotgun in Belgravia, is it?

I mean, that would be ridiculous!

/sarc

Bucko said...

No Julia, that would never happen

Anonymous said...

The Atherton incident has shades of Dunblane, in that a clearly disturbed individual was for some reason allowed to hang onto their guns (I believe in Hamilton's case a high-ranking copper pulled strings to get his guns given back).

I bet we're going to keep seeing rampages with shotguns until they're banned, just like rifles and pistols were.

Bucko said...

Anon - I imagine stories like this will keep being hyped up in the media with a view to banning shotguns, however all the aristocracy, lords and royalty own shotguns. They would never be able to ban them outright for that reason.
That's why the gun control lobbys demands for higher licence fees is so ominous. If they can't ban them, maybe they will just price most ordinary people out of owning them.

JuliaM said...

Let's not forget that in the recent case, the police contact with him was three years ago. Not three days, three weeks, or even three months....

Three years!

selsey.steve said...

Bumper sticker I like:-
"More people died at Chappaquiddick than have been killed by my gun."
I grew up and worked overseas until I retired 10 years ago when circumstances forced me to come to the UK, much against my wishes. I have owned firearms since I was 14 without ever any untoward experience. My job for almost 30 years meant that I had to carry a loaded firearm on duty. It was never drawn nor fired, despite some tricky situations.
I come to the UK, apply for a shotgun licence and I'm refused because I have not lived in the country for long enough! And I cannot import my broom-handle Mauser pistol (made in 1922) because *gasp* it is a semi-automatic pistol. It's a bloody antique!
Two quotes come to mind:-
"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed" - Adolf Hitler
and:-
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Bucko said...

Selsey Steve - It's depressing isnt it. An adult whp grew up with guns cant own an antique pistol.

Them quotes are spot on too. Jefferson understood back then but modern day politicians just dont want to

Anonymous said...

Dear Moose

For the purposes of your analysis are guns - including handguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons - held by the police legal or illegal?

Just askin'.

DP

Bucko said...

DP - Yes. Those guns are legal. That's the way TPTB like it.