Gun ownership makes you vulnerable, say police

Warning after Burnley man shoots himself with illegal gun

Don't get drawn into the headline. By illegal gun, they don't mean a weapon that was used or intended to commit crimes, they mean an unlicensed one. Don't get drawn by the sub headline either:
A MAN who shot himself in the head had an array of illegal firearms, an inquest heard.
By 'array', they mean three.
Both the Burnley coroner and a senior police detective expressed ‘serious concerns’ about how David Read came to be in possession of a Enfield .38 revolver, a Beretta handgun and a rifle.
How on earth did this man get his hands on three unlicensed weapons?
He had acquired the guns after the death of his father-in law in 1987 and kept them at home ever since.
Oh. Well that answers that one.

So he has kept them at home since 1987? Doesn't sound like much of a criminal to me.
Mr Read, 65, was found dead at his home in Cleveland Gardens, Burnley, by his daughter Andrea on August 26 last year.
 An old age pensioner with old guns in his attic. Still, under our current gun terrified nanny state, that still would have been enough to send him to prison for a very long time. Maybe even the rest of his life at that age. That's if he hadn't killed himself first.
The cause of death was given as a single gunshot wound to the head.
If he had chosen to pipe his exhaust gasses into his car as a way out, this would never have made the papers.
Det Insp Dave Groombridge, said that the fact that unlicensed firearms were present was of ‘grave concern’ to the police.
He added: [...] “The number of firearms held by people who may have chanced upon them during house clearances or keeping them as collectibles or heirlooms in unknown.
If that's the case, none of these 'unknown' guns should really be much of an issue for you, but of course you want to claim ownership of all the guns for yourselves. Can't even let people keep an heirloom. But it's this next statement that extracts the proverbial urine:
“Such weapons may not be intended for criminal activities their mere existence renders the holder extremely vulnerable and presents a danger to the public.
Guns not intended for criminal use pose a danger to the public? Does that include all the legally held firearms, or just the unlicensed ones that aren't intended for criminal use?

And owning a gun makes the holder vulenrable? H..  How? Disarmed citizens are extremely vulnerable. Armed ones are not, but disarmed is exactly the way the government and police would like us to be. You keep trying to convince people that they will be vulnerable by owning a gun though, just because one old codger decided he wanted out and a gunshot to the head was the easiest way to do it.
“This case has tragically highlighted the dangers inherent with illegal possession of firearms
The danger in this case being you may want to use it to take your own life. Ohh. Let's all be scared of guns.

20 Comments:

DerekP said...

James Higham said...

Bucko said...

JuliaM said...

Able said...

Mud in the Blood said...

Pavlov's Cat said...

hangemall said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

Julie said...

Julie said...

Furor Teutonicus said...

JuliaM said...

Dr Evil said...

Bucko said...

Bucko said...

Anonymous said...