Re: Guns
 

These already exist and I think for the most part everyone is in agreement with you on this.

Some are pointing out the fact that regulations don't work and therefore anything you propose needs serious and considerable review not knee jerk reactions.

Every time an incident happens the same process is applied, people cry travesty and a review is held, from that review suggestions are made in how to make the process safer/work better for society.

Short of an outright ban this will always happen and even with a ban it will happen albeit at a far lesser rate.

The same is true for every train crash, every plane crash. It is a process of reverse engineering, with the facts of the case known it is possible to pinpoint the exact flaws. These flaws will continually be patched until it no longer happens (which is an impossible objective).

Re: Guns
 

I don't disagree with you on that, it always takes a tragedy to review how things are done in the hope it can be diverted in the future. This is what is happening now, it's called evolving & I don't understand why some people are so against it. Like I said before, some people only look at things from their own point of view

Re: Guns
 

You look at it from your view point, which is "I don't need a gun so you can ban them for all I care"

Someone else views it as "That's my hobby, this is how I blow of steam at the weekend".

Another view "This will affect my business and earning potential".

Survivalist view "If sh*t hits the fan, I have lost a method of protection and hunting skill".

My view "Society becomes ever more reliant on the government"

It's also not always a case of the majority will win out.

Re: Guns
 

Remind me, how many police officers in the UK have died on duty as a result of being stabbed? How many police officers in the UK have died on duty as a result of being shot? The result may surprise you.

Re: Guns
 

In how many incidents, anywhere, ever, has more than one police officer been killed by a knife in the same incident?
I doubt the answer will surprise anyone.

Re: Guns
 

I take your response as being: I don't want to shoot weapons, so few others should be able to do so.

These days, I have little use for a Bowie type knife; should their sale be banned to?

Re: Guns
 

It won't surprise those that watch 24:p

Re: Guns
 

No, I'm looking at it objectively. Guns have no bearing on my life, I don't own one nor have I been a victim of gun crime so why would I look at it from any other point of view. They could be banned for all I care & I wouldn't notice the difference. I however, didn't suggest they should be & I'm perfectly capable taking on board peoples reasons & arguments for & against guns.

My view is when something tragic happens why doesn't everyone take a step back, review all aspects of what happened see if anything could be changed or bought in that could maybe save a life in the future. People getting defensive & putting their backs up straight away making it about them & their rights is just a selfish way of thinking. I'm sure a lot of you would think differently if it was your loved one that had been killed with gun & there was a possibility their death could've been avoided if certain restrictions were in place.

Re: Guns
 

Well then you are taking it wrong

Re: Guns
 

Some people who are not law abiding don't break laws just because they can. They don't break all laws, just some. A burglar might stop at burglary and never go armed. Give him the chance to have a gun doesn't mean he's going to take it.

If the rewards for breaking a law are not great enough for the risk, they won't do it. If the risk involved is too great, they won't do it. If the consequence of being caught is too great, they won't do it.

A burglar is just a burglar if he gets caught. His bag of swag isn't worth being sentenced as an armed robber.


Because you really cannot shoot as many people with a knife as you can with a gun. Feel free to post your Calgary exception that proved the rule. ;)

so no need then if you don't have animals or a forest That's what an army is for. If you're in a democracy that's okay.

If you're in a dictatorship it might be different.

It's a little bizarre. It tends to suggest the idea of improving one's aim. What for? What happens when one hits the bull every time?

But if you want to do it, fine. Do it at a club strictly controlled, no guns allowed off the premises because you don't need to have guns off the premises for target shooting.

Let off steam at the club. If you are so stressed out that you want to fire a gun, I'm not sure that letting you have one is that good an idea. :eek:

Those people are nutcases. Not the sort of person who should have guns are they?

Re: Guns
 

As explained above as soon as this happens the process of reverse engineering starts, which is what you are describing in your first sentence.

Everyone does take a step back just because you see people defending gun ownership doesn't mean that they are heartless or against further restrictions, all they are asking is that any further restrictions should come out of hard facts and not out of a knee jerk reaction.

It is hard because lives have been lost and all of our thoughts should go out to the families affected by this tragedy.

We can talk about the "lessons learned" once the facts are in as to how this all came about, is their a hole in the system? and if there is can it be plugged?

You or I can not answer that that is the responsibility of the RCMP and whichever organisations are impacted by the RCMPs review

Re: Guns
 

Some survivalists are nuts, the majority are those who trained in the military or scouts.

Due to TV shows such as doomsday preppers these people tend to get an unfair image placed upon them.

If you were a mountaineer I would heavily suggest a survival course, same can be said for pilot, sailor, explorer or even just going out into the woods to live under the stars for a week.

Edit. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who can still abdicate away from the TV once in a while.

Re: Guns
 

I agree 100% with wot I just said in the other thread.

Re: Guns
 

The results won't surprise me because guns aren't easily available in the UK. I would expect knives to be more of a problem. Thankfully.

Re: Guns
 

You would be wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of British police officers killed in the line of duty

It seems that vehicles cause a large number of deaths of police officers on duty