Oh dear - another incident

[saddler]

Yesterday, in canton Luzern, an employee at the 9pm break of his factory, started shooting at people with a handgun ... He managed to kill 3 and wound 6 others before one of the victims hit him in the head and killed him with a chair..

One can only wonder how many lifes would have been saved if that guy (or another) could have been armed.


The killer, is a not what the anti gunners wanted him to be.. A white, Swiss, militian, that used his service weapon to commit a massacre.. Nope. It was a freshly naturalized Albanian from Kosovo... And keep in mind that people from ex Yugoslavia and Balkans are not allowed to own guns in Switzerland...

Anyway, please go to this article, and like the comments on self defense by PIERRE SAVARY. It's sad, but it's event like these that might make people understand that loosing our right to carry was a stupid thing to do.

http://www.lematin.ch/suisse/quatrieme- ... y/24944277

From a Swiss chap that posted on another forum

ANY mention of any of the above on the BBC site?? The highlighted parts are worth reading over a couple of times...

[Chuck]

You want the beeb to report FACTS other than their own version, dream on (no offence of course).. Beeb just pushing government agenda...like they always do.

[M1Charles1M]

If the dialogue was better audable it may be possible to take a fairer view, my wife and daughter were discussing it with me later after I posted, from that I would say that the police are somewhat bound by protocol so fair play to them, the newspapers/media on the other hand by reporting every single event in a sensationalist way are fueling the anti-gun sentiment in society, what's clear is teenagers are not clear (and not just teenagers) on just how police are bound to react these (post 9-11) days, and that shops which sell these things asides from filling in the forms ought to have some sort of indication in the form of signage that brandishing an object which looks remotely like a gun in a public place could have unintended consequences, times have changed and your points are indeed fair and valid Sendit, media all to often make things worse, where if acting responsibly they could improve understanding.

The Media, Newspapers, TV, some Magazines, etc have little or no interest in reporting objectively or fairly. The Media have one overall objective in common and that is Power. Power to determine how you and I live our lives. Information is Power so if you sensationalise, use emotive language and stir up Public feeling to your point of view you then exercise Power of influence over the Political Agenda and the Politicians DARE NOT ignore that opinion when they only have their own Power base and votes to maintain them in Power at the forfront of their very existance. Common sense and logic are dirty words to the Media. Look at any Media report, on any subject and see what language is commonly used. Where is the emphasis made, what is the tone used, where are the facts not just the conjecture...........I could go on all day? Why are the Press so against Leveson....I think I could hazard a guess?????

Because we don't want mouthbreathers telling us what we can and cannot report. Don't like what Outlet X tells you? Go read a different one, it (used to be) a free country.

Muppet.

Firstly you need to be careful using euphamisms like 'Free Country'. We are discussing the topic in this Forum of Firearms, Firearms Law, Ownership and Use by Law Abiding people, in that context this is NOT a free country, if it were, I and other owners would not be denied our Constitutional Rights sacrificed at the alter of assumed Parliamentary Sovereignty.

It is your Constitutional Right to report on any and all subjects and at no point in any post, quote, reference or other statement have I ever implied or suggested there should be any restriction on what may be reported. I refer specifically at all points to Media reporting of Firearms and related matters.

All I have ever asked or expected of any Media is that they, when reporting on Firearms matters remain:

OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL and BALANCED.

Do they, tell me Mr Journalist, does your personal attack on me meet those tests?

[ronboy]

Last night I saw on telly a crime programme of the Hungerford massacre. I think I am right in saying that a guy saw Ryan walking along with his guns
shooting, the guy had a legal gun and did not shoot Ryan for fear of losing his guns. Had he shot him he would have saved lives. Just after this programme was a rescue of people in the Caingorm mountains, where the presenter casually mentioned that approx 11/12 people die yearly on the
mountains. No mention of leveling the mountains or banning mountains.

[LeighC]

Last night I saw on telly a crime programme of the Hungerford massacre. I think I am right in saying that a guy saw Ryan walking along with his guns
shooting, the guy had a legal gun and did not shoot Ryan for fear of losing his guns. Had he shot him he would have saved lives.

Yep, can't remember the guy's name off the top of my head, but he said to Police afterwards that he was unsure of his position had he used his own gun to stop Ryan........

[Thomas Turner]

OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL and BALANCED.

clapclap
Then here's todays offering for the pot from our local paperhttp://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Armed-p ... z2MAxxb2Vy

Police said they feared for the man's welfare

Local resident Gary Packer said he could see police dogs, 20 armed officers and ambulances at the scene at 7.30am today.

In this case I linked to I think it's more about the local press making more of a drama out of every incedent to be honest, Police have to follow policies and protocol for weapon related incedents I suppose, these articles are very frequent around these parts, very often the final outcome is sidelined and certianly an anticlimax compared to the initial article.

[John25]

Last night I saw on telly a crime programme of the Hungerford massacre. I think I am right in saying that a guy saw Ryan walking along with his guns
shooting, the guy had a legal gun and did not shoot Ryan for fear of losing his guns. Had he shot him he would have saved lives. Just after this programme was a rescue of people in the Caingorm mountains, where the presenter casually mentioned that approx 11/12 people die yearly on the
mountains. No mention of leveling the mountains or banning mountains.

When the pistol ban was imminent, I sent the PM figures on deaths in the various sports.

Shooting was at the bottom.

I compared figures for deaths from any cause.

Shooting was at the bottom.

I suggested banning tobacco (highest) and taxing shooting.

No sensible reply was received.

We (shooters) are a minority (especially while we argue and bicker amongst ourselves) and an easy target for any poitician who needs to be seen to be 'doing something'

They will never listen to reason, they will never adopt a common sense approach.

[Christel]

We (shooters) are a minority (especially while we argue and bicker amongst ourselves) and an easy target for any poitician who needs to be seen to be 'doing something'

They will never listen to reason, they will never adopt a common sense approach.

clapclap clapclap

[Thomas Turner]

John25 wrote:


We (shooters) are a minority (especially while we argue and bicker amongst ourselves) and an easy target for any poitician who needs to be seen to be 'doing something'

They will never listen to reason, they will never adopt a common sense approach.

clapclap

We do appear to be a mixed bag though and not just politically, I've put my political thoughts to one side to become a shooter, it's clear none of them (political parties) have shooters aspirations in mind, I've only just gotten involved and can see that to argue one party over another where shooting is concerned just divides us and they like that, the trick is to speak up for shooting, promote it, defend it, and let the politicians argue amongst themselves, instead of dividing and conquering the public, none of them are truely worthy.

[Gaz]

Firstly you need to be careful using euphamisms like 'Free Country'. We are discussing the topic in this Forum of Firearms, Firearms Law, Ownership and Use by Law Abiding people, in that context this is NOT a free country, if it were, I and other owners would not be denied our Constitutional Rights sacrificed at the alter of assumed Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Ownership of firearms in the UK is a privilege, not a right. Ownership of a shotgun is still a legal right ("shall be granted", vide Section 2 Firearms Act 1968) but I quote from a briefing note issued by Knights Solicitors: "the case law has made it clear that the possession of guns [i.e. firearms - my addition here] is a privilege and not a right"

It is your Constitutional Right to report on any and all subjects

Wrong. There is nothing in the (unwritten) UK constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech or of the press. I enjoy the freedom of reporting because common law has yet to generate a precedent preventing me from writing news reports and no statute has (yet) been passed to completely criminalise news reportage. If you must make sweeping statements at least start from a correct set of principles.

Do they, tell me Mr Journalist, does your personal attack on me meet those tests?

Nope, because this isn't my newspaper's comment pages - this is an internet forum where I leave my hat at the door and speak as I find, while merrily defending my profession from the lazy slurs of those whose response to something they don't like is to propose restricting it within boundaries that they feel personally comfortable with.

I had a much longer response here but I started rambling. In short - by trying to define a standard you think the news media should be held to, you want to restrict what they can say. Easy as that.