the Sun story

[Jnadreth]

"Trying to start a debate" in other words Trying to ban another firearm class" I posted a link in the Grump Old foogies thread under the Cregan trial which is to the Home Affair Select commitee minutes from 2000....they pretty much state that any more bans would do absolutely nothing for public safety and even say that the 1997 acts were doo doo

Edit

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... 95ap69.htm

I had never read that, nor it seems have any politicians!

The 2011 HACS meeting was headed by none other than GCN member Keith Vaz...no wonder there was calls for all firearms to be section 1 emrolleyes http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /44702.htm

[Dombo63]

I've not read the whole 2011 report but this paragraph stands out, my bold:

"19. Professor Squires told us that he had logged 44 domestic firearm incidents between 1 January 2010 and 30 September 2010 that were reported in national and local media, comprising nine murders, nine attempted murders and 23 other incidents involving threats, wounding, assault or Actual Bodily Harm, and animal cruelty. Sixteen of the incidents involved low-powered air weapons, which are legal by definition, and fifteen involved shotguns, one-third of which he estimated would be likely to be licensed. He concluded:
By these estimates, legal weapons are still responsible for around 50% of our most serious domestic firearm incidents.

Many people would like to state a position that there is a clear, watertight differentiation between legal and illegal weapons, but that is not the case. I'd go even further and say that most gun crime in Britain is committed with weapons that are licensed or otherwise legal.[31]"
On what expertise does Prof Squires "estimate" those shotguns to be licensed? And by what possible leap of fantasy can he then extrapolate that "estimation" to his final statement that most gun crime is committed with legally held firearms (I refuse to describe my rifles as "weapons" any more than the contents of the knife block in my kitchen).

[Chuck]

I think it is called "projection" by phsychiatrists....reading into things something that isn't there.

from WIKI, it's a big subject of course

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.

[A.J.P.]

Peter Squires is one of a handful of people who constitute the entire membership of the GCN. It's hardly surprising that he puts forward an opinion based on conjecture and sloppy research. The man is a disgrace to academia.

[Blackstuff]

Peter Squires is one of a handful of people who constitute the entire membership of the GCN.

Only if that hand has been messing around with power tools, there's only 4 of them. And yet somehow they got 2 bites of the cherry HACS evidence gathering sessions

[raybrown53]

Peter Squires is one of a handful of people who constitute the entire membership of the GCN.

Only if that hand has been messing around with power tools, there's only 4 of them. And yet somehow they got 2 bites of the cherry HACS evidence gathering sessions

If the GCN has such a small membership surely NRA, BASC & all other shooting groups could join in an alliance, to lobby as a combined voice. I think its high time that shooting sports of all varieties joined together to fight the antis.

[LeighC]

[quote="Dombo63"]I've not read the whole 2011 report but this paragraph stands out, my bold:

"19. Professor Squires told us that he had logged 44 domestic firearm incidents between 1 January 2010 and 30 September 2010 that were reported in national and local media, comprising nine murders, nine attempted murders and 23 other incidents involving threats, wounding, assault or Actual Bodily Harm, and animal cruelty. Sixteen of the incidents involved low-powered air weapons, which are legal by definition, and fifteen involved shotguns, one-third of which he estimated would be likely to be licensed. He concluded:
By these estimates, legal weapons are still responsible for around 50% of our most serious domestic firearm incidents.

Many people would like to state a position that there is a clear, watertight differentiation between legal and illegal weapons, but that is not the case. I'd go even further and say that most gun crime in Britain is committed with weapons that are licensed or otherwise legal.[31]"

I can't take any 'academic' seriously who admits that his 'research' came from the media. Prof Squires is a full quarter of the GCN (his membership was not disclosed to the panel). When he says that most gun crime is committed with weapons that are legal, what he also doesn't clarify is that the bulk of this 'gun crime' is made up of administrative offences that pose no threat to public safety. Lumping all firearms offences under the banner 'gun crime' makes more headlines. I can't remember exactly how many offences it is possible to commit without even pointing a gun, loaded or otherwise, at someone, but there are certainly over 50 (things like holding a few rounds over allowance etc.) Low powered air weapons - therefore not firearms and should not be included in his 'research'. The whole thing just shows this man's ignorance, there are no such things as 'licensed' firearms. Small point perhaps, but the meaning of 'licence' and 'certificate' in law are hugely different.

[M1Charles1M]

There was a guy on TV Sunday morning who was an Author and I believe Academic who says in his new book that we all make our initial decisions based on emotion and them seek out those facts and supporting information that supports and verifies our chosen position. If this is the case how can ayone be truly 'Objective'

Also, today Mr Murdoch was said to be considering removal of page three from the Sun and replacing it with fashion pictures - tell me something Mr Murdoch - whatever happened to Editorial Independance?

[M1Charles1M]

In the interests of balance after Bird when HASC were to look at Gun Law the former Sun Editor Kelvin Mckenzie was on R4 Question Time and did state quite categorically that he believed that UK Gun Law was more than adequate and did not require further tightening. I guess he was subject to the same Editorial independance as all other Sun Editors seem to be and that was a personal view he could only state having left the job?

[JS569]

Referring back to the topic, I wasn't too best pleased when I saw the headline, I rarely get a bee in my bonnet, but this incensed me as it was scare mongering the public with a tenuous link, at best, to the US shootings. Anyway I complained to the press complaints commission and they said they had already 27 complaints. I am glad I did too, whether he wrote the whole thing or it was edited, it was aimed at marginalising a law abiding sect of society, one which goes to great lengths to ensure it sticks to the letter of the law. The press doesn't target a certain type of car that kills more people a year, of course not, the drunk or negligent driver gets blamed.

As a whole, I am very supportive of our licensing system, naturally there are flaws in it and certain restrictions (as I am sure we will all agree on) are pointless, at best serving little use. I just worry that with unbalanced media in general circulation on this topic, that the occasions when people find out you shoot and they give you a funny look like all of a sudden you're a threat will increase. Recently someone at a Christmas party asked me about it and looked terrified when I was explaining my interest in Enfield's and the history associated with them due to their ill education on the subject. I had to basically justify my interest and the licensing behind FAC's to avoid any 'awkwardness'. We are normal people with a normal hobby that spans various different disciplines/ areas!

Rant over!