Repealing the Firearms (Amendment) No.2 Act

[Sim G]

Hopefully the police have learned valuable lessons and will actually apply the law as most of us agree should.

I think they undoubtably have, but they still have a very, very long way to go.

[HALODIN]

They do accept risk, just not unnecessary risk and revolvers/pistols are classed as unnecessary risk to the general public. IMO the only way to get them back on ticket, is either to prove the fault lay with the police for failing to apply existing laws or... you reduce the risk associated with ownership. Now the Olympics have passed, I don't see any other way.

Absolutely nothing. And that's the rub, society as a whole today, refuses or is incapable of accepting that there is risk in life. And that's risk of disease, disaster and other people. Strictly in terms of firearms, the type of firearm means nothing. All can be abused to one degree or another, but I'll grant you, it would be extremely difficult to go on a murderous spree with a single shot, muzzle loading, smoothbore, flintlock pistol.

And remember, the pistol was not the reason why Hamilton, nor was the AK the reason why Ryan (who did actually shoot more people with a Beretta) went on the rampage. We've actually had two spree shootings in the UK where the most common guns owned were used....

You could return full bore semi's and pistols to S1 tomorrow, but never negate the risk. All we have achieved is that the next mass shooting will not occur with a legally held cartridge firing handgun or a full bore semi auto rifle. Taking all guns out of private hands also does not negate the risk of another mass shooting. The risk is still there, just it wouldn't happen with a legally held gun...

[HALODIN]

It's not my logic it's their logic. Unless you realistically appraise the situation, you're unlikely to find a solution. You have to look at this through their eyes and find a solution that they might agree to.

Nothing just like nothing is stopping someone doing similar with a knife, rifle , shotgun. What is your issue with handguns , any firearm could be used to kill people you would be just as dead no matter what type of firearm was used. If your logic is less firearms less chance of someone going on a killing spree, why don't you help that happen by handing in any firearms you have. ?

[HALODIN]

Let's hope so.

Hopefully the police have learned valuable lessons and will actually apply the law as most of us agree should.
The ban on handguns didn't stop another Dunblane, The police and the people stopped it by enforcing the law and reporting anything suspicious.

[ordnance]

They do accept risk, just not unnecessary risk and revolvers/pistols are classed as unnecessary risk to the general public. IMO the only way to get them back on ticket, is either to prove the fault lay with the police for failing to apply existing laws or... you reduce the risk associated with ownership. Now the Olympics have passed, I don't see any other way.

Prove it was the police at fault to some extent in some mass shootings , don't forget it is the individuals that carry out shootings that are ultimately responsible. It won't make any difference few politicians are going to stick their necks out to support the return of handguns. Why would they . They have nothing to gain but possibly something to lose if something happened. Its different here in this part of the UK as a lot of politicians carry handguns for protection , it makes it difficult for them to say its ok for them to have handguns but no one else can. Strangely some might think, there doesn't seem to be the same anti ( legal ) gun agenda among politicians or the public here. Possible because they have seen over the years that its illegal firearms that are the problem not legal ones.

[HALODIN]

Yes, ultimately the responsibility for such an atrocity lies with the individual. Maybe UKIP are the answer.

Prove it was the police at fault to some extent in some mass shootings , don't forget it is the individuals that carry out shootings that are ultimately responsible. It won't make any difference few politicians are going to stick their necks out to support the return of handguns. Why would they . They have nothing to gain but possibly something to lose if something happened. Its different here in this part of the UK as a lot of politicians carry handguns for protection , it makes it difficult for them to say its ok for them to have handguns but no one else can. Strangely some might think, there doesn't seem to be the same anti ( legal ) gun agenda among politicians or the public here. Possible because they have seen over the years that its illegal firearms that are the problem not legal ones.

[Gaz]

They do accept risk, just not unnecessary risk and revolvers/pistols are classed as unnecessary risk to the general public. IMO the only way to get them back on ticket, is either to prove the fault lay with the police for failing to apply existing laws or... you reduce the risk associated with ownership. Now the Olympics have passed, I don't see any other way.

Prove it was the police at fault to some extent in some mass shootings , don't forget it is the individuals that carry out shootings that are ultimately responsible. It won't make any difference few politicians are going to stick their necks out to support the return of handguns. Why would they . They have nothing to gain but possibly something to lose if something happened. Its different here in this part of the UK as a lot of politicians carry handguns for protection , it makes it difficult for them to say its ok for them to have handguns but no one else can. Strangely some might think, there doesn't seem to be the same anti ( legal ) gun agenda among politicians or the public here. Possible because they have seen over the years that its illegal firearms that are the problem not legal ones.

I think myself and a handful of others might try to flush out the embarrassing parts of the Cullen Report's evidence. It's certainly in our interests to publicly demonstrate that the police were at fault and use that as ammunition to help overturn the pistol ban. Given that the newspapers are finally nailing the institutional corruption within the Met (Sunday Times cover story today and the Independent got hold of a report into corruption within the anti-corruption squad a little while ago) it would seem now is the best time to uncover fresh evidence - written by people with no axe to grind either way - which clearly proves that police negligence allowed Dunblane to happen. We already know it did, we just need the official documents to back us up.

It won't work on its own, but the more that we have on our side, the more we can drown out the antis. We certainly won't convince them all, but if we can drown out the hardcore ones with a convincing narrative of our own that will definitely help our cause.

[HALODIN]

I hoped you would.

I think myself and a handful of others might try to flush out the embarrassing parts of the Cullen Report's evidence.

[SevenSixTwo]

Why on earth was it sealed for 100 years? Certainly not a matter of National Security. Beggars belief...

Gaz, have you had eyes-on the draft of the e-petion?

[Christel]

Why on earth was it sealed for 100 years? Certainly not a matter of National Security. Beggars belief...

The official reason given is because there were victims involved whose names must not be in the public domain.
The only way the report will be released is if the victims' names are deleted.