Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:31:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
510 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > I'm interested in what requirments must be met before I could buy a firearm
> > in your country.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I don't know what their process is like, but I think that long arms must be
> allowed because it seems they have a plague of dangerous foxes that must be
> wiped out at all costs.
No, we have a highly efficient method of dealing with that problem that
involves lots of wealthy folk charging around on horses after a pack of
hounds. Cruel, but I can sit back and let them have their fun. It's the
ridiculous arguments that get put forward in favour of it that are most
amusing. I don't object to someone shooting a wild pest to protect their
livestock either. But, I would draw the line at shooting a person
trepassing because I place higher value on human life, and would refer the
matter to the law - not because I believe in it at all times, but because I
agree it's been pretty well thought out.
> If I understand the deal, you just can't have handguns.
True. Large calibre have been banned for a long time. Since a few years
ago, so have all handguns. There had been a few shootings in the preceeding
years, and several US high-school shootings also made the news. The
government pushed through the legislation pretty much unopposed following a
lunatic gunning down some kids in a school in Dunblane. The prevailing view
was that the public don't really need handguns, so lets get rid of them so
the casual nutter doesn't have access to them at all. Compensation was
given to those who handed in their weapons (admittedly, this was slow in
coming), including sportsmen into olympic small arms categories (they can
still practise in France - though I don't know if we still have an olympic
entry).
We do have armed police too, but these are special units who are only called
out when someone with a weapon poses a serious threat. In the last
fortnight, we've had two fatal shootings by police - though there haven't
been any in the news for years. In the first case a man was wielding a
sword, and in the second someone had a replica gun that was actually a
cigarette lighter - but carrying it openly and in the street. Although I
don't know the full details, I would suggest that if an armed police officer
identifies themselves to you, and tells you to put something down, you do
so. _Then_ you can go into the details.
Now we have a serious call for non-lethal means of disabling someone who
poses a serious threat. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) I don't know what their process is like, but I think that long arms must be allowed because it seems they have a plague of dangerous foxes that must be wiped out at all costs. If I understand the deal, you just can't have handguns. Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
