US gun campaigner shot

There was a down side to the total ban on hand guns. Bill Smith ( not his real name and now deceased ) had an obsession about using hand guns for target practise but was too unstable to be allowed to own one. So he joined a gun club where he was able to use hand guns but only under strict supervision on approved shooting rangses. He had his "own" guns which were registered in the name of the gun club and kept secure in the club vault. When the ban was put in place this arrangment had to end and it was soon apparent that Bill Smith had obtained at least one hand gun and was using it illegally and without any supervision in remote locations.

At the time gun club officials were very concerned that people with an obsession like Bill Smith would obtain guns and then use them in remote locations. If the ban had not been applied to licenced gun clubs then those obsessed with hand guns could have continued their activity supervised and without creating a risk to the public.
 
Sponsored Links
Himaginn said:
I'm not suggesting that everyone who wishes to own a handgun wishes, or intends to kill with it, but the willingness to do so must obviously be there, if they're prepared to carry it at all or most times.
Click to expand...

I too am hypothesising H, but I doubt that the willingness to kill "must obviously be there", if people wish to carry a handgun.
While it may be true in some cases, I suspect that other reasons to carry a gun might be:

- "it's my right to do so!";
- "I feel safer with one";
- "My dad always carried one, and his dad before him......";
- "Dunno; just did it. Never thought why. Never thought about "What if I had cause to use it"."


A bit risky, ascribing one's own mindset to groups who might well be radically different to one's own.


Thinking about your idea that "if you carry a gun, you must be willing to kill with it", I had a (very) quick Google for any research to see if there was anything to support or refute that idea. I couldn't find any.
Perhaps research could be along the lines of:
- test peoples' aptitude with handguns in obviously fake settings i.e. shoot 'em up video games, moving cardboard targets (with real firearms), etc. Then,
- somehow, test them again while they are made to think that they are actually going to injure or kill something.

My hypothesis would be that, those who are noticeably worse in the second scenario (subconsciously?) do not actually want to harm anyone / thing, while those who were noticeably better in the second scenario actually did want to harm / kill.



Himaginn said:
And conversely the absence of legislation in places such as USA, increases the likelihood of killings by firearms.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly; you are unlikely to come into contact with a firearm, if there are no firearms.
That said, if someone is willing to kill, the firearm just makes it a bit easier to achieve that objective; I'm pretty sure that a proportion of firearm injuries / fatalities would have come to harm by some other means, even in the absence of a gun.
 
Brigadier said:
; I'm pretty sure that a proportion of firearm injuries / fatalities would have come to harm by some other means, even in the absence of a gun.
Click to expand...

Yes, no doubt that's true for "a proportion.". Killing people with a gun can be very much easier than beating them to death with a hammer.

If it was 99%, we would expect to find that Other Homicides in, say, the USA were lower than Other Homicides in, say, the UK. But if it was 1%, we would find that the rate of Other Homicides were comparable, and the huge number of Firearms deaths in the US was in addition.

I expect you have looked at the figures, and noticed which is the case.
 
Right thinking people have always known that it is pointless to argue with the masses, so we don't.

The ban on handguns was effectively a prohibition. These are reeled out whenever the politicians need to appease the masses.

Yet the masses choose to ignore the fact that prohibitions almost always have a reverse effect to that which would appease the masses.

i.e. It used to be quite difficult to legally purchase a handgun in the UK, nowadays you can buy one from the boot of a car. Probably at the same time as you buy your weekly supply of classB drugs.
 
Sponsored Links
I love the arrogance of saying "right thinking people" when you mean "people who agree with me."
 
JohnD said:
I love the arrogance of saying "right thinking people" when you mean "people who agree with me."
Click to expand...

Sounds like one of your lines. I do agree with you on this though. Guns should be for military personnel and security forces.
 
It's not sentiment; it is the reason.

I'm not arguing; just stating the reason for their reluctance to give up the right.
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, guns for volunteers or conscripts in something like the T.A. then.

At the time they wrote it, they probably had in mind fighting off the British Army (or invading Canada).
 
I haven't noticed the US Constitution saying that armed rebellion is permitted. Show me.
 
I did:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top