Saturday, 3 June 2017

Questions To Which The Desired Answer Is Clearly Signposted...




Let's ask some unbiased opinions, eh?
Mr Stanley, whose wife was unable to leave the house and needed counselling following the terrifying ordeal, believes tighter control of firearms would help safeguard the public
He said: “For me, any amount of guns above zero is too many.
“There really is no reason to have one in your home and there are no exceptions unless you live on a remote farm and need them for pest control.
“It’s fair enough that people shoot for sport, but if these weapons fall into the wrong hands the outcome can be catastrophic.
“If people are members of gun clubs then why aren’t the guns locked up at the club? Why do people need them in their homes?
There’s no need for it.”
It's a terrible thing to be held up at gunpoint, but why that would make you an expert on gun control, I don't know.
Former London gang leader Sheldon Thomas, who now lives in south Essex, is the founder and chief executive of Gangsline. Gangsline works in partnership with Essex Police across six districts in Essex - including Thurrock, Southend and Basildon - to provide a support network for people wanting to escape gang culture. Mr Sheldon knows more than most what could happen if the licensed guns end up in the wrong hands.
He said: “When I first heard those figures I was shocked, that’s a lot of guns in circulation that could easily fall into the wrong hands.
“Whoever is handing these licenses out haven’t seen what we’ve seen here, the destruction guns can cause when they get into the wrong hands is horrific.
The more guns that are out there, the more danger people will face.”
Quite right. Obesity is a problem too, so let's solve it by making sure there's fewer knives and forks around...
Mike Yardley is a former British clay pigeon champion, founding fellow of the Association of Professional Shooting Instructors, and teaches at the Fennes Range, in Braintree. He is, of course, a vocal advocate for guns.
You can almost hear the contempt, can't you?
He said: ”It’s a great mistake to mix the criminal use of firearms with leisure use of firearms.
“In the UK, there are hardly any firearm fatalities. Licensing here is tightly controlled, which is one of the reasons we have little firearm homicides.
“I’m not saying there isn’t a risk. Of course, there is a risk with most things. But what I’m saying is there is a greater risk of injury with cars or drugs.
“Crimes which are committed with guns are usually done so with illegal imitation firearms, rather than stolen shotguns and rifles.
“For criminals, handguns are the weapon of choice because of their fire power and they can be concealed.
“Yes stolen licensed shotguns can be sawn, but that isn’t the problem, the problem lies with drugs.
You lost, Mike. You brought facts to the table. But emotion and saccharine 'must be seen to be doing something' feelgood attempts trump that every time, these days.

8 comments:

Antisthenes said...

JuliaM every time I advocate legalising drugs as the facts support to do so would considerably reduce crime, the waste of time and resources on it's prevention and in fact make it possible to effectively control it and tax it so as funds are made available to be used for worthy causes. You come back with some emotive response against doing so. Is that not what you are accusing Mike of doing here?

James Higham said...

Arm Essex today, especially the wimmin.

Michael said...

These foolish cries to "Ban" guns/knives/(insert chosen) all fall foul of a minor but rather important point...
Who are the people committing these "Gun Crimes"?
They are CRIMINALS...
What is the Very FIRST item in the job description to be a criminal?
I rather think it is unlikely legally held and registered firearms (such as have survived the last two kneejerk bans) have been involved. One might as well prevent car thefts and accidents by banning cars, of course the argument "if it saves one child's life" will be trotted out like an old warhorse. But all that will be achieved is deaths by other means, had Dunblane been committed using a truck or van, would a ban even have been considered. The argument becomes "Something must be done, this is something, therefore the problem is solved", one might as well throw virgins (a mythical Essex species) down wells!

Andrew Scarborough said...

Sixty nine thousand? I would have thought that there would be many more. What a pity.

ivan said...

I think someone pointed out quite some time ago that if you ban guns then the only people that will have them are the crims.

I would tend to say that we need more guns in the hands of the general population plus making the burglar fair game. The gangs would sort themselves out in short order and we could get back to normality.

selsey.steve said...

"“The more guns that are out there, the more danger people will face.”
I don't think so. Have a look at this short video and then have a re-think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

Mud in the Blood said...

As always the comments to the article are more illuminating then drivel that spawns them!

Quote:Public opinion is now divided in Essex, with figures showing the 69,000 licensed guns are held over 22,000 separate certificates.

There actually seems to be no evidence of public opinion on the matter at all in the article, so it all seems a bit of a non story really.

Th figures in the article represent a small percentage of the population of Essex. The 2011 census says that there 718,700 households in the county which equates to about 3% that have weapons on the premises and as the certificates all relate to an individual, is a very small percentage (<1.5%) of the population, which at mid 2015 was estimated at 1,787,000*, that are gun owners in the county.


Commentators point out that the real problem is one of illegal weapons and criminality. It is difficult to see how 'stricter gun controls' are going to impact this, but I have no doubt that plenty of charity troughers will be gathering as we speak to demand action and the funding for same.
Was it ever not thus?

*(Including the Unitary Areas).

JuliaM said...

" Is that not what you are accusing Mike of doing here?"

No, what Mike's doing is pointing out facts. The 'facts' that cannabis is harmless have been found wanting. And that's before you factor in the high-strength stuff that's around today.

"Arm Essex today, especially the wimmin."

;)

"The argument becomes "Something must be done, this is something, therefore the problem is solved", one might as well throw virgins (a mythical Essex species) down wells!"

We've got lots of those. Wells, that is. Will have to nip into Sussex for the virgins... ;)

"...plus making the burglar fair game. "

Use the vermin laws. Because that's what they are.

"As always the comments to the article are more illuminating then drivel that spawns them!"

Seems to be the way, lately.