The Guardian: Anger over Tory MP's gun gaffe

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1165994,00.html

"The paper then quoted Mr Mercer as saying: "It is so much more sensible to train children to handle and have a respect for weapons than to simply ban them. It is so shortsighted." "

I'm afraid that I don't see why anyone should be appalled at Mr. Mercer's statement. I'm one of those people who is growing increasingly dubious about the virtues of a total handgun ban as I grow older.

Yes, I think handguns should be registered. Yes, I favor child safety locks on them. Yes, there should be waiting periods and those firearms shouldn't be sold to criminals. Yes, I think that concealed firearms should be severely restricted or even outlawed.And yes, I strongly favor throwing the book at those people who do gun crime.

Having said that, I think that parts of the British handgun ban are absurd. Why ban muzzle-loading pistols? Why ban cap-and-ball type revolvers? It's not like Dennis Moore is a threat these days.

And as a sympathizer for hunters, I think outlawing hunting rifles is downright dumb.

... where a pederast with a record persuaded senior policement to grant
him a licence for several guns then used said guns to murder some little
kids and their teachers?

Oh that was nothing, just a little glitch in the documentation.
No collusion, nothing to hide, nothing to worry about at all.

(Before anyone flames, my neighbours grew up there and I've visited
their parents in Dunblane + the memorial in the cathedral. My problem
is not with the guns, it's with the corruption and obscene cover-ups
that led to and followed the tragedy.)

Nihil

and the rest of it at the same time. No guns one the streets = no people getting shot. In reality, it always boils down to "make guns hard to buy = less people getting shot", but I for one will gladly take that equation.

Yeah, I mean that Dunblane. But I could mean Columbine. Or a thousand other places.

V

Not a defect of any guns or law abiding gun owners.

a criminal act facilitated by the availability of guns. Those who want to fire guns for fun can join a rifle/pistol club and do so for as long as they like. But guns in homes/on the street etc. actually make everyone, including their owner, less safe.

V

required to leave their guns locked in their gun clubs, I believe.

You can't keep all your guns at home, unless (IIRC) they're antiques (or maybe it's that certain calibers can only be kept at gun clubs).

They also seriously tightened up the rules on who could own guns. Convictions for certain offenses and psychological problems and no guns for you.

A man managed to legally obtain a lot of weapons which he then used to kill a lot of children. Without those guns could he have done the same?

Post Dunblane legislation was designed to create hurdles to avoid this kind of incident.

A law abiding gun owner only broke the law when he started killing those kids. He'd now become a criminal before.

Most British people are quite happy with our laws thanks.

The only benefits of a gun ban are
1) to reduce the number of gun-related accidents
2) to reduce the number of guns in potential circulation

Point #1 can also be addressed by education (the point of the Tory MP in
the original post).

Point #2 would only address the supply of legal guns - the vast majority
of which are not available to the criminal fraternity - and not change
one thing about the illegal weapons that existing laws already cover.

To reduce UK gun crime, apply the existing laws:
Actually follow up the pre-reg vetting.
Increase the frequency of site visits to ensure secure storage.
Get the police to apply the law to all people, even the scout-masters
who share the same preferences as the chief constable.

These things will make a difference. A blanket ban will not.

Nihil

to reduce gun crime period.

If I remember Bowling for Columbine well, there are 11,000 gun-related deaths in the US each year. The European (Britain,Germany,France) average is around 100. Corrected by population, the US still has something like 20 times more deaths by gun violence (rough estimate).

V

...If some some teenage gang-member in the UK does get a hold of a gun, there's a fair chance they'll shoot themselves in the ass because they don't know how to work it. Training kids in the correct use doesn't seem like the brightest idea to me: They'll just 'realise' how cool it is to have a gun and go and get one. The gun ban in the UK seems to be less and less effective - I could probably get a hold of a handgun myself if I really wanted to - I'd rather see that tightened up than send the drug dealers to a firing range.

Pillock.

Whilst we're at it lets also teach kids how to handle Anthrax, radioactive materials etc etc etc.

Guns are not prevalent in British society. I'm fairly sure that those who can demonstrate the utility of guns (farmers etc) do teach their kids how to avoid killing themselves. Probably something along the lines of

"If you touch my gun I'll kill you myself"

Handguns are illegal. They will remain illegal with the vast majority of the U.K populace supporting this position. Tories in general are stupid this guy is just extremely stupid.

This statemet alone condemns him as an utter fool.

"Mr Mercer said the handgun ban had done nothing to make Britain safer. "While laws have been introduced to ban legally held pistols in gun clubs, that had absolutely no effect on gun crime," he said. "If anything, it has driven it up or helped to drive it up."
"


Yes folks banning guns has actually driven up gun crime. He has proof apparently. :eyes:

I'm not denying he's a f*cking idiot.

I just believe that some sensible gun education will reduce the number
of accidents involving guns. These tend to be the tragedy events where
some donkey has not secured his gun/ammo and little Johnny ends up
maiming/killing himself/sibling/schoolchum while showing off.

(FYI, they are already told how to handle biochem hazards at school,
not using anthrax admittedly but with exactly the same rules applying.)

Remember, the nearest thing a typical kid in this country gets to a
real gun is the mouse/joystick/gamepad "control" in a computer or Xbox
game - the ones where you can turn off "friendly fire" if you keep
hitting the wrong side.

Real education (showing what damage a single shot will do to a piece of
meat, showing how light a trigger can be, showing what happens if you
twat a cartridge with a hammer) will save more lives than another law
for the legal profession to bicker over and for the police to enforce
selectively (as always).

Nihil

Find me evidence of handgun accidents in the U.K and post them.

Find me evidence of shotgun accidents in the U.K and post them.

Then we'll compare with the U.S where gun ownership is a right.

Casual gun ownership neccesitates education. That's not the situation in the U.K. I'd support a clause on shotgun certificates that required guns to be locked away and separate from ammo then have that enforced.

No more little johnny's!

I'm curious as to whether the tightening of UK gun control laws post-Dunbllane has lead to an increase or decrease in gun-related crime.

I just returned from a week in the UK last month and several of the newspapers were going on about the step increase in gun crimes, but the evidence was anecdotal. I didn't see any national statistics.

"I'm curious as to whether the tightening of UK gun control laws post-Dunbllane has lead to an increase or decrease in gun-related crime."

Probably neither. Causality is problematic for researchers. However it would be difficult to see how a gun ban could "lead" to more gun crime. There have been no mass shootings in the U.K since Dunblane.

There probably has been an increase in gun crime due to the increase in drug related problems in inner cities and an unfortunate cultural movement where guns are seen are carried as status symbols.