Gun amnesty

[Bruv]

People in England and Wales have two weeks to hand in guns, other weapons and ammunition to police stations without being punished for possession.

And that's the way they do it in the UK.

[magentaflame]

The laws in both our countries are the same..... you can hand in any weapon at any time with full impunity.

Just don't openly carry it into the station......they get a bit tetchy when you do that.

[LarsMac]

Bruv;1514411 wrote: People in England and Wales have two weeks to hand in guns, other weapons and ammunition to police stations without being punished for possession.

And that's the way they do it in the UK.


But, I don't want to give up my guns.

I've never given any cause to suspect that I should do so.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514464 wrote: But, I don't want to give up my guns.

I've never given any cause to suspect that I should do so.It would be a sacrifice that some gun owners would make for the betterment of their community. Though, collecting guns probably does little good as long as they are allowed to be manufactured legally.

Gun manufacturers and other associated businesses probably employ a lot of people, and as such, like tobacco and alcohol, ceasing production is not going to happen.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514467 wrote: It would be a sacrifice that some gun owners would make for the betterment of their community. Though, collecting guns probably does little good as long as they are allowed to be manufactured legally.

Gun manufacturers and other associated businesses probably employ a lot of people, and as such, like tobacco and alcohol, ceasing production is not going to happen.


If one could actually make a case for how my giving up guns will save lives and make the community safer, I'd be all for it.

Therein lies the rub. Sane, responsible adults are not a threat to society, whether they are armed or not.

Until something is done to assure the mentally ill are getting the treatment they need, the problem will remain unsolved.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514469 wrote: If one could actually make a case for how my giving up guns will save lives and make the community safer, I'd be all for it.

Therein lies the rub. Sane, responsible adults are not a threat to society, whether they are armed or not.

Until something is done to assure the mentally ill are getting the treatment they need, the problem will remain unsolved.You had trouble comprehending my post, didn't you? You completely missed the point because you're too invested in that silly so-called right to own firearms.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514472 wrote: You had trouble comprehending my post, didn't you? You completely missed the point because you're too invested in that silly so-called right to own firearms.


Nope. I comprehend just fine. My reply was somewhat aligned to your first sentence.

The rest of what you posted was irrelevant to the point I was aiming for, so I saw no value in bringing it up in that reply.

My collection is also irrelevant to what the manufacturers are doing.

Most of the guns I own are no longer made, and their value has little to do with whether manufacturers stay in business or not.

[aside] Have you ever considered counseling?

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514474 wrote: Nope. I comprehend just fine. My reply was somewhat aligned to your first sentence.

The rest of what you posted was irrelevant to the point I was aiming for, so I saw no value in bringing it up in that reply.

My collection is also irrelevant to what the manufacturers are doing.

Most of the guns I own are no longer made, and their value has little to do with whether manufacturers stay in business or not.

[aside] Have you ever considered counseling?Haha! So, you did have trouble understanding my post. The point in my first sentence is what you completely missed.

I doubt you need counseling. Less emotion might help though.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514477 wrote: Haha! So, you did have trouble understanding my post. The point in my first sentence is what you completely missed.

I doubt you need counseling. Less emotion might help though.


If you say so, it must be true.

[Wandrin]

LarsMac;1514469 wrote: If one could actually make a case for how my giving up guns will save lives and make the community safer, I'd be all for it.

Therein lies the rub. Sane, responsible adults are not a threat to society, whether they are armed or not.

Until something is done to assure the mentally ill are getting the treatment they need, the problem will remain unsolved.


I fully agree. I hope that they improve treatment and availability, but I'm not holding my breath under this admin.

Personally, I have never had the occasion to feel that I would be safer with a gun. Lucky, I guess.

[LarsMac]

Wandrin;1514498 wrote: I fully agree. I hope that they improve treatment and availability, but I'm not holding my breath under this admin.

Personally, I have never had the occasion to feel that I would be safer with a gun. Lucky, I guess.


There are a few times when I definitely WAS safer with a gun. You meet some interesting people driving a tow truck. Fortunately, I never had to actually shoot most of them. There was one guy, though...

[Wandrin]

LarsMac;1514500 wrote: There are a few times when I definitely WAS safer with a gun. You meet some interesting people driving a tow truck. Fortunately, I never had to actually shoot most of them. There was one guy, though...


But, then there was my former nextdoor neighbor. He was very proficient with guns. One night, he was awakened by a strange noise. Half-asleep, he fumbled in the dark for his handgun from the bedside cabinet. He accidentally shot himself in the leg, severing the femoral artery. He didn't survive by the time the ambulance got there. His widow soon moved away. Accidents happen all the time.

[LarsMac]

Wandrin;1514509 wrote: But, then there was my former nextdoor neighbor. He was very proficient with guns. One night, he was awakened by a strange noise. Half-asleep, he fumbled in the dark for his handgun from the bedside cabinet. He accidentally shot himself in the leg, severing the femoral artery. He didn't survive by the time the ambulance got there. His widow soon moved away. Accidents happen all the time.


Too many times that kind of stuff happens.

We never keep a gun where we can get to it without being fully awake and alert.

I am certain that the average citizen really should not be in possession of guns.

[Ahso!]

I'll never forget the Ryan Frederick story. Had he not had a gun the cop would still be alive and the marijuana charges probably beat and Ryan would not be in prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Frederick

[magentaflame]

Wandrin;1514509 wrote: But, then there was my former nextdoor neighbor. He was very proficient with guns. One night, he was awakened by a strange noise. Half-asleep, he fumbled in the dark for his handgun from the bedside cabinet. He accidentally shot himself in the leg, severing the femoral artery. He didn't survive by the time the ambulance got there. His widow soon moved away. Accidents happen all the time.
Really? A strange noise? I tend to turn on a light..... in my entire life (even before our new gun laws ) i wouldnt have thought to reach for a gun..... where is this person at? The jungles of asia?

[Wandrin]

magentaflame;1514520 wrote: Really? A strange noise? I tend to turn on a light..... in my entire life (even before our new gun laws ) i wouldnt have thought to reach for a gun..... where is this person at? The jungles of asia?


It was a very sad story and devastated the family.

[LarsMac]

There are any number of cases where someone shot their wife/husband/child/parent after waking and thinking they were defending themselves from a burglar.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514534 wrote: There are any number of cases where someone shot their wife/husband/child/parent after waking and thinking they were defending themselves from a burglar.
What might the remedy for that be?

[xfrodobagginsx]

Bruv;1514411 wrote: People in England and Wales have two weeks to hand in guns, other weapons and ammunition to police stations without being punished for possession.

And that's the way they do it in the UK.


Bye Bye freedom in the UK. They've got you now!

[Bruv]

xfrodobagginsx;1514539 wrote: Bye Bye freedom in the UK. They've got you now!


This thread was bubbling along fine, with much toing and froing, coming to an understanding that most people don't want or need guns and that many accidental deaths are caused simply by having guns available...............................until you turned up.

I can say categorically that my sense of freedom is not diminished by my being gunless, in fact exactly the opposite.

My chance of meeting an armed crook is minimal, as is a family member 'accidentally' hurting or killing anyone.

Both my elder brothers have spent many years shooting licenced 12 bore shotguns as a hobby, mainly targeting pigeons, rabbits and occasionally a fox. Both kept guns locked in cabinets with ammunition separately, don't recall hearing of any accidents.

My local police have no need to carry firearms, although if there is a need, gun squads are available at short notice. I saw armed police for the first time in my life a few years ago, when visiting an airport................to be honest it made me afraid, gave me no reassurance at all......the fact they might be needed sent a shiver down my spine.

I hope you enjoy your sense of freedom, in your free society, I also hope you are never so afraid for your own or a loved one's life that you have to lose off a shot in fear or anger, I trust your shot will be worthy of it being spent, that the intended target is in fact an evil heavily armed criminal and not somebody asking for directions.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514537 wrote: What might the remedy for that be?


Education and required safety measures.

Nobody should be allowed to purchase a gun until they have attended qualified safety training, and passed psychological testing.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514556 wrote: Education and required safety measures.

Nobody should be allowed to purchase a gun until they have attended qualified safety training, and passed psychological testing.


I'd like to know how education would prevent a person half asleep suddenly awoken by someone gaining entry to their home without their knowledge and permission would stop them from panicking and reaching for their most potent means of interrupting the entry? How do you teach a person to wake up differently?

In Ryan Frederick's case the police claim they identified themselves which is either a fib or Ryan didn't hear them because he was sleeping. Ryan was a responsible gun-owner who became a mistaken target because of a moronic informant.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514557 wrote: I'd like to know how education would prevent a person half asleep suddenly awoken by someone gaining entry to their home without their knowledge and permission would stop them from panicking and reaching for their most potent means of interrupting the entry? How do you teach a person to wake up differently?

In Ryan Frederick's case the police claim they identified themselves which is either a fib or Ryan didn't hear them because he was sleeping. Ryan was a responsible gun-owner who became a mistaken target because of a moronic informant.


There are gun storage systems that allow you relatively quick access to a handgun. You have to use a code or a combination to open it. That would require you to be relatively conscious to access you firearm.

The number one rule of firearm safety is "Never point a gun at someone unless you are fully prepared to kill them."

number two is, "If you cannot verify your target, do not pull the trigger.

In Frederick's case, and too many others, If you do not know who is there, you have no business pointing a gun at them, much less pulling the trigger.

It really should be that simple, unless you are in a combat scenario, where you are certain that anyone downrange is the enemy. And even that notion has failed people many times.

[Ahso!]

Seems rather kooky to me!LarsMac;1514563 wrote: There are gun storage systems that allow you relatively quick access to a handgun. You have to use a code or a combination to open it. That would require you to be relatively conscious to access you firearm.Owning one of these should be mandatory in your opinion? It should be within an arm's length wherever it is one lays their head? Why would you not also recommend such a device for mobile use when carrying a gun outside the home? Since it should be a requirement for inside the home where the conditions and surrounding are more controlled than using one outside the home should be a no-brainer.

Do you use such devices?

LarsMac;1514563 wrote: The number one rule of firearm safety is "Never point a gun at someone unless you are fully prepared to kill them."

number two is, "If you cannot verify your target, do not pull the trigger.You mean these are your number 1 and 2 rules? The NRA disagrees with you as does Magtech and NSSF. I think right now the number one rule for gun safety should be for the people and organizations who support gun rights to agree. You obviously were not trained by any of the organizations or affiliates I've listed here. Where did you get your training?

LarsMac;1514563 wrote: In Frederick's case, and too many others, If you do not know who is there, you have no business pointing a gun at them, much less pulling the trigger.

So, until an intruder identifies themselves the gun owner has no business pointing the gun in their direction, no less shooting them? The key then for an intruder is to just remain silent? In your opinion, that should stand up in a court of law for the intruder should the gun/homeowner shoot and the intruder lives to tell about it?

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514573 wrote: Seems rather kooky to me!
Of course.

Ahso!;1514573 wrote: Owning one of these should be mandatory in your opinion? It should be within an arm's length wherever it is one lays their head?


What should be mandatory, in my opinion, is Firearm Safety Training, and perhaps certification.

Ahso!;1514573 wrote:

Do you use such devices?


I do. It is in my closet upper shelf where children cannot see it, or easily access it, but I can reach it and acquire my weapon with relative ease, once I am awake enough to recognize a potential threat.

Ahso!;1514573 wrote:

Why would you not also recommend such a device for mobile use when carrying a gun outside the home? Since it should be a requirement for inside the home where the conditions and surrounding are more controlled than using one outside the home should be a no-brainer.




There are other safety requirements and recommendations for when carrying a gun outside the home. Outside of the scope of this conversation, IMHO

Ahso!;1514573 wrote:

You mean these are your number 1 and 2 rules? The NRA disagrees with you as does Magtech and NSSF. I think right now the number one rule for gun safety should be for the people and organizations who support gun rights to agree. You obviously were not trained by any of the organizations or affiliates I've listed here. Where did you get your training?


What I wrote is, in my opinion, the cardinal rules for using a firearm for defense. (Which was the focus of the conversation.)

General gun safety is an entirely different discussion.

As for your question of where I received training, I was a certified NRA instructor when I was still in my teens.

Ahso!;1514573 wrote:

So, until an intruder identifies themselves the gun owner has no business pointing the gun in their direction, no less shooting them? The key then for an intruder is to just remain silent? In your opinion, that should stand up in a court of law for the intruder should the gun/homeowner shoot and the intruder lives to tell about it?


Now you're being silly, again. Have fun with that.

[tude dog]

I was itching to jump into this thread but am glad I didn't. LarsMac is excellent with his posts.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514578 wrote:

Now you're being silly, again. Have fun with that.I know it sounds silly, it does to me as well. However, all I did was reflect back what you posted.

And, fwiw, you never said any of what you posted was your opinion. Check back and see for yourself. You stated it all in an matter of fact way.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514583 wrote: I know it sounds silly, it does to me as well. However, all I did was reflect back what you posted.

And, fwiw, you never said any of what you posted was your opinion. Check back and see for yourself. You stated it all in an matter of fact way.


Now, THAT's rich.

Who's opinion do you think that I should be posting here?

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514590 wrote: Now, THAT's rich.

Who's opinion do you think that I should be posting here?Yours, of course, but I'd prefer facts to an opinion when possible.

[LarsMac]

Interesting.

Unless a post specifically Claims to be factual data, I presume it to be opinion.

[Bruv]

Ahso!;1514591 wrote: Yours, of course, but I'd prefer facts to an opinion when possible.


And I should alter the opening post where I said "And that's the way they do it in the UK."

[Ahso!]

tude dog;1514582 wrote: I was itching to jump into this thread but am glad I didn't. LarsMac is excellent with his posts.So, you agree withLarsMac;1514556 wrote: Education and required safety measures.

Nobody should be allowed to purchase a gun until they have attended qualified safety training, and passed psychological testing.Do you?

Question! When was it that either of you were evaluated psychologically before purchasing each gun you own?

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514592 wrote: Interesting.

Unless a post specifically Claims to be factual data, I presume it to be opinion.It depends on who's making the post for me. There are posters who run wild with opinionated posts and then there are those who often try to remain factual unless they specify that they are posting their opinion.

Three of the more disciplined factual posters here would be wisey, spot and wandrin.

[Ahso!]

Bruv;1514593 wrote: And I should alter the opening post where I said "And that's the way they do it in the UK."I don't see any harm in that post. If that's how it's done in The UK, then that's how it's done. Your post didn't appear to be argumentative as much as informative.

[tude dog]

Ahso!;1514594 wrote: So, you agree withDo you?

Question! When was it that either of you were evaluated psychologically before purchasing each gun you own?


I repeat,

I was itching to jump into this thread but am glad I didn't. LarsMac is excellent with his posts.

[Ahso!]

tude dog;1514597 wrote: I repeat,Here, let me finish that sentence for you

I repeat, I'm afraid to join the discussion because I have nothing of substance to add, so I'll just troll the thread instead.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514595 wrote: It depends on who's making the post for me. There are posters who run wild with opinionated posts and then there are those who often try to remain factual unless they specify that they are posting their opinion.

Three of the more disciplined factual posters here would be wisey, spot and wandrin.


I should mention that a significant percentage of my opinions are based upon facts and direct observations.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514594 wrote: So, you agree withDo you?

Question! When was it that either of you were evaluated psychologically before purchasing each gun you own?


Since it is not a requirement, no such evaluation was ever performed.

[tude dog]

Ahso!;1514598 wrote: Here, let me finish that sentence for you

I repeat, I'm afraid to join the discussion because I have nothing of substance to add, so I'll just troll the thread instead.




Afraid?

:yh_rotfl

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514600 wrote: Since it is not a requirement, no such evaluation was ever performed.Always equivocation with you. Let me show you what that means. Some might consider it hypocritical.

Your "should be" only means that it should be mandatory for arguments sake of being on the side of what you perceive as sensible gun control and not that it should be done (period), because if you actually believed it should be done you'd do it voluntarily.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514599 wrote: I should mention that a significant percentage of my opinions are based upon facts and direct observations.We all like to believe this about ourselves. Frodo, Pahu and everyone else who espouses mostly opinionate rhetoric share your conviction about their posts exactly what you believe about yours.

[Ahso!]

tude dog;1514601 wrote: Afraid?

:yh_rotfl


Why don't you go find whoever it is that tucks you in and leave the discussion to the adults.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Bruv;1514548 wrote: This thread was bubbling along fine, with much toing and froing, coming to an understanding that most people don't want or need guns and that many accidental deaths are caused simply by having guns available...............................until you turned up.

I can say categorically that my sense of freedom is not diminished by my being gunless, in fact exactly the opposite.

My chance of meeting an armed crook is minimal, as is a family member 'accidentally' hurting or killing anyone.

Both my elder brothers have spent many years shooting licenced 12 bore shotguns as a hobby, mainly targeting pigeons, rabbits and occasionally a fox. Both kept guns locked in cabinets with ammunition separately, don't recall hearing of any accidents.

My local police have no need to carry firearms, although if there is a need, gun squads are available at short notice. I saw armed police for the first time in my life a few years ago, when visiting an airport................to be honest it made me afraid, gave me no reassurance at all......the fact they might be needed sent a shiver down my spine.

I hope you enjoy your sense of freedom, in your free society, I also hope you are never so afraid for your own or a loved one's life that you have to lose off a shot in fear or anger, I trust your shot will be worthy of it being spent, that the intended target is in fact an evil heavily armed criminal and not somebody asking for directions.


Until a murderer with a gun show up and starts shooting people and there's no one with a gun to stop them.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514605 wrote: Why don't you go find whoever it is that tucks you in and leave the discussion to the adults.


Always the troll.

To your credit, you almost had me going there for a second.

Now, Back to your bridge.

[Ahso!]

You might want to practice what you preach.

I thought you'd be able to handle the tuff-love. I'm only trying to help.

Also, I think It would be much more accurate to describe my previous post (the one that you conveniently used to back out with) as a chide instead of a troll. Contrary to rumors around here, I don't troll. Today it's fashionable to describe such false accusations as fake news.

As an aside - if anyone is wondering, I'm currently between naps.

[Bruv]

xfrodobagginsx;1514606 wrote: Until a murderer with a gun show up and starts shooting people and there's no one with a gun to stop them.


No guns= no murderer with gun= no need for anyone with gun to stop them.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514612 wrote: You might want to practice what you preach.

I thought you'd be able to handle the tuff-love. I'm only trying to help.

Also, I think It would be much more accurate to describe my previous post (the one that you conveniently used to back out with) as a chide instead of a troll. Contrary to rumors around here, I don't troll. Today it's fashionable to describe such false accusations as fake news.

As an aside - if anyone is wondering, I'm currently between naps.


Ahso!;1514595 wrote: It depends on who's making the post for me. There are posters who run wild with opinionated posts and then there are those who often try to remain factual unless they specify that they are posting their opinion.

Three of the more disciplined factual posters here would be wisey, spot and wandrin.


"It depends on who's making the post for me."

You think this is all just for your benefit, humm?



When we respond to other posts in a thread, we are entering in a discussion, generally in good faith, to discuss something upon which we have an opinion, and we are willing to share some aspect of it and perhaps learn something new from others who have opinions, knowledge, and information to share. The other possibility is we a responding with what we consider helpful information which we happen to have in our possession that we believe may be of use to others, and again to perhaps learn more on the subject from others. Or , perhaps we join in on what could be simple light banter to just enjoy a bit wordplay.

You, on the other hand, seem to view every discussion as an opportunity for a verbal jousting match. We don't mind a bit of such sport, and and even can enjoy the game at times. However, we try to avoid making it personal.

And finally, somehow, you seem to see yourself as the ultimate authority on who and what might be factual, and worthy of everybody's time.

You often even make Pahu and Xfrod... seem open-minded.

It also becomes tiresome for every conversation to become part of a tournament.



Have a nice day.

[tude dog]

Ahso!;1514605 wrote: Why don't you go find whoever it is that tucks you in and leave the discussion to the adults.


I am satisfied to leave it to you kiddo.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1514618 wrote: "It depends on who's making the post for me."

You think this is all just for your benefit, humm?



When we respond to other posts in a thread, we are entering in a discussion, generally in good faith, to discuss something upon which we have an opinion, and we are willing to share some aspect of it and perhaps learn something new from others who have opinions, knowledge, and information to share. The other possibility is we a responding with what we consider helpful information which we happen to have in our possession that we believe may be of use to others, and again to perhaps learn more on the subject from others. Or , perhaps we join in on what could be simple light banter to just enjoy a bit wordplay.

You, on the other hand, seem to view every discussion as an opportunity for a verbal jousting match. We don't mind a bit of such sport, and and even can enjoy the game at times. However, we try to avoid making it personal.

And finally, somehow, you seem to see yourself as the ultimate authority on who and what might be factual, and worthy of everybody's time.

You often even make Pahu and Xfrod... seem open-minded.

It also becomes tiresome for every conversation to become part of a tournament.



Have a nice day.
You know, your suggestion of psychological testing for gun owners is a good one. The problem is always the same though, and that is those who should be examined don't acknowledge it because they can't see it.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1514653 wrote: You know, your suggestion of psychological testing for gun owners is a good one. The problem is always the same though, and that is those who should be examined don't acknowledge it because they can't see it.


That is the unfortunate part of it. And why it will probably need to be made mandatory before a purchase.

And. of course, why it is unlikely to ever become law.

I actually know people who will not ever willingly pursue Psychological counselling because they are afraid that their guns will be taken away if they are found to have a problem.

How's that for reasoning?