Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link

[survivalistuk]

Triple Sod wrote

Well said firepower,
End of the day, the amendment act of 1988 didn’t stop Dunblane and the 1997 amendment acts didn’t stop Cumbria...
There aren’t any easy answers.

Well said the both of you.

I believe it was Jesse Ventura who was once elected as Governor, not sure which state, that once said you cant legislate against stupidity and mental illness. How right he was.

[KalPrep]

You can't but you can put controls in place to minimise their access to such firearms. The main issue as highlighted above is that the knee jerk reactions following singular events actually only restricted the rights of the masses. I liked Modplods idea of a dedicated organisation to manage and enforce firearms legislation and process.

I still don't think the kind of proliferation of weapons like the US has is any good, too many people,with far too many guns and a lack of control on the continued increase in that ownership.

[12mp82]

When you consider how much a combat soldier actually carries into the battle the contents of a US citizens home is often horrendous, mind you we have all seen how the US combat soldier shot anything that moved even if it was the wind

[Ejcb]

Weapons are not the problem.

Controls are not the answer.

Attitude is everything.

Switzerland.

I rest my case!

[poppypiesdad]

And remember choose a long heavy weapon cause when you run out of ammo you can beat them with it .

Jamie

[12mp82]

Weapons are not the problem.

Controls are not the answer.

Attitude is everything.

Switzerland.

I rest my case!

Did you miss the earlier post on Switzerland?

[KalPrep]

He might have, it's a long thread to trawl through, how about a link to your post in your otherwise unhelpful reply.

They are numerous cases of all the factors coming together not only for the bad (the recent school shootings) but also for the good (after doing some research the sport side is great). The thing is that it is often easier to discuss only one or two aspects than the whole.

Was this the post you wanted 12?

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6077&p=68789&hilit ... and#p68789

[12mp82]

That was the one, just waiting to see if he replied before going searching for it, had he replied no I would have gotten the link, if he replied yes I wouldn't have needed too, but thanks for going to find it.

[madmedic]

Applying for a firearms/shotgun licence gives the police access to snoop around in your medical records?

Please show me where I said that, because I can't recall typing it!


What I actually said is that it's open to abuse - which it is. So is the whole 'discretion of the chief constable' thing too.

it may have already been said but the police do not get access to your medical records.. they send your GP a letter asking if there are any medical reasons that you are unsuitable to hold a firearm. you are also asked as part of your interview about medical conditions. i can think of at least 2 gun owners i know who admitted to have been on anti-depressants and still got certificates.

suicides will happen anyway whether people have guns or not. and for that reason depression that is being treated is not necessarily a reason for someone not to have a gun.

[redskies]

I still object to anyone but an attending physician and me having any access whatsoever to my medical records. I'll happily go for a psych eval - yearly, if required. No problem with that. But I value my privacy, and I'm not having the police getting access to private records.

And there's this, from 12mp82's thread.

You will also be asked a number of medical questions - to identify conditions which could render gun handling dangerous - and provide the name of your current GP, together with permission for the police to access your medical history.

I am not the sort of person who happily hands over personal details to anyone. I'm the sort of person who asks ''why do you need that?'' And should the person asking be in uniform, then I ask ''why do you need that and am I legally required to supply that information?'' I do it politely, but I absolutely do not comply with frivolous data collection, collection of data for the sake of it. That has resulted in a WPC here getting a formal reprimand for threatening to arrest me when I very politely refused to give my personal details.

Coppers are not doctors. They are not getting access to my medical history. It's my own personal wee stand against what I see as an ever more intrusive government, and against the grooming of our population to hand over the most intimate of details without thinking about it, from personal identifying information to biometric data. It's wrong, and I'm not playin.