(UK) Ban All Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
BAN ALL GUNS

Mar 5 2005

Mum's plea after air rifle kills Andrew, aged 2

By Mark Mcgivern And Derek Alexander

THE mother of a two--year-old boy killed by an airgun pleaded yesterday for the weapons to be outlawed. Hours after little Andrew Morton died in hospital, his mum Sharon said: 'Airguns should be banned and anyone who carries them should be locked up.'

Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson called on Westminster to review gun control laws in the wake of the tragedy.

But the Home Office in London appeared to rule out tougher regulations on air weapons.

Andrew was fatally shot in the head on Wednesday evening near his home in Easterhouse, Glasgow, after going with his brother to buy chips.

He died in the city's Southern General Hospital yesterday, with his family at his side.

Police believe Andrew was hit by a pellet aimed at firefighters, who had been called to a blaze at a flat near his home. Mark Bonnini, 27, is expected to appear in court on Monday in connection with the incident.

Anyone aged 17 or older can legally own an air rifle without a licence. But Jamieson vowed to raise the issue with the Home Office.

The minister noted that the UK Parliament had already raised the age for owning an airgun from14 to 17,banned possession of the weapons in public places and outlawed airguns fired using pressurised gas.

But she said:'I want to tell the people of Scotland that we will look very,very closely at this incident. If there are lessons tobe learned,we will learn them.

'I have to say to those who say airguns aren't harmful - just look again at the pictures in your newspapers this morning and please,think again.'

Andrew's local MSP Margaret Curran urged Westminster to consider licensing or banning them.

But the Home Office said their priority was enforcing the current law, not changing it.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said Andrew's death was a 'terrible,terrible tragedy'.

Asked if it could lead to new laws, he said: 'I think for the moment it's best that we just look at it very carefully and see what lessons can be learned.'

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/t...id=89488&headline=ban-all-guns-name_page.html

Well, you could always make it against the law to shoot someone with an airgun. If that doesn't work, you could always make a law against killing someone.
 
Wow, that report has tons of errors.
But eh, what else can I say: She's blaming the gun for her son's death.
 
Why not just ban everything except cold porridge and filtered water?

Every possible choice you could make carries risk, and that is just plain unacceptable. We need to protect people from the need to ever have to make a decision or live with it.
 
But eh, what else can I say: She's blaming the gun for her son's death.
She just lost her two-year-old child to a scumbag who was busily shooting at firefighters. You were expecting perhaps rationality and sympathy for target shooters?
 
Their olympic marksmen already have to train outside the country as many of the guns aren't legal, or the security is so restrictive as to require hours of paperwork for a trip to the range.
 
Here are the benefits of gun control:
Gun ban' utopia creates violent crime increase
The cure is worse than the disease

Thursday, March 03, 2005 - In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.

Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Ver-mont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.
 
She just lost her two-year-old child to a scumbag who was busily shooting at firefighters. You were expecting perhaps rationality and sympathy for target shooters?
I would expect her to put the blame on the person who caused the crime.
 
A Jeff Cooper mirror site for the UK had an article this month on how a pay roll robbery was ended (mind you this was the 19th century). By police and armed civilians who joined in to help the law. Several cops borrowed weapons from members of the crowd. Either way order was restored and the property recovered because folks used to go about armed, even in genteel Victorian England.
 
The UN

The United Nations has has got to go. They are trying to ban all firearms. Ex President Clinton would like to become the next secretary of the United Nations, and we all know his views on private ownership of firearms.
The second amendment assures all lawful citizens the right to bare arms. Registration is the first step to confiscation!
 
All kids note - even a modest 12 ft lb power limit does not make a pellet gun''safe''.

As ever - shouts from the roof tops to ban anything ''nasty''. Never mind that 99.9% of folks can be responsible owners of such ''nasties''. I do however feel that mother's pain - no denying that.
 
I will never understand people who shoot at firefighters. What, you want your neighbourhood to burn down?
 
Considering the number of children killed by drunk drivers, why isn't there a much louder outcry to ban alcohol and cars before anything else?


Because much more people drink alcohol or drive cars. Nobody wants to ban something they use/enjoy themselves.
 
Mark Bonnini, 27, is expected to appear in court on Monday in connection with the incident.

.....

The minister noted that the UK Parliament had already raised the age for owning an airgun from14 to 17

obviously, we need to raise the legal age for airguns to 28
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top