Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for the record (re: guns thread)
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 305 (399492)
05-05-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
05-05-2007 8:42 PM


Re: On why own guns.
Well, you are a little more than a bit confused.
I said school violence was up compared to the sixties.
You said...No, it's just a media reporting thing, and the number of shootings is the same.
So I came back and posted a link with 36 school shootings since Columbine.
I asked you to show me an equal amount more or less in the sixties.
You haven't.
After 2 pages you guys have ONE.......Austin 8/1/66.
You haven't answered my question, but I'll ask another.
Show me the quote where I said more gun control = more shootings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2007 8:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2007 11:55 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 305 (399493)
05-05-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by kuresu
05-05-2007 7:45 PM


Re: On why own guns.
petro never made any statements about the minds of the shooters. Just that back then, you didn't hear about them (shootings, that is).
Look, I understand what going to a liberal socialist shithole like CU is like, I have a degree from there. I know what it can do to your mind.
BUT, I still expect you to READ the posts in this thread.
As an exercise tell me everything I posted about fluoxetine.
To quote you...."petro never made any statements about the minds of the shooters"
I asked about it more than once.
kuresu
Do me a favor, if you are not reading the thread DON'T comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by kuresu, posted 05-05-2007 7:45 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by kuresu, posted 05-05-2007 11:57 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 86 by nator, posted 05-06-2007 10:57 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 78 of 305 (399494)
05-05-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by petrophysics1
05-05-2007 11:27 PM


Re: On why own guns.
You said...No, it's just a media reporting thing, and the number of shootings is the same.
No, I didn't. What you said was that you didn't hear about as many shoootings in the 60's as now, and I told you that was because they didn't have 6 different 24-hour news networks on cable TV in the 60's with literally hours to fill.
I didn't say they were the same. But it's undeniably true that a fair bit of your perception of their being more of them is because school shootings recieve a lot more reportage in the current age of news saturation than in the 60's.
I asked you to show me an equal amount more or less in the sixties.
You asked me to defend something I hadn't claimed? We call that a "strawman" around these parts.
We would expect school shootings to rise simply as a function of their being more schools and more kids in schools, as well as more guns, incidentally. So I wouldn't claim that there aren't more now than back then. But again, the factor equally responsible for your perception is that such incidents are reported on a lot more.
Show me the quote where I said more gun control = more shootings.
I can't, because you didn't say that explictly. But I don't understand, then, what the point of your making the connection was in the first place. If you didn't mean to suggest that gun control results in school shoootings, why did you portray a rise in school shootings as something that more gun control could be used to explain? Why bring up both subjects if you didn't intend to link them? I'm willing to grant that you were universally misunderstood, but in that case, what the hell were you trying to say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by petrophysics1, posted 05-05-2007 11:27 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 79 of 305 (399495)
05-05-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by petrophysics1
05-05-2007 11:48 PM


Re: On why own guns.
I understand what going to a liberal socialist shithole like CU is like
First, no insults to CU. Don't confuse Boulder with the student body. E-mail prof. Young at gyoung@colorado.edu for some stats as to the political orientation of his students going back about ten years. It's roughly evenly split between liberals and conservatives. And if it's a liberal socialist shithole, then why are my international affairs professors fond of realism and why do my econ professors argue for capitalism? Sure, I've had liberal professors (my writing and the one for nat. am. culture last semester), but unless you're extremely conservative, I doubt you would find the current CU a liberal socialist shithole. And before you confuse me with an ardent liberal, I'm middle of the road, leaning to the left a little.
And I have been reading this thread, thank you very much. I just don't recall you making any statements as to the state of mind of the shooters in school shootings.
[abe]
so you mentioned fluoxetine in message 45. the only post where you talk about the state of mind of school shootings. The quote is an excerpt of a study done on somebody on the drug but not involved in any shootings or a copycat. It does not mention whether any school shooters were on fluoxetine (nor do you, for that matter. you just suggest the possibility. up to you, now, to determine that). The other times you mentioned the state of mind of gun-owners in general is to say that you all are safer than we think. I don't see how that equals inquiring about the state of mind of school shooters more than once.
[/abe]
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by petrophysics1, posted 05-05-2007 11:48 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 80 of 305 (399499)
05-06-2007 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by petrophysics1
05-05-2007 6:30 PM


Re: On why own guns.
I never said gun control caused more shooting.
That was STRONGLY implied by your tone.
The problem with the data you are siting is that you are giving weight to certain factors (number of events over time) but not other factors (socio-economics, nature of the events, causation of the events, location of the events, population density, etc)
Yes, there was a period of time directly after Columbine when there was a rash of school shootings.
If these were caused, as you implied, by the gun laws, then, since the gun laws are unchanged, we would expect them to continue happening.
However, if these were caused by media hype over the events, we'd expect to see a spike in the events coinciding with the media.
Is that "proof" that that's what caused it? No. But at least is plausible as an explaination, something which your theory currently is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by petrophysics1, posted 05-05-2007 6:30 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 81 of 305 (399500)
05-06-2007 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
05-05-2007 8:37 PM


Re: On why own guns.
Well, then how are we going to define "school shooting"?
The shooter and the victoms must all be members of the same school?
The shooting takes place on school grounds?
The shooting is done by a crazy person?
I don't know that we'd have all the information needed to parse these accounts without a LOT of googling.
The point is that Petro believes that because he didn't want the news in the 60s and 70s that people didn't get shot in schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 05-05-2007 8:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 05-06-2007 12:20 PM Nuggin has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 305 (399502)
05-06-2007 2:25 AM


A hot topic, eh?
I guess I'm mildly resentful/annoyed at certain people's penchants for speaking disparagingly about, as Petro eloquently described as, an "inanimate tool."
Would it be crazy to assume that statistically cars are about a 1000:1 more dangerous than guns? And yet, we buy 16 year olds cars without batting an eyelash.
But really, this is all aside from the point. The point that seems to still being overlooked by certain individuals here at EvC is what we can learn by understanding the tone of the times-- looking at the ethos of any given society. In the, say, 1950's, there were more people per capita owning guns than there are now. Did people often go on shooting spree's and rampages? No. So, what happened between then and now?
Look no further than the counter-culture that we are allowing to fester. I mean, lets face it... Guns don't discharge themselves. And most people aren't so obtuse that they can't understand what muzzle control means.
Are we really surprised that we are reaping what we sowed?
Look at television, the movies, music videos, video games, etc, that are painting pictures for these young one's that they can empower themselves through the threat of violence. And as we often see in the gang culture-- live by the sword, die by the sword.
The irony of it is that the loudest opponents to guns are often the one's defending and coddling the very culture that perpetuates this violence. Instead of connecting the dots, like any rational person would do, they'd rather blame the guns themselves. They would rather pester responsible, law abiding gun owners instead of trying to redirect societal influence to something positive.
Can I get a hallelujah?

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Vacate, posted 05-06-2007 3:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 05-06-2007 9:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 87 by nator, posted 05-06-2007 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2007 1:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 95 by Nuggin, posted 05-06-2007 2:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 83 of 305 (399504)
05-06-2007 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2007 2:25 AM


Re: A hot topic, eh?
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Are we really surprised that we are reaping what we sowed?
Look at television, the movies, music videos, video games, etc, that are painting pictures for these young one's that they can empower themselves through the threat of violence. And as we often see in the gang culture-- live by the sword, die by the sword.
Well put nemesis. I, for one, agree completely.
Instead of connecting the dots, like any rational person would do, they'd rather blame the guns themselves.
I have a hard time agreeing with this however. I am sure that any rational person would admit that once the "dots are connected" its quite obvious that a shift in our culture is the root cause for increased gun violence. What is the proposal being put forth? How do we reach the end goal of eliminating gun violence?
Option One?
  • Ban violence on television, movies, internet, and videogames
  • Ban suggestive writing in books and music that may lead people to violence
  • Increase funding towards pharmaceuticals, counseling , and preventative measures
  • Attempt to create a cultural shift towards less democratic society with the sole intent of reducing gun violence.
Option Two?
  • Heavier restrictions on gun control
  • Attempt to create a better society as we have done for thousands of years - this will be a slow process.
Though I feel you are right that our culture is to blame, I do not feel that restricting peoples freedom of expression in a democracy is the best way to reduce gun violence. Taking away what I feel is our basic human rights is a much bigger pill to swallow than having to give up guns.
The irony of it is that the loudest opponents to guns are often the one's defending and coddling the very culture that perpetuates this violence.
That would be me exactly. I do support my personal right to watch violent movies, listen to violent music, and read violence in my books. I have no plans to blow anyone up or start shooting up schoolyards, blame my parents for teaching me the difference between right and wrong.
Perhaps I am alone in thinking this. But rest assured when they come to take away my tv, music, computer, movies, and books - I will make sure ahead of time I have bought some guns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2007 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 05-06-2007 9:23 AM Vacate has not replied
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2007 11:27 AM Vacate has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 84 of 305 (399514)
05-06-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2007 2:25 AM


Menace To Society
nemesis writes:
The point that seems to still being overlooked by certain individuals here at EvC is what we can learn by understanding the tone of the times-- looking at the ethos of any given society.
Societal introspection?
nemesis writes:
Look no further than the counter-culture that we are allowing to fester.
Its not the counter-culture. Its the culture!
nemesis writes:
Look at television, the movies, music videos, video games, etc, that are painting pictures for these young one's that they can empower themselves through the threat of violence. And as we often see in the gang culture-- live by the sword, die by the sword.
But they all get so bored when I put on Jesus movies portrayed by some white English Actor! They would rather watch Scarface! (which, unbelievably, the State of Colorado allows to be shown in the detention center! )
nemesis writes:
The irony of it is that the loudest opponents to guns are often the one's defending and coddling the very culture that perpetuates this violence.
Do we go with legislation of morality? Or do we attempt to influence each other on a grassroots level and leave the government out of it?

Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
--General Omar Bradley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2007 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 305 (399515)
05-06-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Vacate
05-06-2007 3:51 AM


Re: A hot topic, eh?
vacate writes:
I am sure that any rational person would admit that once the "dots are connected" its quite obvious that a shift in our culture is the root cause for increased gun violence. What is the proposal being put forth? How do we reach the end goal of eliminating gun violence?
After Columbine High School happened in Littleton, Colorado---not fifteen miles from where I live--one of my mentors who had initially gotten me to go to the youth detention centers with him (which I now do on my own and have done for 12 years) quit. He simply gave up.
Of course, he was experiencing problems in his marriage and couldn't devote his time to interacting with locked up urban teenagers.
I have the time. My critics may say that they could do it better than I. My response? Well go do it, then! The key to helping society reduce gun violence is to be someone who has a chance to talk to a Dylan Klebold, an Eric Harris, or a Jason Cho before they get desperate enough to pull the trigger.
If you have kids, get to know their friends. Rather than shunning the worst ones, show them some love and understanding. Empathize with them.
Its like Jar says: Its ok to fail. But its not ok not to try. If after our best efforts, the neighborhood kid shoots up the school, we at least can say that we did our best to try and prevent him from doing so.
Legislating access to guns may be a short term solution, but there are issues regarding personal freedoms.
Throwing away all the violent video games may work with your own kids, but we as a society can't get very far through censorship.
Societal values will only change collectively. The direction we go is up to the voters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Vacate, posted 05-06-2007 3:51 AM Vacate has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 305 (399522)
05-06-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by petrophysics1
05-05-2007 11:48 PM


Jefferson County, CO
Petro, you mentioned how safe your motorcycle is because it is in a place with lots of private gun ownership, Jefferson County in Colorado.
Jefferson County, CO (where it is very easy to get guns) is the county that Littleton, CO is in.
Littleton, CO is the town where Columbine High School is, where (up until last month) the deadliest-ever school shooting occurred.
It's great that your mororcycle was safe from harm and all, but it seems that the kids at that school weren't quite as fortunate as your motorcycle, were they?
This is despite the fact that there were so many guns and gun owners in that town, right?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by petrophysics1, posted 05-05-2007 11:48 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 305 (399527)
05-06-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2007 2:25 AM


Re: A hot topic, eh?
quote:
Would it be crazy to assume that statistically cars are about a 1000:1 more dangerous than guns?
Yes, it would be crazy to assume that.
I cited this researcher very early on in the last thread, but I'll repost it here.
source
Gun deaths fall into three categories: homicides, suicides, and accidental killings. In 2001, about 30,000 people died from gunfire in the United States. Set this against the 43,000 annual deaths from motor-vehicle accidents to recognize what startling carnage comes out of a barrel. The comparison is especially telling because cars "are a way of life," as Hemenway explains. "People use cars all day, every day”and 'motor vehicles' include trucks. How many of us use guns?"
quote:
Look at television, the movies, music videos, video games, etc, that are painting pictures for these young one's that they can empower themselves through the threat of violence. And as we often see in the gang culture-- live by the sword, die by the sword.
There has been a "gang culture" for a long time, even back in the 50's and earlier. Ever heard of West Side Story? They had knives instead of guns, of course, so only one kid died at the end.
But anyway, crime is trending down across the board, with a marked drop during the Clinton administration, most likely due to economic reasons. The homicide rate is currently almost the same as in 1960.
United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2007 2:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 305 (399529)
05-06-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Vacate
05-06-2007 3:51 AM


Re: A hot topic, eh?
Well put nemesis. I, for one, agree completely.
Thank you much kind sir/madam
Option One
Ban violence on television, movies, internet, and videogames
Nah, that's an unrealistic goal. Besides, banning altogether will only ensure that people will want it all the more. Humans are funny because they either want what they can't have, or want that which is considered taboo.
Ban suggestive writing in books and music that may lead people to violence
This should go in the censorship thread. Is it better to suppress ideas that ultimately cause our degradation, or should we set and maintain a standard to follow that will be our best interests? Its not an easy topic, because while we value our Amendment rights to the freedom of speech without the fear of reprisal, for some reason, we in this country seem to think that the freedom of speech entails complete and total licentiousness. Sometimes there is no balance.
And when they do try and balance it, it comes out like an FCC regulation. Case in point: The FCC has no moral qualms with showing a movie where a man shoots another man 42 times and blood is spraying from every wound, so long as they are sure to bleep out the part where he calls him an asshole just before he shoots him. Whew! Glad they bleeped that out.
Increase funding towards pharmaceuticals, counseling , and preventative measures
When you say "funding" it makes think of the government. I am very libertarian when it comes to these sort of things. I don't believe that it is the governments responsibility to buy pharmaceuticals from privatized companies.
Attempt to create a cultural shift towards less democratic society with the sole intent of reducing gun violence.
This is where I'm very libertarian. I want the least amount of government possible. This nation began with individualistic aspirations to shift away from tyrannical dictatorships. We still need freewill. We simply need balance between Big Brother and total licentiousness.
Option Two?
* Heavier restrictions on gun control
* Attempt to create a better society as we have done for thousands of years - this will be a slow process.
Well, these sound reasonable, except they also sound like platitudes.
Though I feel you are right that our culture is to blame, I do not feel that restricting peoples freedom of expression in a democracy is the best way to reduce gun violence. Taking away what I feel is our basic human rights is a much bigger pill to swallow than having to give up guns.
I agree, which is why somewhere along the line, we need some balance.
Perhaps I am alone in thinking this. But rest assured when they come to take away my tv, music, computer, movies, and books - I will make sure ahead of time I have bought some guns.
I don't think a single person would advocate something so extreme. I think Hollywood started out trying to capture the essence of society. What ended up happening is that they are now shaping it. Its difficult because we are all entertained by the drama, but we'd be foolish to think that it isn't making an impact as well.
I just read a chapter, entitled, "The Knife Went In," on a terrific book that I'm reading. I think his testimony summarizes what I believe to be the root of the problem-- a culture that desperately seeks to exonerate itself from fault, perpetuated by a class of elitists and master whiners who constantly search for victims to exploit for their own political gain.
"As a doctor who sees patients in a prison once or twice a week, I am fascinated by prisoners' use of passive mood and other modes of speech that are supposed to indicate their helplessness. They describe themselves as marionettes of happenstance.
Not long ago, a murderer entered my room in the prison shortly after his arrest to seek a prescription of methadone to which he was addicted. I told him that I would prescribe a reducing dose, and that within a relatively short time my prescription would cease. I would not provide a maintenance does for a man with a life sentence.
"yes," he said, "its' just my luck to be here on this charge." Luck? He had already served a dozen prison sentences, many of them for violence, and on the night in question had carried a knife with him, which he must have known from experience that he would be inclined to use. But it was that victim of the stabbing who was the real author of the killer's action: if he hadn't been there, he wouldn't have been stabbed.
My murderer by no means alone in explaining his deed as due to circumstances beyond his control. As it happens, there are three stabbers (two of them unto death) now in the prison who used precisely the same description. "The knife went in." they said when asked to recover their allegedly lost memories of the deed.
The knife went in--unguided by human hand, apparently. That the long-hated victims were sought out, and the knives carried to the scene of the crime, was nothing compared to the willpower possessed by the inanimate knives themselves, which determined the unfortunate outcome."
-Theodore Dalrymple
Now, substitute knife, with gun, and the outcome is still the same from the one we just read in this story. At the end of the day, the unapologetic criminal blames anything other than himself for his actions, or if he does, he has a multitude of justifications for why it was acceptable for him to have done his deeds while in the commission of a crime.
The unrepentant criminal says, "the knife went"... "the gun just went off"... "if only they weren't home at that time. I tried to plan it so that they wouldn't be home when I entered their residence. In a way, its their own fault. I was just scared. And the knife went in."
Equally guilty is the class of people who are in need of these cases so they can coddle the criminal and victimize the real victims, all the while using it as a political platform to push their agendas. Instead of keeping things in perspective, they would rather blame guns than blame the hands that wield them.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Added applicable quotes

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Vacate, posted 05-06-2007 3:51 AM Vacate has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 89 of 305 (399537)
05-06-2007 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Nuggin
05-06-2007 1:56 AM


Re: On why own guns.
Nuggin writes:
Well, then how are we going to define "school shooting"?
"School shooting" in the context of gun control has to mean civilians doing the shooting. German paratroopers attacking a school full of Polish cavalrymen is not relevant.
I don't know that we'd have all the information needed to parse these accounts without a LOT of googling.
Pardon me if it takes some actual effort to back up your points.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 05-06-2007 1:56 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Nuggin, posted 05-06-2007 2:01 PM ringo has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 90 of 305 (399541)
05-06-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Larni
05-05-2007 3:00 PM


UK law
It is not illegal to own a handgun or rifle in England.
Yes it is.
Well, might as well clarify this. The following weapons are illegal
  • any firearm which is so designed or adapted that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger.
  • any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges.
  • any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus.
  • any self-loading or pump-action smooth bore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a barrel less than 24 inches in length or is less than 40 inches in length overall.
  • any smooth bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered for 9mm rim-fire cartridges or a muzzle-loading gun.
  • any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus.
  • any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system.
  • any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.
  • any cartridge with a bullet so designed to explode on or immediately before impact, any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb or other like missile, or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid.
There are two types of lisence. Shotgun and firearm. Shotgun licences are more lax (for example under 14s can theoretically posess a shotgun certificate and you only need to specify a reason for owning the certificate whereas you need a reason for each and every firearm (ie non-shotgun) owned). To acquire a licence you have to apply to the Chief Officer of Police in your area.
Without a certificate, it is perfectly legal to fire a rifle that is owned by a certificate holder, on their land, as long as you abide by the conditions of the certificate. It is also legal to fire a weapon on open days by licenced clubs.
Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 05-05-2007 3:00 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Larni, posted 05-07-2007 10:02 AM Modulous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024