5 ms·

It appears everything was correctly enforced? He went through the appropriate channels - filled in the correct forms, and appeared sane at the time of applicati

by Loque 11y ago

It appears everything was correctly enforced? He went through the appropriate channels - filled in the correct forms, and appeared sane at the time of application. I guess another question would be, why on earth would anyone need _any_ of those guns.

anexprogrammer 11y ago
There was a lot of discussion at the time, and my recollection is he was already known to mental health services. The Sun et al had him painted as a rabid survivalist of course. Wiki seems to say it was retrospective diagnosis, so I'm not sure... I can understand wanting to collect, or at least try, different types, but who in the world needs an assault rifle?
- Loque 11y ago
  Try different types of guns for what? The only primary purpose of a gun is to inflict a lot of damage to something. The Sun, is a terrible, terrible source of 'news'; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3062107/Getting-high-on-MP3-downloads.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3062107/Getting-hi... (you can safely ignore any of the red tops in the UK) I can understand the deep interest in guns, for instance I thoroughly enjoy FPS russia. But I do not think as a society we can manage the general public having guns, Australia and the UK are a very good example of how new laws have come into place.
  - anexprogrammer 11y ago
    I used to fly. I'd quite like to fly many different marques, Spitfire included. So I can understand someone with an interest in firearms wanting to shoot many calibers and types. In the UK target shooting and clay pigeon shooting were the commonest use of firearms, rather than doing damage. Unless you count the paper. I'm well aware the Sun is just a comic, just sharing the recollection. :) Overall I'm in favour of law abiding citizens being able to shoot if they wish to, but the experience of the likes of Hungerford and Cumbria tells us it's not worth the risk. I'm inclined to think that in the absence of firearms Ryan or Hamilton would have done something equally terrible with an axe or bread knife. We already had a school machete attack in the 90s. It's the mental state not the firearm per se that's the problem. So I don't find it as clear cut as maybe I'd like it to be.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Indeed. It would be great if everyone were responsible and it could be a harmless collector's hobby, but they aren't and we can't have nice things. I was actually taught to shoot at school in the UK (cadet scheme), so it's not something entirely alien to me. But it's not something I can see as "necessary" either.
  - knz 11y ago
    > But I do not think as a society we can manage the general public having guns, Australia and the UK are a very good example of how new laws have come into place There are numerous other developed/OECD countries with "high" rates of firearms ownership and use that do not have the same rate of violence seen in the US. Not to mention the millions of responsible gun owners who safely use firearms for hunting, sport, and self protection. Violent crime with firearms still occurs in both the UK and Australia - both countries have a seedy underbelly that occasionally spills over (e.g. the gang related shooting in Sydney yesterday or the drive by shooting in Brixton last month). Gun control is a spectrum - there are other other countries that have sensible gun control measures that help to limit violent crime without penalizing responsible gun owners. Personally I have no issue with sensible control measures, but I do wish society would also address many of the other associated issues (access to mental health services, inequality/poverty, the war on drugs).
- throwaway21816 11y ago
  > but who in the world needs an assault rifle? Ignoring the "assault rifle" part of this. Semi-automatic carbines are great fun to shoot, they have a lower recoil impulse than traditional larger rifles and military surplus ammunition and parts generally creates a cheap and easy way to enjoy firearms. You can get an AR-15 for $600 or so and spend an afternoon enjoying it without a hurt shoulder or a bloody nose.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    The question is then should society enable that enjoyment at the risk of mass-shootings. Could people maybe get their kicks a different way. I've only shot air-rifles and shotguns IRL, I can appreciate the addictive qualities.
    - throwaway21816 11y ago
      Everything can be used in a destructive fashion, if a society is mature enough then it can enjoy them. Alcohol, private planes, cars, knives, food,etc all carry the same risk of abuse as guns. More americans die of eating too much food each year than in all gun deaths ,let alone mass shootings.
- talmand 11y ago
  Depends on what one is defining an "assault rifle". The most common definition used by the news media can be a semi-automatic hunting rifle with aftermarket parts on it. The term "assault rifle" is a dishonest attempt by certain people to influence a certain reaction in people.
  - anexprogrammer 11y ago
    From wikipedia "Type 56 assault rifle". The title of the page that loaded when I followed a link from the wiki page on the Hungerford shooting. Far as I knew it was the correct name. I am not attempting to influence any reaction. Are wikipedia?
    - talmand 11y ago
      I said news media. But assault rifle is a made up term for political reasons. I don't fault wikipedia for trying to explain it.
- BryanB55 11y ago
  "who in the world needs an assault rifle?" People interested in self defense. The term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" was made up by the media. An assault rifle is just your typical rifle that your great grandfather would have used for hunting back in the day. It is not what the media and politicians will lead you to believe. I think what leads people to ask this question is an major misunderstanding that an "assault rifle" is a big scary machine gun. They are not. An AR15 or AK47 are not machine guns that spray bullets with a single trigger pull. (Those are fully automatic weapons that are already heavily restricted). Assault weapons account for, on average, 2% of all firearms used in crimes, with the highest estimate being 13%. [1] The semi-automatic AR15 or AK47 are actually very effective and safe home defense firearms for a few reasons: - The round they use is less likely to penetrate through walls compared to a standard handgun round. This has been ballistically tested numerous times but no one likes to mention it when talking about the issue. - They are easier to shoot more accurately at close range and longer distances. - They hold more rounds. Why do you need more rounds? Because one shot is unlikely to stop most threats. Shocking I know, this is also something that is not how it seems in the movies. Also unmentioned when talking about self defense is that there may be multiple attackers. It's not so uncommon to have more than one attacker in a home invasion. [1] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
  - Loque 11y ago
    What do you need a gun to defend yourself against? In the UK someone did use a gun to "defend" themselves, against two people without guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
    - djrogers 11y ago
      > What do you need a gun to defend yourself against? An escaped inmate holding your family hostage? http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following-home-invasion-believed-to-be-mccloud/ http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following... A crazy man on a hatchet rampage? http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following-home-invasion-believed-to-be-mccloud/ http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following... A violent criminal attacking you in an elevator? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481507/Woman-leaves-attacker-bloody-wounded-shot-neck-tried-rob-knife-point.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481507/Woman-leaves... Of course defensive gun use doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative so it must not happen.

by Loque 11y ago

anexprogrammer 11y ago

There was a lot of discussion at the time, and my recollection is he was already known to mental health services. The Sun et al had him painted as a rabid survivalist of course. Wiki seems to say it was retrospective diagnosis, so I'm not sure... I can understand wanting to collect, or at least try, different types, but who in the world needs an assault rifle?

Loque 11y ago
Try different types of guns for what? The only primary purpose of a gun is to inflict a lot of damage to something. The Sun, is a terrible, terrible source of 'news'; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3062107/Getting-high-on-MP3-downloads.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3062107/Getting-hi... (you can safely ignore any of the red tops in the UK) I can understand the deep interest in guns, for instance I thoroughly enjoy FPS russia. But I do not think as a society we can manage the general public having guns, Australia and the UK are a very good example of how new laws have come into place.
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
  I used to fly. I'd quite like to fly many different marques, Spitfire included. So I can understand someone with an interest in firearms wanting to shoot many calibers and types. In the UK target shooting and clay pigeon shooting were the commonest use of firearms, rather than doing damage. Unless you count the paper. I'm well aware the Sun is just a comic, just sharing the recollection. :) Overall I'm in favour of law abiding citizens being able to shoot if they wish to, but the experience of the likes of Hungerford and Cumbria tells us it's not worth the risk. I'm inclined to think that in the absence of firearms Ryan or Hamilton would have done something equally terrible with an axe or bread knife. We already had a school machete attack in the 90s. It's the mental state not the firearm per se that's the problem. So I don't find it as clear cut as maybe I'd like it to be.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Indeed. It would be great if everyone were responsible and it could be a harmless collector's hobby, but they aren't and we can't have nice things. I was actually taught to shoot at school in the UK (cadet scheme), so it's not something entirely alien to me. But it's not something I can see as "necessary" either.
- knz 11y ago
  > But I do not think as a society we can manage the general public having guns, Australia and the UK are a very good example of how new laws have come into place There are numerous other developed/OECD countries with "high" rates of firearms ownership and use that do not have the same rate of violence seen in the US. Not to mention the millions of responsible gun owners who safely use firearms for hunting, sport, and self protection. Violent crime with firearms still occurs in both the UK and Australia - both countries have a seedy underbelly that occasionally spills over (e.g. the gang related shooting in Sydney yesterday or the drive by shooting in Brixton last month). Gun control is a spectrum - there are other other countries that have sensible gun control measures that help to limit violent crime without penalizing responsible gun owners. Personally I have no issue with sensible control measures, but I do wish society would also address many of the other associated issues (access to mental health services, inequality/poverty, the war on drugs).
throwaway21816 11y ago
> but who in the world needs an assault rifle? Ignoring the "assault rifle" part of this. Semi-automatic carbines are great fun to shoot, they have a lower recoil impulse than traditional larger rifles and military surplus ammunition and parts generally creates a cheap and easy way to enjoy firearms. You can get an AR-15 for $600 or so and spend an afternoon enjoying it without a hurt shoulder or a bloody nose.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  The question is then should society enable that enjoyment at the risk of mass-shootings. Could people maybe get their kicks a different way. I've only shot air-rifles and shotguns IRL, I can appreciate the addictive qualities.
  - throwaway21816 11y ago
    Everything can be used in a destructive fashion, if a society is mature enough then it can enjoy them. Alcohol, private planes, cars, knives, food,etc all carry the same risk of abuse as guns. More americans die of eating too much food each year than in all gun deaths ,let alone mass shootings.
talmand 11y ago
Depends on what one is defining an "assault rifle". The most common definition used by the news media can be a semi-automatic hunting rifle with aftermarket parts on it. The term "assault rifle" is a dishonest attempt by certain people to influence a certain reaction in people.
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
  From wikipedia "Type 56 assault rifle". The title of the page that loaded when I followed a link from the wiki page on the Hungerford shooting. Far as I knew it was the correct name. I am not attempting to influence any reaction. Are wikipedia?
  - talmand 11y ago
    I said news media. But assault rifle is a made up term for political reasons. I don't fault wikipedia for trying to explain it.
BryanB55 11y ago
"who in the world needs an assault rifle?" People interested in self defense. The term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" was made up by the media. An assault rifle is just your typical rifle that your great grandfather would have used for hunting back in the day. It is not what the media and politicians will lead you to believe. I think what leads people to ask this question is an major misunderstanding that an "assault rifle" is a big scary machine gun. They are not. An AR15 or AK47 are not machine guns that spray bullets with a single trigger pull. (Those are fully automatic weapons that are already heavily restricted). Assault weapons account for, on average, 2% of all firearms used in crimes, with the highest estimate being 13%. [1] The semi-automatic AR15 or AK47 are actually very effective and safe home defense firearms for a few reasons: - The round they use is less likely to penetrate through walls compared to a standard handgun round. This has been ballistically tested numerous times but no one likes to mention it when talking about the issue. - They are easier to shoot more accurately at close range and longer distances. - They hold more rounds. Why do you need more rounds? Because one shot is unlikely to stop most threats. Shocking I know, this is also something that is not how it seems in the movies. Also unmentioned when talking about self defense is that there may be multiple attackers. It's not so uncommon to have more than one attacker in a home invasion. [1] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
- Loque 11y ago
  What do you need a gun to defend yourself against? In the UK someone did use a gun to "defend" themselves, against two people without guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
  - djrogers 11y ago
    > What do you need a gun to defend yourself against? An escaped inmate holding your family hostage? http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following-home-invasion-believed-to-be-mccloud/ http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following... A crazy man on a hatchet rampage? http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following-home-invasion-believed-to-be-mccloud/ http://www.vicksburgpost.com/2016/03/10/man-killed-following... A violent criminal attacking you in an elevator? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481507/Woman-leaves-attacker-bloody-wounded-shot-neck-tried-rob-knife-point.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3481507/Woman-leaves... Of course defensive gun use doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative so it must not happen.