poontang Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 Suit yourself. Thanks, I will. Your fairly weak reply just proves my point though. If you had a credible argument I'm sure it would have been forthcoming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimfireboy Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 Thanks, I will. Your fairly weak reply just proves my point though. If you had a credible argument I'm sure it would have been forthcoming? Just can't be bothered, I don't agree. Fact is, more people are killed by dangerous driving in this country. I know there are more cars than guns but what I originally said still stands. Banning vehicles would save more lives than banning guns in this country. I've lost quite a few friends and people who I knew to road incidents. None of my friends have been shot dead. That must mean something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MM Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 Just sent him a nice email... Chris, having just read part of your ‘speech’ on firearms, i must say i am truly glad i do not live in your constituency. In my view, the country would be a far better place if guns were completely banned and nobody was allowed to own them. I recognise that that might be a step too far at this stage, but it is essential that this Parliament takes action to address the gun culture in our country. It is a frightening statistic that almost 5,000 young people-5,000 children-hold a firearms certificate. What kind of message is that sending out to the country at large? I am a councillor in Derby as well as a Member of Parliament. In a park in Normanton in Derby, there was a tragic and fatal incident in which a young man of 15 years of age was shot dead with a gun. I accept that that gun was obtained illegally. However, when the law of the land allows 5,000 children legitimately to hold a firearms certificate, it sends a very bad signal. What a shockingly, narrow minded attitude you have. If you would like some advice on how to keep your seat, try addressing issues that matter, such as ILLEGAL GUN CRIME!!! Its nice to see an MP hold such faith in the law abiding youth. Regards, Mr MM, legal owner of many guns, married father of two, full time transport worker, tax payer, law abiding citizen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 Just can't be bothered, I don't agree. Fact is, more people are killed by dangerous driving in this country. I know there are more cars than guns but what I originally said still stands. Banning vehicles would save more lives than banning guns in this country. I've lost quite a few friends and people who I knew to road incidents. None of my friends have been shot dead. That must mean something. Unfortunately it doesn't mean much at all. More importantly it doesn't mean much to the people who make the laws of the land either. Which is why we need far better and more credible arguments if/when the issue of private firearms ownership is brought up. Just saying cars/knives cause more deaths than guns ain't gonna cut it...Two wrongs don't make a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 As he hasn't replied to my last e-mail, I've given him this one to attempt to wriggle out of: Dear Mr. Williamson,Having read part of your speech to the Home Affairs committee on Firearms, after the Cumbria killings, I am a little unsure as to the reasons for your views, as there seems to be no logic behind them. 'In my view, the country would be a far better place if guns were completely banned and nobody was allowed to own them. I recognise that that might be a step too far at this stage, but it is essential that this Parliament takes action to address the gun culture in our country. It is a frightening statistic that almost 5,000 young people-5,000 children-hold a firearms certificate. What kind of message is that sending out to the country at large? I am a councillor in Derby as well as a Member of Parliament. In a park in Normanton in Derby, there was a tragic and fatal incident in which a young man of 15 years of age was shot dead with a gun. I accept that that gun was obtained illegally. However, when the law of the land allows 5,000 children legitimately to hold a firearms certificate, it sends a very bad signal. ' When you say 'the country would be a far better place if guns were completely banned and nobody was allowed to own them', who do you mean by everybody? Does this include the police force, the army and the navy? This surely cannot be what you meant, but where do you think the line should be drawn, and why? When you say 'It is a frightening statistic that almost 5,000 young people-5,000 children-hold a firearms certificate.' could you please explain why? As people who hold firearm certificates are among the most sensible, law abiding people in the country, why is it frightening that young people hold firearm certificates? Clearly you have an issue with this, as well as explaining the reason why, could you please tell me at what point do you feel a person is old enough for their possession of a firearm certificate to no longer be frightening? 'In a park in Normanton in Derby, there was a tragic and fatal incident in which a young man of 15 years of age was shot dead with a gun. I accept that that gun was obtained illegally.' What has this got to do with the legal ownership of firearms? The illegal possession of firearms is a different matter altogether, and while it is a major issue that needs to be resolved, I cannot understand how using it in a speech about the control of legally held firearms can possibly tackle the issue. 'However, when the law of the land allows 5,000 children legitimately to hold a firearms certificate, it sends a very bad signal.' Again, I am unsure of the reasons behind this statement. How is it a bad signal when 5000 children are deemed safe and responsible enough to be trusted with firearms? The fact is that those people are highly unlikely to commit any crimes or take part in anti-social behavior, as they are law abiding citizens who understand how easy it can be to lose firearm certificates they tend to be more sensible than any ordinary citizens. As a country we should be proud of the number of responsible young people we have, and we should promote this positive signal as best we can. Your views on guns appear to be based upon very selective (or no) facts, with no thought or reasoning behind them. It would seem you are hoping to use this to help your career (at the expense of the livelihood of many farmers, pest controllers and sportsmen), no doubt viewing this as an easy way to get a large amount of public support, as attacking a relatively small number of legitimate, responsible shooters is easier than tackling any actual problems - such as the illegal ownership of firearms, drink driving, drug use, antisocial behavior and the many other things that are a problem for this country. I await your reply to the points I have raised. Regards, I'm looking forward to his reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimfireboy Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 Unfortunately it doesn't mean much at all. More importantly it doesn't mean much to the people who make the laws of the land either. Which is why we need far better and more credible arguments if/when the issue of private firearms ownership is brought up. Just saying cars/knives cause more deaths than guns ain't gonna cut it...Two wrongs don't make a right. Not to you maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 Not to you maybe. Once again you've missed the point. It's not ME who makes the laws and regulations that govern firearms law. Take your argument to the real decision makers and they'll laugh you out of the room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimfireboy Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 Once again you've missed the point. It's not ME who makes the laws and regulations that govern firearms law. Take your argument to the real decision makers and they'll laugh you out of the room. Just saying, if you want to save lives, then banning vehicles would save more lives than banning guns in this country. I don't want any of them banned and I know that all these ban everything brigade get on their high horse every time something happens, and I know that it wouldn't make a difference anyway. It's just that, if there's a tragedy on the road you don't hear about people saying "cars should be banned" yet if somebody gets shot ! Well, you know the rest. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted August 12, 2012 Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 Just saying, if you want to save lives, then banning vehicles would save more lives than banning guns in this country. I don't want any of them banned and I know that all these ban everything brigade get on their high horse every time something happens, and I know that it wouldn't make a difference anyway. It's just that, if there's a tragedy on the road you don't hear about people saying "cars should be banned" yet if somebody gets shot ! Well, you know the rest. That's all. I totally agree with you that banning cars would save more lives than banning guns. We know that's never going to happen though, so my point is that maybe it's about time we started to use different arguments to counter the anti's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted August 12, 2012 Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 As he hasn't replied to my last e-mail, I've given him this one to attempt to wriggle out of: I'm looking forward to his reply. Nice one!Well thought out;polite and articulate.The use of 'questions' which require answers,as opposed to rhetorical ones,is always a nice touch,as a lot can be drawn from any failure to answer.Let us know if you get a response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted August 12, 2012 Report Share Posted August 12, 2012 I totally agree with you that banning cars would save more lives than banning guns. We know that's never going to happen though, so my point is that maybe it's about time we started to use different arguments to counter the anti's? Indeed how about the fact banning stuff doesn't prevent deaths, just look at drugs........ much better to legalise and tax, quality control them. Ther eis an unfortunate correlation between Legal = safe and illegal = dangerous this simply isn't the case. Controlling the availability of legal and illegal firearms is one issue, managing the safe use of legally held ones is another. Firearms seems an unusually highly emotive subject area. We are all against the use of illegally held firearms, and legally held ones for crimes Quite often you see the opinion that guns should only be held/used by "Olympic athletes", "farmers" and "professionals pest controllers" and that they should be kept at central armouries like police stations... We need better responses as to why this would not have a positive impact on public safety, the idea of dear culling and other services only being carried out by "professionals" is interesting and as far as the antis understand all the guns are the same so no need for you to have it at home you can just rent one at the range or collect from plod at 9 am and have to return it by 3pm or risk jail time.... CLay shooting is probably the most acceptable form of shooting to most people, deer stalking the least.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.