Labour at it again.

[oowee]

49 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Grant , I know hes your mate ect , but seriously , carefully chosen from what ?
A random word generator ?

Who would not agree with 'People have access to guns that they should not have access to'?

Who would not agree That even with legal access that better checks should be undertaken? It's certainly the case in Durham. 

I accept that we all feel the rules are tight enough and the issue is with enforcement not the vast majority of law abiding owners. We all hope that if they look again then that becomes evident. 

[PeterHenry]

29 minutes ago, oowee said:

Who would not agree with 'People have access to guns that they should not have access to'?

Who would not agree That even with legal access that better checks should be undertaken? It's certainly the case in Durham. 

I accept that we all feel the rules are tight enough and the issue is with enforcement not the vast majority of law abiding owners. We all hope that if they look again then that becomes evident. 

I agree with your interpretation completely - the man in the street will listen to / read those words and find nothing objectionable or unreasonable.

It's phrased for the general population and its phrased very carefully.

We, on the other hand read it and concern ourselves with being used as cheap political capital.

[oowee]

1 minute ago, PeterHenry said:

I agree with your interpretation completely - the man in the street will listen to / read those words and find nothing objectionable or unreasonable.

It's phrased for the general population and its phrased very carefully.

We, on the other hand read it and concern ourselves with being used as cheap political capital.

^^^^ This. 

[Rewulf]

46 minutes ago, oowee said:

Who would not agree with 'People have access to guns that they should not have access to'?

Legal or illegal guns ? Context . What does he mean ?
If hes stating that criminals shouldnt have access then err.. duh ! A bit obvious.
Or does he mean some legal firearms owners shouldnt have them ? He needs to clarify what hes talking about , rather than just virtue signal that 'Guns are baaad !' 

 

46 minutes ago, oowee said:

Who would not agree That even with legal access that better checks should be undertaken? It's certainly the case in Durham. 

Ah , so hes saying sometimes the checks arent adequate, the law needs tightening ? 
Tell me again how better background checks  ~(or more precisely , the police doing their jobs properly) would have prevented this drive by shooting ?

 

49 minutes ago, oowee said:

I accept that we all feel the rules are tight enough and the issue is with enforcement not the vast majority of law abiding owners. We all hope that if they look again then that becomes evident. 

15 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I agree with your interpretation completely - the man in the street will listen to / read those words and find nothing objectionable or unreasonable.

You both miss the point , the man on the street will think , 'Ooh that nice Mr Starmer feels that people shouldnt have guns, so hes going to make them illegal , that will stop those nasty criminals shooting each other'
The people who actually understand the system, know that further legislation will not make an iota of difference to criminal usage.
Thats the FACTS , which Starmer fails to grasp, like a lot of things.

[PeterHenry]

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Legal or illegal guns ? Context . What does he mean ?
If hes stating that criminals shouldnt have access then err.. duh ! A bit obvious.
Or does he mean some legal firearms owners shouldnt have them ? He needs to clarify what hes talking about , rather than just virtue signal that 'Guns are baaad !' 

 

Ah , so hes saying sometimes the checks arent adequate, the law needs tightening ? 
Tell me again how better background checks  ~(or more precisely , the police doing their jobs properly) would have prevented this drive by shooting ?

 

You both miss the point , the man on the street will think , 'Ooh that nice Mr Starmer feels that people shouldnt have guns, so hes going to make them illegal , that will stop those nasty criminals shooting each other'
The people who actually understand the system, know that further legislation will not make an iota of difference to criminal usage.
Thats the FACTS , which Starmer fails to grasp, like a lot of things.

It's irritatingly difficult thing to discuss because the wording is so slippery / subtle. It's very carefully worded in the sense that it means different things to diffrent pepole. It appeals to the pepole who don't like guns, it also appeals to the middle of the road / man in the street, because he infers from it that only criminals and those who may be a danger will feel the force of the law. Starmer wants those votes.

It also works because it sounds like the right thing to say to an electorate, in the wake of a terrible event, who (largely) do not understand the previous failings of licencing departments / their role in previous tragedies (albeit those involving legally held guns). 

I agree with you, it's not about fixing the system, it's about labour winning votes - and taken for what it is - it's very very cleverly worded.

37 minutes ago, oowee said:

^^^^ This. 

👍

Edited January 25, 2023 by PeterHenry

[oowee]

19 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Legal or illegal guns ? Context . What does he mean ?
If hes stating that criminals shouldnt have access then err.. duh ! A bit obvious.
Or does he mean some legal firearms owners shouldnt have them ? He needs to clarify what hes talking about , rather than just virtue signal that 'Guns are baaad !' 

 

Ah , so hes saying sometimes the checks arent adequate, the law needs tightening ? 
Tell me again how better background checks  ~(or more precisely , the police doing their jobs properly) would have prevented this drive by shooting ?

 

You both miss the point , the man on the street will think , 'Ooh that nice Mr Starmer feels that people shouldnt have guns, so hes going to make them illegal , that will stop those nasty criminals shooting each other'
The people who actually understand the system, know that further legislation will not make an iota of difference to criminal usage.
Thats the FACTS , which Starmer fails to grasp, like a lot of things.

????

My point being that he has chosen his words carefully not that there is any method, process or proposals just that the words are precise, for exactly the purpose you explain in your last para. Good for public consumption. 

How refreshing to see some thought taking place rather than the loose mouth pieces we have got used to. 

[JohnfromUK]

Starmer is a lawyer.  Lawyers fight cases in court, both as prosecution and defence. 

To a lawyer, what matters is not whether the accused is actually innocent or guilty.  It is simply fighting the case by representing the client and collecting the fee.  It's a job.  Politics is similar.  You say things to win votes - not because they are true, correct, or you believe them.  You do it to further your own/parties position.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Who would not agree with 'People have access to guns that they should not have access to'?

Who would not agree That even with legal access that better checks should be undertaken? It's certainly the case in Durham. 

I accept that we all feel the rules are tight enough and the issue is with enforcement not the vast majority of law abiding owners. We all hope that if they look again then that becomes evident. 

Does he know of someone who has access to guns who shouldn’t? If you agree with the sentiment then I have to ask, do you know of someone who shouldn’t have access to guns? 
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if someone satisfies the criteria for grant, then that’s entirely down to the police whether they issue.
The point with the case in question is that the police had extremely good and valid reasons to seize that firearm and revoke the license, but instead decided to return said firearm. 
There’s nothing wrong with the legislation ( what further steps do you think need to be taken ) as it stands; it’s police interpretation and inconsistencies that let us all down . 
As I mentioned earlier, nothing was learned from either Dunblane or Durham, and that is 100% entirely down to the police and NOT firearms legislation. 

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

The point with the case in question is that the police had extremely good and valid reasons to seize that firearm and revoke the license, but instead decided to return said firearm.

In fact it has emerged (as far as I know for the first time today) that the killer's father warned police his son was unsuitable to have a gun.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jake-davison-plymouth-shooting-inquest-father-gun-licence-b1055528.html

[oowee]

9 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

In fact it has emerged (as far as I know for the first time today) that the killer's father warned police his son was unsuitable to have a gun.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jake-davison-plymouth-shooting-inquest-father-gun-licence-b1055528.html

Heads should roll. 

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

Heads should roll. 

The police are untouchable.

[mossy835]

heads wont roll, but we will still suffer.

[Remimax]

42 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

In fact it has emerged (as far as I know for the first time today) that the killer's father warned police his son was unsuitable to have a gun.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jake-davison-plymouth-shooting-inquest-father-gun-licence-b1055528.html

Gets worse by the day ,surprised it didn't have a 100 year gag order served on the details .

not like we haven't seen that move before.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

In fact it has emerged (as far as I know for the first time today) that the killer's father warned police his son was unsuitable to have a gun.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jake-davison-plymouth-shooting-inquest-father-gun-licence-b1055528.html

And so on it goes….and not for the first time has family voiced serious concerns only to be ignored.
 

[Rewulf]

20 hours ago, oowee said:

????

Im not sure what youre struggling with ?
There is a drive by shooting , involving a foreign origin drug gang, using illegal firearms, so to divert attention away from these facts , happening in his constituency , he starts harping on about tightening the firearms laws.
Those same laws irrelevant to this conversation, or to criminals in general.
What dont you understand about that ?

Then Durham and Plymouth get bought up , again what has that got to do with it , both incidents happened because of police failings, and nothing to do with illegal gun use ?

Lets examine his statement again.

Starmer calls for gun ownership rules to be tightened following Euston shooting
So , straight away ,  he hasnt grasped that legal gun ownership 'rules' do not affect criminal gun usage.

And this is what Keir Starmer told LBC about wanting to see gun ownership laws tightened. He was speaking in response to a question about the Euston shooting at the weekend. He said:

We’ve had these incidents from time to time with guns.
What incidents , the daily criminal usage of guns on the nations streets, or the once every 6=7 years when a nutter slips through net of 'rules' that arent properly enforced ?
Is he referring to the Euston incident , or is his mind drifting off into fantasies of being PM one day?

And every time there is, there’s evidence, which I am concerned about, that people have access to guns that they shouldn’t have access to. Who is he talking about ?

Now, if it’s illegal access, obviously, that’s a pure matter of the criminal law. Duh !

But other people, where better checks should be taken over circulation of guns. So I think that we need to look again as to whether those laws are strong enough …
Then thos people in Euston wouldnt have been shot  ?

There are many illegally-owned guns out there and there are legally-owned guns, which I don’t think should be in the hands of the people who are legally owning them.
This is the brain bending bit , what is he on about ?
Is he on medication  ....

Asked for evidence to justify this, Sunak cited the outcome of a review carried out after the mass shooting in Plymouth, where five people were killed in 2021 by a man using a legally-owned gun.

Asked if he wanted gun ownership laws “made even tougher”, Starmer replied yes.

But he stressed that he did not want to see gun ownership outlawed completely. Farmers needed guns, he said, and he was not opposed to gun clubs. But gun ownership should be “subject to tighter control”.

So in Kier world , if we tighten up gun laws, criminals wont shoot up the town anymore , and we can all sleep safe at night.
The mans brain dead.

 

[oowee]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Im not sure what youre struggling with ?
There is a drive by shooting , involving a foreign origin drug gang, using illegal firearms, so to divert attention away from these facts , happening in his constituency , he starts harping on about tightening the firearms laws.
Those same laws irrelevant to this conversation, or to criminals in general.
What dont you understand about that ?

Then Durham and Plymouth get bought up , again what has that got to do with it , both incidents happened because of police failings, and nothing to do with illegal gun use ?

Lets examine his statement again.

Starmer calls for gun ownership rules to be tightened following Euston shooting
So , straight away ,  he hasnt grasped that legal gun ownership 'rules' do not affect criminal gun usage.

And this is what Keir Starmer told LBC about wanting to see gun ownership laws tightened. He was speaking in response to a question about the Euston shooting at the weekend. He said:

We’ve had these incidents from time to time with guns.
What incidents , the daily criminal usage of guns on the nations streets, or the once every 6=7 years when a nutter slips through net of 'rules' that arent properly enforced ?
Is he referring to the Euston incident , or is his mind drifting off into fantasies of being PM one day?

And every time there is, there’s evidence, which I am concerned about, that people have access to guns that they shouldn’t have access to. Who is he talking about ?

Now, if it’s illegal access, obviously, that’s a pure matter of the criminal law. Duh !

But other people, where better checks should be taken over circulation of guns. So I think that we need to look again as to whether those laws are strong enough …
Then thos people in Euston wouldnt have been shot  ?

There are many illegally-owned guns out there and there are legally-owned guns, which I don’t think should be in the hands of the people who are legally owning them.
This is the brain bending bit , what is he on about ?
Is he on medication  ....

Asked for evidence to justify this, Sunak cited the outcome of a review carried out after the mass shooting in Plymouth, where five people were killed in 2021 by a man using a legally-owned gun.

Asked if he wanted gun ownership laws “made even tougher”, Starmer replied yes.

But he stressed that he did not want to see gun ownership outlawed completely. Farmers needed guns, he said, and he was not opposed to gun clubs. But gun ownership should be “subject to tighter control”.

So in Kier world , if we tighten up gun laws, criminals wont shoot up the town anymore , and we can all sleep safe at night.
The mans brain dead.

 

His words were precisely chosen from which any number of interpretations could be made. 

[12gauge82]

25 minutes ago, oowee said:

His words were precisely chosen from which any number of interpretations could be made. 

Your right, which is why I would never vote for him. A slippery lawyer who only cares about furthering their own personal goals and agenda. He clearly doesn't care about people, safety or making effective laws. 

[oowee]

27 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Your right, which is why I would never vote for him. A slippery lawyer who only cares about furthering their own personal goals and agenda. He clearly doesn't care about people, safety or making effective laws. 

I think we can be certain that he will pursue his own agenda. As a lawyer we could expect his decisions to have a level of rational to them. As for the rest it's supposition. 

[12gauge82]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

I think we can be certain that he will pursue his own agenda. As a lawyer we could expect his decisions to have a level of rational to them. As for the rest it's supposition. 

I agree with most of what you say except, his decisions being rational, it depends from who's perspective, if the publics welfare conflicts with his own, the public could see some very irrational actions indeed! 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

His words were precisely chosen from which any number of interpretations could be made. 

I think my interpretation works well ?

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

The mans brain dead.

 

16 minutes ago, oowee said:

I think we can be certain that he will pursue his own agenda.

So when some criminals shoot at each other in London, it naturally follows that the nations legal firearms holders come under the spotlight . ?

Makes perfect sense for a labour politician.

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

So when some criminals shoot at each other in London, it naturally follows that the nations legal firearms holders come under the spotlight . ?

So when some criminals shoot at each other in London, it naturally follows that the nations legal firearms holders come under the spotlight . ?  he spins into it something that will appeal to his target section of the electorate (broadly the left) and uses it to further his own goal of winning the next election.  Truth, facts and details can all be ignored as appropriate because 'already broadly supportive target voters' will believe most things that align with their thinking - a lesson learned from "New Labour" days.

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

So when some criminals shoot at each other in London, it naturally follows that the nations legal firearms holders come under the spotlight . ?  he spins into it something that will appeal to his target section of the electorate (broadly the left) and uses it to further his own goal of winning the next election.  Truth, facts and details can all be ignored as appropriate because 'already broadly supportive target voters' will believe most things that align with their thinking - a lesson learned from "New Labour" days.

I doubt very much gun control even makes it over the horizon in his game plan. The country is in its worst economic position since the end of the war, no doubt he will be busy without worrying about getting us out of the mess.

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, oowee said:

I doubt very much gun control even makes it over the horizon in his game plan

I think it is not so much 'in the game plan' as such, but the natural instinctive reaction of a career politician (particularly those in the New Labour mould) to spin every media event to suit what their target audience wants to hear.

[wymberley]

22 hours ago, Remimax said:

Gets worse by the day ,surprised it didn't have a 100 year gag order served on the details .

not like we haven't seen that move before.

Meanwhile, the abuse inquiry into the activities at the Queen Victoria School continue.

[Genghis]

On 24/01/2023 at 21:58, JohnfromUK said:

There are certainly some in his party of that view (with a very few exceptions for certain occupational needs).  There is also much talk in his party of enforcing storage of guns in an armoury at a club (which to me makes a really attractive target to the criminal).

Really concerning regarding the talk of guns being stored at a club, as it’s a proposal that a lot of non-shooters would support without knowing what effect it has.
 

A good portion of clay shooting grounds would end up closing, as people will stay local. Nobody would pick up their gun from the ground that it’s stored at, to then drive to another to shoot it and then drive back to the first ground to store the gun again. That’s even if that would be allowed, if you’re not allowed to store it at home then would you be trusted to have it in your possession while travelling? Competitive shooting and CPSA membership would plummet because what would be the point?

 

About half of the country already believe that you can’t own guns in Britain, so would not think to ask questions like the above. They probably wouldn’t care either. It’s easy to ban something that you don’t like. How many lives would be saved from banning alcohol? Not just from disease, but from the amount of murders committed while under the influence. We leave alcohol alone because it’s culturally popular, despite knowing how many lives it costs. Shooting is an easy target (no pun intended)