A model engineer gone wrong?

I'm a gardener - but I don't grow cannabis or magic musrooms.

I have a lathe and milling machines - but I don't make guns (or ammunition cases).

I'm chemist - but I don't make hallucinogenic drugs.

I'm a chemist - but I don't make explosives.

I have both a car and a lorry - but I don't go round mowing down pedestrians.

If I were to have guns, I would not go around shooting people.

I could go out and find a source of prohibited drugs and become a pusher - but I don't.

I have potential house breaking tools around (jemmy bars, glass cutters, bolt ctoppers, gloves, etc) - but I don't go breaking into other people's homes (or raiding their sheds, even).

Just some of the 'possibilities' that I choose not to follow. Not even considered, except as an example list here. I expect there are millions out there who might fall into one, or more, of the above categories. Millions are honest, but there is a small minority who 'break the rules of society'. Clearly that minority cannot be easily persuaded to conform to normal social rules, often for some sad reasons, but more often for other reasons. That minority will never be reduced to zero. If there were no non-conformists there would be no need for a police force.

But we need a police force, and other agencies to help keep us safe from those minorities. Even armed forces to deter international interference.

This is just one case of possible cheating the rules, that needs to be proved - but he will never be a registered firearms dealer again as he will most likely be convicted of having an over-powered air rifle in his possession. That is the fall-back charge, as I see it. So there is a risk that the other charges cannot be proven (even if he did all that has been made public) because he has covered his tracks.

I doubt he has ever been a model engineer, so this thread is mostly irrelevant, if answering the topic title.

Americans already need someone to keep them safe from their police forces and other agencies (which can be even more dangerous and abusive than the police). They also need someone to keep them safe from corrupt courts and lawyers.

Sadly, no such an entity exist.

They also need armed forces to turn some most retarded countries into an utter ruin and prompt millions of desperados to move to Europe and also to America and from time to time blow themselves up between unsuspecting members of public. I bet, they would be much safer having next to none of such armed forces at all. Maybe few thousands of personell manning few dosens of nuke launchers and supportive infrastructure would be enough. No external actor would dare to meddle.

The same coming here soon? Hmmm......

Martin

Yeah, ban guns. Banning worked so well with drugs.

Got a story about guns that seems funny now. Back in the 1950s, probably 1958, there was an arms amnisty, my Grandpa had a collection of bits and pieces, his Webley service revolver, and about a dozen rounds of ammunition, a Mills Bomb/ hand grenade, and a German "potato masher" grenade. To hand them in he had to take them about three miles to the army drill hall. He put it all in a little suit case and off he went. That same day the Queen Mother was visiting Dunedin, and about half way on Grandpa's trip he came to where a crowd had gathered to see her, so he stopped until she passed by, then he continued to the Drill Hall. That's it, but think of that today you could be bundled off to the lock up. All those pieces were normally stored in an old tin "hat box" in an unlocked shed, open to the street, although he kept the ammo in a box in his bedside cabinet.

Ian S C

Edited By Ian S C on 20/11/2017 10:41:51

You're misinterpreting what was said, possibly deliberately. Nobody's claiming that such bans will make anybody safe, and I made it clear that I think it's an unsatisfactory, blunt instrument. But it's clear that it has some effect.

What I'm trying to get at is the change in personal/societal relations (or mental stability or whatever...) that's occurred since the 1950s and 60s, when in UK at least there were far more guns around and far less pointless massacres. Crack that one and the bans wouldn't be needed.

In the 50's and 60's I remember there were a lot of damaged people around. Us kids knew who to avoid, who to taunt and who was harmless. They hung you if you went off the rails so repeat offending was unlikely. Everyone had a job. My point being, it was a different world.

Hi David,

Misunderstanding I think - I didn't say that the graph shows gun crime is increasing, I said the opposite. The graph shows that, in the period following tighter gun-controls, gun crime decreased. The graph is from the 2012 Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2010/11: Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 - ISBN 978 1 84987 623 0

The line showing the number of offences involving hand-guns shows the downward trend. Hand-gun offences didn't suddenly peak in 2001; before then they were counted elsewhere. (For example recording Burglary with a firearm as one offence, rather than Burglary with a Firearm as two offences.) Before the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in 2001 UK Police Forces collected crime data inconsistently: consequently earlier statistics on hand-guns are unreliable.

I'm not using the forum to beat up gun owners or to demand a total gun-ban. In the interest of balance, it's a shame that one of my earlier posts has gone missing. In it I said that I wasn't against gun-ownership provided the harm can be contained. For example, I think there's a good case for allowing shotguns (vermin control, clay pigeons etc), black-powder hobby shooting, and long range target shooting or culling with rifles. In my mind the pleasure and value of access to carefully constrained weapons outweigh the potential damage: a deranged individual with a shotgun is much less dangerous with than the same chap with a semi-automatic pistol or - god forbid - an Assault Rifle.

My other point is that too many pro-gun arguments are self-defeating. As engineers we should know that 'Man in pub' ideas cut no ice compared with statistical reports and news of yet another blood-bath. Opinions suggesting you don't care about victims, or have a bad attitude to H&S, or believe that guns and knives are equivalent, or that the government is conspiring against you, damage the cause. My advice to forum members is simply that, if you want gun laws to be relaxed, be very careful not to undermine your own case with faulty logic and other flaws.

I should also add that I'm talking about guns in Europe. The situation in the USA, for example, is much more difficult. There guns are already out of control, and the situation is not only tolerated but self-sustaining. Expect between 80 and 90 people to be killed by a firearm somewhere in the US today. And every other day. I'm not keen to see that here.

Dave

Normalise for approx 0.7 % population growth and you get a bigger reduction.

One comment regarding "bans'. Laws are primarily made so that offenders can be prosecuted. They obviously do not directly stop something happening but they do act as a deterent where there are good chances of successfull prosecutions and stiff enough sentences. A real threat of prosecution does change behaviour.

regards Martin

I always remember about the German POW, during WWII, who was supplied with a gun and ammunition. He did not go round shooting people, but provided a good service to the people where he was set to work.

Charlie Smidth was captured early in the war and had no desire to escape. Most certainly there were some (probably quite a lot) who may not have acted that way. Maybe Charlie was in the minority, but it does demonstrate that, when given a gun, one does not need to use it irresponsibly. From what I gleaned from him, when he visited for a couple weeks in around 1963/4, he did not really have any real desire to fight a war either. He was a soldier, not a political extremist, and did as he was ordered to do, before his capture

A friend was walking along a creek bed next to a small cliff. A (friend?) popped up at the top of the cliff and said boo and took a pot shot from a .22 next to Him to scare Him. The bullet ricocheted and went into His calf slightly. They were about 1 block from the City Hospital and walked there and had the bullet removed. Hospital said be more careful and sent them away. Try that today.