I have a bow and arrow at my parents’ house. I used to shoot, but I’ve not sot it for a while. I had this discussion with a gun expert. He was also ex military, so he kind of knew guns.

There is a fundamental difference between guns and a bow/arrow. You can’t (with the exception o crossbows) leave a long bow loaded and ready to fire. You can leave a gun around. Firing a gun is far easier to do than firing a bow. Anyone who has pulled a 32 pound bow knows that you really have to mean it. If you are able to pull a proper wooden long bow to firing strength knows that there is a lot of effort needed.

You also can’t shoot yourself easily with a long bow. I believe you have top plan something cunning in advance to do that.

I still don't see why people are blaming guns for murder and violent crime. Both require a certain state of mind, and the person in that state of mind is going to carry out that act be it with a gun, a knife, a pool cue, a pointy stick or their own fists.

It used to be the case in this Country that every Englishman was expected to enforce the law and to defend his property. We seem to be quickly moving towards some kind of sissy society that not only expects you to do sweet FA when you're being mugged/burgled and to wait for the nice Policeman to arrive within 28 working days and sort it out for you. In fact, it's worse than that, because if you DO fight back it's normally YOU who gets [LIFTED] prosecuted. It's nuts.

Anyhow, there is nothing wrong with owning a gun. There is nothing wrong with enjoying shooting (just ask the Royals). Banning guns because someone *might* use it to hurt someone else is a ridiculous reason to ban it, because then you'd have to ban everything with a sharp edge. Punish the offence the offender, not the weapon.

As for bows and arrows, I don't really care how much effort it takes, it's still designed to kill people.

Quite so, but what we can do is look at the lethality of available weaponry and legislate accordingly. In that, we need to take into consideration the justifiable and legitimate uses of the item in question. It's not a hard thing to work out, and I'm not anti-guns, I'm just anti handguns as they have no practical purpose other than killing or maiming over closes, are easily concealable and have the capacity to create massive damage on a widespread scale in a short space of time. I would far rather face down someone who's holding a pool cue than someone holding a handgun.



I'm not questioning shooting. It's a necessary tool for animal population control. Don't forget, we're talking about specifically the handgun ban. Just because something has the capacity to become a dangerous weapon does not automatically make it so. A handgun, on the other hand, is designed with a very specific purpose and clearly causes problems when available in society. It would appear, so far, that archery equipment is not a tool of the criminal classes.

It's not hard to grasp, is it?

The javelin is a spear. A javelin is a potentially dangerous implement.Olympic sport or not, BAN IT!!

See what I mean?

Human beings love challenges. Darts, archery, pistol shooting, rifle shooting, clay shooting, javelin, shot putt, hammer throw, discus- does it matter what it is? they are all ultimately pointless activities that offer little benefit to society and all of them use a potentially or historically dangerous implement. While we are at it, we should ban pool cues and glass bottles.

As for guns causing more harm to a member of the family, you are obviously talking about the good old US of A where it is perfectly legal to leave a loaded weapon in the desk draw. In this country it would have to be secured in an approved locked cabinet and only an idiot would keep it loaded. If we stop the idiots having guns in the first place, they would be a minimal danger.

Of course, there is no accounting for changes in a person's behaviour but actually banning legitimate firearm ownership has done nothing to prevent or reduce armed crime. However, there is no denying that both Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton carried out massacres that were far outside the remit of your average stupid teenager with a converted Brocock air pistol and we see those almost on a weekly basis in parts of the world where gun ownership is legal and easy, so maybe the ban is worth it.

It just seems to me that all of this legislation designed to get at a specific problem is either largely pointless or gets abused- re councils using anti-terror legislation to spy on residents. In the end, it is the innocent who are restricted or affected and the guilty still get away.

So how many people are held up each year at javelin point? How many have actually been used to kill or maim?

If every javelin on the planet were to be destroyed what would be the effect on the rates of injury and death? Compare and contrast with handguns.

CC

My point is that the principal of javelin use is historically based on spear throwing. Pistol shooting as a sport/activity is simply the modern incarnation of this.

Historically, in parts of the world where spears were common, were people held up at spear-point?? If spears were banned, innocent people would not be able to hunt for food or sport. That's the point.

Fencing is a sport and yet swords are still held by total idiots who use them to attack others. Ban them as well. You can't use them in a kitchen or garden so they have no legitimate use. Get rid!

I am not blind to the fact that firearms have far greater potential to cause fear or harm. I am meerly pointing out that legislating against everything is not fair and does not necessarily target the larger problem. We ban legitimate handgun ownership and drastically tighten the legislation on rifles and shotguns and the criminals have Uzis and Mac 10s.

There are those whose lives have been touched by drink-driving and they would whole-heartedly support a complete ban on drinking and driving. I would never condone drink-driving but bringing in a zero limit for driving would create far wider problems. Every driver stopped for any offence or involved in any minor incident that wasn't even their fault would be at risk of prosecution because they had a pint a couple of hours ago. But that's a post for the other thread.

If what my friend says about his friend's license to own heavy rifles is true, then one of the problems would seem to be a complete lack of adequate knowledge on the part of those who vet certificate applications- for anyone who doesn't know or understand, a .50 calibre rifle is a largely military firearm used for sniping at ranges of around a mile or more and fires a half-inch diameter bullet. Not something you would use for rats or rabbits.

Guns have a single purpose. Most other "weapons" don't. The only reason I like the 2nd ammendment, is it makes it more difficult for the government to oppress the governed. Of course, that's by no means a guarantee. In this country it's the last thing we need right now.

Japan has an interesting stance. I'm sure JJ or somebody else more learned than me could explain. Their use of katanas shows a different cultural approach that I find fascinating.

I completely agree that the current Govt. has a trigger-happy approach when banning things. Part of the problem is people who try and sue someone else for things that are complete accidents, the person's own fault or that of the parents'. As a result we have overlegislation.

I also feel that the Govt. does its best to get the results the cheapest/quickest possible way rather than the proper way. Pot holes? Nah, that 4cm gash in the road isn't one. That 6cm one over there? Let's fill it dirt cheap, never mind the fact that the pothole will redevelop in six weeks. This quick-fix attitude is what's responsible for multiple speed cameras, rather than proper driver education.

I also feel that the general public is, in some way, responsible. Whenever there's an accident, there's always an uproar about how it shouldn't have happened. 'My kid got hurt playing conkers'. 'Well let's ban conkers'. As above, we've turned into a bunch of sissies. The question is: Is this our fault or the fault of the Govt?

If 'we' learn to take responsibility for our own actions, stop suing left, right and centre and behave ourselves, we can stop making 1984 come true.

We were talking about old toys here yesterday. A couple which are probably unsafe sprang to mind.

1 - Cap bombs. These were huge lumps of metal shaped like bombs. You put a cap in side and throw it. We used to see how high we could get them to see if it would make the resulting bang louder. None of us thought of the actual brain damaging consequences if they hit us, but we knew it would hurt like fury if we did.

2 - Meccano clockwork motor. That was a finger meat grinder if ever there was one. I used to build cars around it, well aware that the exposed cogs and gears would eat my hand. Common sense told me that it would hurt.
Here’s one on eBay.

You should see the exposed mass of wires, tin and high voltage death trap that is the train set my other half’s dad has from his childhood. He’s not dead because of it (obviously).

I just think that any sense of danger has been removed from toys these days. That was half the fun!

Incompetent people should be shot into the sun, especially certain credit card company help desk staff who tell me to read their T+C of which I have proving they are in the wrong

I used to love playing with Apple bombs and penny bombs.

There were many things as a kid were banned in our playground:

- british bulldog (too rough)
- kiss chase (sexual harrassment, though they didn't call it that!)
- push-pops (if you ate the pushpop and then placed the container on the floor and stamped it, a piece would come flying out!)
- blackjacks (blackened kids tongues)
- pens with lids/caps (choke hazard)
- marbles (arguments)
and loads more.

We used to play rugby and bull dog on the concrete play ground!

Lots of holes in trousers and grazes.

They eventually banned it when a kid broke his arm!

My Scout group banned it after a suspected broken neck.