Disqualified drivers

[kwackers]

That is a good idea, even if it is not the banned drivers car (really, don't interpret that as any indirect dig). If somebody borrows their mate's car when banned and gets caught their mate loses their car and the banned driver becomes liable to the person they borrowed it off. OK, maybe a bit tough but include it as punishment the lender has also committed an offence. Or, I suspect that as driving when banned is an offence, just also prosecute the lender as an "accessory".

What happens if they'd 'stolen' your car? Or simply took your keys without asking?

If you were unhappy about that what happens if they simply claim they took it without permission?
Proving stuff is often not that easy and I can't imagine a country where it was OK for the authorities to deprive you of your goods without proof.

[Shootist]

That is a good idea, even if it is not the banned drivers car (really, don't interpret that as any indirect dig). If somebody borrows their mate's car when banned and gets caught their mate loses their car and the banned driver becomes liable to the person they borrowed it off. OK, maybe a bit tough but include it as punishment the lender has also committed an offence. Or, I suspect that as driving when banned is an offence, just also prosecute the lender as an "accessory".

What happens if they'd 'stolen' your car? Or simply took your keys without asking?

If you were unhappy about that what happens if they simply claim they took it without permission?
Proving stuff is often not that easy and I can't imagine a country where it was OK for the authorities to deprive you of your goods without proof.

The owner should secure his potentially lethal piece of machinery as a matter of duty towards the rest of society. If there was sufficient evidence that entry to the car was forced by overcoming the normal security found on modern cars, or perhaps by force of arms against a driver, then OK, but if not, then it's off to the crusher.

[kwackers]

The owner should secure his potentially lethal piece of machinery as a matter of duty towards the rest of society. If there was sufficient evidence that entry to the car was forced by overcoming the normal security found on modern cars, or perhaps by force of arms against a driver, then OK, but if not, then it's off to the crusher.

Suppose they just lift the keys out of your pocket, or happen to know where you keep your spare keys?

Perhaps one day we'll have decent security but at the moment it's just a funny shaped bit of metal that's easily borrowed/copied etc.

[thirdcrank]

The basic point is that if somebody says their car was stolen, it's not easy to disprove, except for the fact that if the owner still has the car, they also have to concoct a story about how they got it back. So, a banger involved in a hit-and-run is easily reported stolen and there will be plenty of occasions when it will have been, but otherwise less likely. If the owner is disqualified, unless they are running some sort of business, they are unlikely to be kosher if the car is being used. Using the business as a reg keeper is a more likely way of disguising the ID of the user and possibly accounts for some of the many "failure to disclose user details" offences.

The short point is the one made by shootist about stopping the driver at the time. Not foolproof, but it does reduce the scope for jiggery pokery. Anything which involves follow-up enquries, especially to establish a driver's ID is liable to fizzle out and the more evasive the driver, the greater the likelihood of that happening. Your average driver is snapped by a speed camera and stumps up; your wise guy plays hard-to-get. Obviously, drivers do "stiff" reporting officers, and seven days to produce a driving licence doesn't aid detection but with increased immediate availability of computerised records and ANPR to highlight suspects a reporting officer has more resources than used to be the case, but things would be so much better with more traffic officers.

On the subject of thieves defeating vehicle security, that's always possible but leaving the car unattended with the engine running is irresponsible. We'd take a dim view of somebody who had slack security for a firearm.

[Shootist]

Suppose they just lift the keys out of your pocket, or happen to know where you keep your spare keys?

Perhaps one day we'll have decent security but at the moment it's just a funny shaped bit of metal that's easily borrowed/copied etc.

So, someone just lifts the keys to my gun cabinet or I foolishly tell someone where my spare cabinet keys are kept, and they steal a firearm. Those keys are also just funny shaped pieces of metal that are easily borrowed / copied etc. I manage to keep them safe and secure, in fact the law requires that I do. Cars kill people. Not really. People in cars kill people. When they do, it's mostly regarded as an 'accident'. Keep the car secure, and accept the consequences of failing to do so.

[Shootist]

On the subject of thieves defeating vehicle security, that's always possible but leaving the car unattended with the engine running is irresponsible.

And illegal.

[thirdcrank]

On the subject of thieves defeating vehicle security, that's always possible but leaving the car unattended with the engine running is irresponsible.

And illegal.

So long as it's on the road (AFAIK) and although it's a bit before my time, also AFAIK, during WWII it was an offence not to immobilise a vehicle. I know of a couple of cases of cars stolen from a private drive because they were unattended while they defrosted or, in one case, while the driver locked up their house.

I can't remember if I've posted this before but at the weekends, the newspapers down our street and nearby are delivered by a lady who uses a van. She leaves the engine running and when I mentioned it to her (as I was walking to the newsagent's for my own paper) she laughed it off on e basis that nobody would take an 02 reg Peugeot van, hand-painted with flowers. I'm not sure that's the point but sometimes her partner delivers them in a new car and he leaves the engine running, even when the car is out of his sight.

[kwackers]

So, someone just lifts the keys to my gun cabinet or I foolishly tell someone where my spare cabinet keys are kept, and they steal a firearm. Those keys are also just funny shaped pieces of metal that are easily borrowed / copied etc. I manage to keep them safe and secure, in fact the law requires that I do. Cars kill people. Not really. People in cars kill people. When they do, it's mostly regarded as an 'accident'. Keep the car secure, and accept the consequences of failing to do so.

It's a great soundbite, but it falls apart in the real world.

My brother in law has a shotgun. Keeps it in a box in the attic, I know where the keys are. I don't think he knows that I know, but people are frankly rubbish. They think they're being clever but you don't have to be overly observant especially when you see someones routine day in day out.

When my kids passed their test we had a shared car. Four people used that car, to keep it handy I didn't keep the key in a box up my bottom. It was in the house hung up in the kitchen. I'm guessing any of my mates who'd been disqualified could have nicked it, or if they'd have been really clued up could have dug through the drawers were we kept all the spare keys for stuff.
That's how stuff works in the real world.

I also appreciate the emotive qualities of comparing cars to guns - I'm not above using such comparisons myself and for exactly the same reason.
But they're not. Not even close.
For most there's no good reason to own a gun but there are plenty to own a car. The basic function of one is to kill, the other is to travel.
FWIW, bicycles also occasionally kill. We don't compare them to guns either.

[thirdcrank]

kwackers

One point that members of the shooting fraternity make is that lawfully-held firearms are very rarely involved in crime in this country. I've no stats but I believe it's true.

The only thing that militates against greater responsibility falling on vehicle users is that there's no appetite for it. Most people look after their property but motor vehicles must surely be the most valuable type of relatively easily stolen property which is routinely loaned out - as in fleet vehicles, company cars etc - to people who have little personal interest in its security. A recent example of this was a report of a police car being taken by a person supposedly in custody who was left alone in the police car...............

I've no experience of the current vehicle crushing system but I doubt if there are many "one careful lady owner" type cars involved.

[Shootist]

For most there's no good reason to own a gun but there are plenty to own a car. The basic function of one is to kill, the other is to travel.

People with cars go for a drive for entertainment purposes on occasions. They use their car for enjoyment. I enjoy using my firearms so I'm every bit as justified in respect of reasons. People rarely 'need' their cars for travel. If we programmed a really good public transport service cars could become obsolete. And what of reasons to use cars? A nice drive in the country for a cream tea? The country is littered with such people on summer weekends.

But, everyone at some time or other drives without due care and attention and sometimes that kills people. Funny how someone willing to risk a life, their own and/or someone else's just for a nice drive out is entirely acceptable but possession of legal licensed firearms gets so many people parading their pointless fears. And I can say for a certainty that anyone killed by a car is exactly as dead as someone who has been shot and killed.

[kwackers]

People with cars go for a drive for entertainment purposes on occasions. They use their car for enjoyment. I enjoy using my firearms so I'm every bit as justified in respect of reasons.

If you want to see how important something is take it away.

Remove all the guns. Nobody would notice.
Remove all the cars. The country would grind to a halt immediately.

You can't really compare one to the other by taking the most inconsequential aspect of ownership of one and comparing it to the other. But you knew that didn't you?

[Shootist]

If you want to see how important something is take it away.

Remove all the guns. Nobody would notice.
Remove all the cars. The country would grind to a halt immediately.

That is a misleading statement. I put the condition in, if we had a decent public transport service the country most certainly would not grind to a halt and countless lives would be saved.

[kwackers]

That is a misleading statement. I put the condition in, if we had a decent public transport service the country most certainly would not grind to a halt and countless lives would be saved.

Sorry, my bad. I thought we were talking current, not some future utopia.

I often dream about how good public transport would be if the enormous sums we spent on having a 'nice' car parked in front of our houses was actually spent on it instead...

[Flinders]

For most there's no good reason to own a gun but there are plenty to own a car. The basic function of one is to kill, the other is to travel.

People with cars go for a drive for entertainment purposes on occasions. They use their car for enjoyment. I enjoy using my firearms so I'm every bit as justified in respect of reasons. People rarely 'need' their cars for travel. If we programmed a really good public transport service cars could become obsolete. And what of reasons to use cars? A nice drive in the country for a cream tea? The country is littered with such people on summer weekends.

But, everyone at some time or other drives without due care and attention and sometimes that kills people. Funny how someone willing to risk a life, their own and/or someone else's just for a nice drive out is entirely acceptable but possession of legal licensed firearms gets so many people parading their pointless fears. And I can say for a certainty that anyone killed by a car is exactly as dead as someone who has been shot and killed.

Forgive me, and believe me I do take your point, but some of the more recent firearms incidents involved legally held firearms, didn't they?
In fact, my biggest concern with legally held firearms is how often they are used in suicides/murder-suicides, as that's by far the greater number of deaths from legally held firearms. I know some people need to have them at home for emergencies (farmers for instance, and vets) but I do wonder if some kind of dual key system would be practical.

[Shootist]

Forgive me, and believe me I do take your point, but some of the more recent firearms incidents involved legally held firearms, didn't they?

Can you help me by identifying a few? I do not recall many such.

In fact, my biggest concern with legally held firearms is how often they are used in suicides/murder-suicides, as that's by far the greater number of deaths from legally held firearms.

Very few people use a firearm to beat someone to death.

I know some people need to have them at home for emergencies (farmers for instance, and vets) but I do wonder if some kind of dual key system would be practical.

Suicides and murders rarely involve legally held firearms. It does of course happen. The figures I have researched were for 2011,2012,and half of 2013. From reports available I discounted all the incidents involving illegally held firearms. What I was left with for those two and a half years was about (I've mislaid the analysis I wrote) 36 deaths in total where legally held firearms were used. This was not 36 separate incidents as some were murder/suicides. Interestingly, not one of these incidents involved a S.1 firearm (rifles) but involved S.2 shotguns, which have a less onerous licensing system than do rifles. Interestingly, the figure would have been halved had not the police returned shotguns seized as a result of domestic violence.

Given the number of firearms and shotgun certificates held, and the number of firearms in circulation legally, these figures are extremely low. When you add in the level of incompetence displayed by the police in their management of licensing procedures, it is remarkably low. The two most terrible incidents, Hungerford and Dunblane, would not have happened had senior police officers taken notice of the objections of police on the ground to both Ryan and Hamilton having certificates. Both had police officers who knew these men recommending, in writing, revocation of their certificates. In the case of Hamilton, there are good reasons to suspect he received favourable treatment because he was involved in a paedophile ring which included politicians and senior police officers.

A dual key system, which I can only imagine, would be impossible to manage on a practical basis. I could go on at length about this and other aspects of firearms ownership, but I won't until we can justify the production and open sale of cars that can drive at three times the speed limit, allowing cars unnecessary journeys. the avoidance of manslaughter charges by using 'death by dangerous driving' instead, as if the victim is somehow less dead because he was killed by an idiot in a car and it was somehow the car's fault, the deaths caused by exhaust pollution, the minimal training required of new drivers, allowing a group of teenage males to drive around in hot hatches impressing each other, and the assumption that car ownership is some God given right to which the stupid, the incompetent, and the careless, are equally entitled. And don't get me started on idiots on bikes.

Hmmmm.... that didn't end up quite how I thought.