Gun crime

[anna]

Right from the outset I would just like to say that I my very deepest thoughts are with the families and friends of those that have lost their lives today in Newton and hope that they in time are able to find some sort of peace to continue their broken lives.

I know that I risk opening up a can of worms, but I think its important to at least have open discussions when it comes to this kind of horrific crime to ensure that everyone has done their part to ensure it doesn't happen again.

There seems to be a general rolling of eyes and outcry when people outside the US criticise their "right to bear arms". I'm in the dark a little as to why they are so defensive of this right, nor that they seem to feel that they are in any way more protected or secure carrying arms against others that may have them.

To me the laws in the US regarding guns seem quite liberal, with anyone who wishes to purchase them walking into a shopping mall where you might buy your children's toys, and buying a weapon with bullets and the next day use it on your neighbour.

I understand that the link between these arguments and today's events may be tentative, indeed I don't know the details I dare say not many people do just yet, and it may indeed be that the person who committed this hideous atrocity may not have purchased this weapon at all and may have been obtained outside the law.

However it raises the same issue as to why it is a continued freedom, when it is clear that there is a much higher gun crime rate in the US when compared to Europe where it is prohibited to own such weapons.

The counter argument has always been that any person who is determined to cause such violence, will do so, and always find a way. I am not so naive as to dispute this notion either. Surely it is clear that without the immediate availability of such a weapon as a gun, it becomes something more of a hindrance for a deranged person to achieve their ultimate goal. Nor do I see this as a reason for the general public to carry arms "to protect themselves". This very idea seems without a logical rational behind it. If you are protecting yourself with a gun firstly it is assumed that you carry a weapon with you at all times, and that when someone attacks you, they miss, or you have drawn your weapon first as you have assumed them to be attackers (Im pretty sure that real life never runs the way it does in western films!).

In China today a school was attacked and 8 children were killed and 5 others wounded, I´m almost positive had the attacker had in his possession a gun that number would have been significantly higher.

Yes the crime would still happen irrespective of weapon, but surely allowing a product with one single purpose of taking lives to be widely available to the general public is nothing short of stupid. I know we often talk about our nanny state, but this surely isn't something that anyone should be allowed to chose?

[Kenzie]

I see comments pop up on Facebook a lot after things like this happen. Usually run along the lines of "when are they going to ban the guns". I doubt it will ever happen as who would re-elect a president who banned guns? All they would need to do is vote for the guy who would overturn it. Guns are so ingrained in the American culture I think there would be an uproar if someone said they can't own them. Like you say, if someone wants to commit a violent crime, they will find a way. There was a known criminal in the States recently who was gunned down by the police. The cop had his gun on him and screaming at him to get out of his truck. He got snagged in his seat belt and stumbled. The cop took this as non-complacence and gunned him down. It's a tough one. But guns don't kill people, people kill people. Maybe they need to tighten up how the guns are stored rather than banning them. I recon some people leave them in drawers and cupboards rather than locked gun cabinets where kids and undesirables can get hold of them.

[Fallout]

Firstly, they can't remove the right to bear arms because it'd be so unpopular it'd never pass. It'd be a campaign killer.

Secondly, US boarders (and the general countryside) are impossible to police thoroughly enough to prevent masses of illegal firearms entering the country. Making guns illegal would tip the balance in favour of criminals, or at least, this is the opinion of a large portion of the US. They believe that the knowledge that a home owner has a handgun or a shotgun prevents a huge amount of burglaries and various other crimes. It's not like the UK where illegal firearms are fairly hard to come by.

There are just too many guns there now and it's too ingrained in their culture to restrict them now. Making them illegal would just put them all in the hands of the criminals.

Guns make these horrific crimes a lot easier to commit, and perhaps removing them would prevent the legal gun owner who goes mental from commit these massacres. It'd probably also prevent a fair a lot of murders between (previously) non criminal, but in America, anyone who wants a gun could get one, legal or not, so mostly you'd be disarming the innocent.

There is something wrong with Americans though, if Michael Moore is to be believed. Just as many guns per person in Canada and places like Norway etc. but a tiny fraction of the gun crime.

[Specialone]

Firstly, what keeps happening in these schools is horrific, I still can't fathom why they attack the young and innocent?

Secondly, you can't buy a gun in one day in America, it used to five days, so I assume it still is.

Thirdly, as I've said many times, considering how many people bare arms in America, the number of directly related deaths is proportionally low, sucks if you're one of the unlucky ones though.

I like guns, I like firing them, I like looking at them etc, I don't think it's fair I can't legally go to a gun range and fire guns, but due to knee jerk reactions after Dunblane, I can't.
It's punish the majority for the actions of the minority.

It's a problem in this country anyway, if it's an activity that people don't do themselves, they want it banned.

I get this in green laning for instance with ramblers, they want access everywhere and aren't prepared to share it with others, so want the lanes and byways closed to anyone but them.

[grimey121uk]

Firstly, what keeps happening in these schools is horrific, I still can't fathom why they attack the young and innocent?

Secondly, you can't buy a gun in one day in America, it used to five days, so I assume it still is.

Thirdly, as I've said many times, considering how many people bare arms in America, the number of directly related deaths is proportionally low, sucks if you're one of the unlucky ones though.

I like guns, I like firing them, I like looking at them etc, I don't think it's fair I can't legally go to a gun range and fire guns, but due to knee jerk reactions after Dunblane, I can't.
It's punish the majority for the actions of the minority.

It's a problem in this country anyway, if it's an activity that people don't do themselves, they want it banned.

I get this in green laning for instance with ramblers, they want access everywhere and aren't prepared to share it with others, so want the lanes and byways closed to anyone but them.

I believe in most US states there is only a "wait" on handguns, I believe rifle and shotguns can be taken home immediately.

As a firearm owned I am well aware of our daft gun laws, although the main reason for the knee jerk bans come from the public (through media mind control). Friends have often said to me "I can't believe you have a gun in the house and they are dangerous", interestingly in 4 months neither of my shotguns have managed to escape from their safe, loaded themselves and gone on a killing spree..........

[Specialone]

I believe in most US states there is only a "wait" on handguns, I believe rifle and shotguns can be taken home immediately.

As a firearm owned I am well aware of our daft gun laws, although the main reason for the knee jerk bans come from the public (through media mind control). Friends have often said to me "I can't believe you have a gun in the house and they are dangerous", interestingly in 4 months neither of my shotguns have managed to escape from their safe, loaded themselves and gone on a killing spree..........

I agree mate and you're right about the rifles etc, it's about concealment, more likely to do something if you can conceal a weapon.

I'm planning on getting a shotgun license next year, not for hunting, want to get into clays.

[grimey121uk]

I agree mate and you're right about the rifles etc, it's about concealment, more likely to do something if you can conceal a weapon.

I'm planning on getting a shotgun license next year, not for hunting, want to get into clays.

Just remember its not a license, as a UK citizen your are automatically allowed to own as many shotguns as you can store as well as unlimited ammunition without any reason, as long as your not a danger to the public (mentally ill or a criminal). Its a shotgun certificate which is just a way to ensure you are not a wrong'en.
I'm in the process of a firearms certificate at the moment, licensing guy is coming out on Wednesday.

I got my first shotgun back in September, the Mrs has always been against the idea of guns yet she came out with me clay shooting on my first trip out, a week later her SGC arrived in the post. Months on she is a good shot although not as good as me ;)

A few weeks ago she bought me another shotgun and loves it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWrwHi-qtmI

[MisterTommyH]

First of all - I like guns. I got marksmen awards etc when I was younger and me and a mate are looking into joining a club up here for clay pigeon shooting.... but the fact is that guns are far too widely available in the USA.

Their constitution only gives them the right to bear arms if you miss out the next part of the sentence - something which specific pressure groups are very good at doing and using it to whip up people who they preach to. They actually have a 'right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia'. In other words as part of an institution which controls the use, circulation etc. This was from the past where there was not widespread law enforcement. Even if you ignore the fact that this law enforcement is now there - the wording is not currently enforced as there is nothing well regulated about it.

I agree that someone who is looking to cause harm will find a way, but why make it easy for them? Yes, a knife can also kill, but it is a close range tool and there is a higher chance of being overwhelmed, plus it can be run away from (a gun cannot). Yes a bomb can kill en masse, but it takes a certain skill to make and people without that skill/knowledge are likely to get caught searching for how to make it, or buying the materials. A gun is made to kill without much skill (at the ranges these things happen) and quickly.

For the sport argument - there is a bit of logic to it. I could not argue with someone who put the argument that guns could be used for marksmanship at a range, kept on a range and never allowed to leave (i.e. well regulated). But that is not what happens in America. There is little to no control, they can be carried, hidden, and are widely available - No one is going to use a gun for sport at a mall or in a school - therefore the argument is invalid with regards to gun control not banning. It's never going to happen, but personally I would give up mine, yours and everyone elses right to have a gun, if it meant we didn't get these events around the world.

Just as an aside - does anyone like archery? A legal sport in this country and america. Would you expect to be allowed to walk down the street with a bow and arrow and not get arrested? Either here or in the states.

Finally, the defense argument is a complete distraction. A gun is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. As with the OP it requires the defender to be competent and get the shot in first, or the offender to miss. I would be fairly confident that the statistics re guns in america would be similar to the statistics re knives in this country - where it is often the defenders own knife that is taken off them and used against them.

[Dave-the-rave]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone'ss 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England




"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right to bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Hubert Horatio Humphrey, 1960



"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason (who opposed ratification oof the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)



"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed" -- Noah Webster


"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1848


"[A]ll power is inherent in the people ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed," -- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Cartwright, 1824


“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...” -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787



This way of thinking about democracy may be somewhat alien in Britain but not in the USA.

[Specialone]

Banning guns will achieve nothing, it will penalise the law abiding citizen and do nothing to stop criminal use, as it hasn't over here.
If you know the right people to ask, it's not hard to get one over here tbh.


Bombs are illegal, we still have had enough people killed by them, so banning does not work.

[kieranc]

There is something wrong with Americans though, if Michael Moore is to be believed. Just as many guns per person in Canada and places like Norway etc. but a tiny fraction of the gun crime.
This.
The problem isn't the gun laws, it's the lunatics who own them. The people who think shooting someone is an acceptable way to deal with a problem. The people who see a 'blaze of glory' as their only way to get noticed. If guns were banned, who would willingly give them up? What would happen to the ~300 million guns currently in circulation?
I really don't see an acceptable solution, it's going to keep on happening.

[Specialone]

This.
The problem isn't the gun laws, it's the lunatics who own them. The people who think shooting someone is an acceptable way to deal with a problem. The people who see a 'blaze of glory' as their only way to get noticed. If guns were banned, who would willingly give them up? What would happen to the ~300 million guns currently in circulation?
I really don't see an acceptable solution, it's going to keep on happening.

Fight fire with fire, arm the schools, seriously, have marshals or trained, designated staff that can react to any situation quickly, also becomes a deterrent as these 'kids' know at present a school offers the least resistance to commit such atrocities.

[kieranc]

Fight fire with fire, arm the schools, seriously, have marshals or trained, designated staff that can react to any situation quickly, also becomes a deterrent as these 'kids' know at present a school offers the least resistance to commit such atrocities.

And the cinemas? And the universities? Shopping malls?
Why not just arm everyone, free gun with your birth certificate? The 'more guns' approach seems to be working great so far....

[grimey121uk]

And the cinemas? And the universities? Shopping malls?
Why not just arm everyone, free gun with your birth certificate? The 'more guns' approach seems to be working great so far....

You have to admit that these shootings happen in gun free zones, I wonder if the shooter would have gone to a gun convention, police station or army base and started shooting people?

[Specialone]

You have to admit that these shootings happen in gun free zones, I wonder if the shooter would have gone to a gun convention, police station or army base and started shooting people?

Exactly, massive proportion of these tragedies happen at schools so they are an easy target.

[kieranc]

You have to admit that these shootings happen in gun free zones, I wonder if the shooter would have gone to a gun convention, police station or army base and started shooting people?

and they will continue to happen at gun free zones, even if these places move. these are clearly not brave people, they aim for the soft targets and putting armed guards in one place will just make them pick another target.
offices? concerts? wherever gets the biggest reaction/number of people and minimum resistance.

[Specialone]

Slightly old article but worth a read...

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

[timwilky]

I lost my pistols after Dunblane. my rifles had already gone after Hungerford. The police cocked up in both towns and innocent shooters suffered in the knee jerk backlash.

at the time it was said only criminals will have guns. Guess what, ever since legal ownership ceased the argument that criminals were getting their guns from legal sources means only one thing. It must be the police/army supplying them all along.

the americans will never ban them. the right to bear arms is in their consitution. Although if they were to cut the hands off all convicted criminals it would at least stop them from shooting them.

[Sir Trev]

and they will continue to happen at gun free zones, even if these places move. these are clearly not brave people, they aim for the soft targets and putting armed guards in one place will just make them pick another target.
offices? concerts? wherever gets the biggest reaction/number of people and minimum resistance.

I've found that "gun-free zones" in the US are often not. As you enter the HQ site in Texas of my last company you pass a big sign saying no firearms allowed on site, but when I asked an easily wound up* Republican in our department about it he pointed out that he and countless others all had handguns and shotgus/rifles locked in the back of their trucks. As NRA supporters frequently point out you'd have to remove the guns from cold dead fingers.


*the right to bear arms, did W lie, and we should never have gone into Iraq were common starters for ten when we (the EMEA away team) found Dace in a bar.

[Specialone]

I too have worked in Texas, there was even uproar when some resteraunts etc tried putting up signs "bear no arms", as Texas is one of the states that allows concealed weapons (providing you complete the one day training), the residents decided this was against their rights.

[Ceri JC]

And the cinemas? And the universities? Shopping malls?
Why not just arm everyone, free gun with your birth certificate? The 'more guns' approach seems to be working great so far....

The pro-gun lobby's stance (not one I necessarily agree with) is that this is the answer. Anne Coulter famously said following Columbine, if all the kids had been armed, only a fraction of them would have been killed/injured as someone would have very quickly shot the shooters and ended it. In very narrow literal terms, I'd have to say I agree with her.

As others have said, it's someone armed taking on soft targets (where there is a reasonable certainty the victims will be unarmed) that allows them to rack up the high bodycounts, which is what these sickos generally tend to be after. The flip side of course, is rather than having relatively few massacres like this, with a completely armed population, you'd have far more incidents where someone got into an argument, had a bit too much to drink, etc. and instead of swinging at the other guy or beeping their horn, drew a gun and someone wound up shot. I think you'd have more total deaths in the latter scenario. Just like an individual car crash doesn't make TV, but a train wreck does, it wouldn't be as widely reported as these massacres (which in the scheme of things, kill bugger-all people, but are spectacularly emotive and "good TV" for the media).

Personally, I like guns and have fired all sorts (overseas). When I lived in the country I used to shoot clays reasonably regularly. I'll probably get a couple of shotguns in the next couple of years and take it up again. I'd like to be able to own all manner of guns myself, but I can see the benefits to me of the rest of the "general populace" not being allowed to. They're dangerous enough to me in cars, never mind when you give them proper weapons! :smt070
I'm responsible and controlled enough to own guns without causing a problem to myself or others. Many others aren't.

I like the American constitutional idea of being able to have guns, in order to stop the government using the army to control a (defenceless) population.
I like the Swiss approach of a smaller army, but a militia that can be used to defend the country during an invasion.
I prefer country life to city life and recognise that guns are part of that.
I recognise that the legitimacy of owning one for 'self defence' when your closest neighbours are 10 miles away and the police are an hour a way is greater than where I live now (less than 3 minutes from a police station).

Finally, consider this: Every day in America, hundreds of thousands of people use guns legally, safely and responsibly. A lot of people use them as tools (for hunting or defence against bears in remote areas). Many people's livelihood depends on them. Killings like this are newsworthy precisely because they're uncommon. Before jumping to the conclusion that "guns aren't worth it" and wanting to ban them, just because you don't happen to enjoy (or need) them, remember that there are a very large number of people who believe motorcycles should be banned because they are inherently dangerous and facilitate crimes that would not otherwise be possible.

[MisterTommyH]

Leaving aside for a moment personal preference. And what american 'believe' their rights are.... Can anyone here stand hand on heart and say that the gun situation in the USA is currently 'well regulated' as required in the wording of the constitution?

Almost anything would be better than what they have now.... I.e. to get to a stage where it is well regulated or controlled rather than a free for all. Not a complete ban, which will never happen, but effective control which seems to be dismissed out of hand by the NRA.

Back to my personal views... It seems that the argument that everyone should have guns to help defend didn't help his mother in this situation. It appears that the guns used were hers, taken from her at the second site. To me that argument is the same as the stance that led to the standoff at the Bay of Pigs?

[kieranc]

I suppose the question is, how do you know who's safe to own a gun and who isn't, until they do something to prove they're not?

[savage86]

When something like this happens the price of bullets goes through the roof!! As people in America stockpile incase there is a ban put in place. I like guns and gun control in a country like America will never happen or work.

[anna]

Ok so I can see that there are a few sides to this.

The point that crime is kept low because guns are allowed to be owned by home owners, thus causing a deterrent to those who might enter their property illegally - well surely a responsible home owner would have their firearm locked up, and wouldn't really have much time in which to get access to their gun to use it as a defensive weapon.

As has been stated above I see a gun as an offensive weapon not really able to be used as a defence.

Arming children, well now, we see that in third world countries. You allow children, who are not yet able to channel their anger and emotions yet in a productive way, handle a gun. On a psychological point of view, a child hasn't yet developed their ability to understand or own consequences, but they would have to live with them for the rest of their lives. In the situation under discussion honestly I don't see that the children who at the time were under the care of their teachers would be able to have access to the gunman as the teachers responsible were at the time trying to ensure that the children were out of harms way, not acting like little rambos through the classrooms!

I think the question of owning a gun for sport is somewhat different, I have no problems with people enjoying the sport and owning a gun, leaving it in a designated gun shooting range and using it whilst participating in a sporting activity in that location. I don't see however why that gun would ever need to be brought back into their house. Just because they are responsible, doesn't mean that every member of their household is.

I understand that America has a gun culture, and to prohibit guns now would be too much. I don't see however why tighter legislations on guns couldn't be brought in, with a view on limiting the guns out there. For example no magazine type gun that could fire more then one bullet at a time can be purchased (I don't know about guns nor do I know about the laws currently in place so perhaps these already exist?) Also limiting where guns can be brought from, and a licence for owing a gun also brought in. I'm sure there are much tighter restrictions that could be over time brought in for example limiting the amount of ammunition any householder can own at any one time, or the amount of weapons on any one property.

[metalmonkey]

I think people are missing the point here, a gun isn't to kill someone, in fact I think you will find the vast majority of people don't need any weapon to kill or if they did it can be easily made.

The issue is, what is wrong with society that people want to kill for no reason at all. Fire arms don't kill people, people kill people. Until you solve this, this will always happen. It doesn't matter what method is used, it will just be.

[The Basket]

The constitution was written when the only firearms were muskets with a rate of fire of 2 or 3 shots per minute. Odd...I am listening to a john Lennon song...a victim of gun crime.

Things never change....I live in Dunblane so that's a thing too.

[Kenzie]

I have no problems with guns, I have been trained in the past to use them safely and how to handle them and the ammunition. I agree with most on here that guns aren't the problem, it's the nutty people behind the trigger!

[Lozzo]

I think the issue to discuss is the state of mental health and provisions for care in the USA, rather than the right to bear arms. The shooters are obviously mentally ill and whether or not the weapons they use are owned by them is not the issue, it's how they have been cared for and allowed to be free to access weapons in the first place. Something is going wrong when anyone with a mental disorder can get their hands on guns in their own home. This is something their families need to address, not the government.

Shooters pick on schools etc because there are a huge number of defenceless targets within a relatively small area - the kill rate is going to be high and that makes the chances of the shooter becoming notorious and remembered high also. We all hear the name of the shooter time and time again and in many cases we remember it, but do we ever remember the name of just one victim? This is what the shooter is trying to achieve... notoriety.

My own view is I don't want the UK to have any more changes in gun control, personally I don't care what happens in the USA as their politics is their business. When Hungerford and Dunblane happened I felt sorry for the genuine target shooting community who lost their guns and hobby through an ill thought out knee-jerk reaction.

I don't ever want to own guns or see any more in the hands of the general population and I really do not like seeing armed police officers in public in this country - that's not what living in the UK is about to me, it's nice to live in a country where the chances of being shot are so low that the police don't feel the need to be armed 100% of the time. When I was flitting back and forth between Indiana and the UK back in the 90s I never felt completely safe knowing that anyone could be carrying a concealed handgun. To me guns should only be in the ownership of people who are trained enthusiasts and not in the hands of every Tom **** and Harry who wants to defend him/herself.

[MattCollins]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone'ss 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England




"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right to bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Hubert Horatio Humphrey, 1960



"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason (who opposed ratification oof the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)



"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed" -- Noah Webster


"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1848


"[A]ll power is inherent in the people ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed," -- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Cartwright, 1824


“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...” -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787



This way of thinking about democracy may be somewhat alien in Britain but not in the USA.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinleim

[anna]

So it goes along with the saying guns dont kill people, people do.

Im not certain that in all honesty you can simplify this down to one quote or one phrase.

Clearly a gun is just an object and needs to be operated. Sadly the fact is that there are a lot of mentally disturbed people in society who wish for the notoriety of killing, but the fact is that weapons are easily available to them.

You cant just keep saying each time an incident of this magnitude happens that it the innocent responsible owners of guns shouldn't be punished for the wrong doings of the minorities. No one is trying to take away a sport, or indeed "punish" the responsible. I do think though that responsible law enforcement now needs to happen in regards to changing the way guns are brought and or the way they are kept and handled in the US.

It isn't enough to say that there are always sicko´s out there who will kill if they get the opportunity. The thing here is that if you give them the opportunity on a silver platter there isn't any chance of an intervention or a preventative measure being put in place.

If you stick your head in a bucket of sand the problem wont go away.

[garynortheast]

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.short

[Biker Biggles]

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinleim

That is actually very true,America is a polite society,but that is also not the issue here.They have a very high murder rate and much of that is done by guns.Being politely treated prior to being shot is not ideal.:)
My view is that guns should be tightly regulated,and all guns not essential for everyday living and work should be kept at designated ranges or similar locations.Those used for work should be heavily supervised,and any production of a weapon or unusual discharge;) be investigated.Wont happen in America though.Indeed even here in Blighty we have kneejerk blanket bans imposed for no real good reason,but still fail to properly supervise those still allowed to keep lethal weapons.

[Lozzo]

I strongly believe that we should keep our noses out of America's business. If the USA started campaigning for the UK govt to change the law we would be moaning like mad at them to STFU and keep out of it, no matter what the issue might be.

We should do the right thing and let them sort their own mess out their way.

[yorkie_chris]

R
Yes the crime would still happen irrespective of weapon, but surely allowing a product with one single purpose of taking lives to be widely available to the general public is nothing short of stupid. I know we often talk about our nanny state, but this surely isn't something that anyone should be allowed to chose?

I wouldn't say a single purpose.
I fired air rifles first, they were designed to punch paper, then some other air rifles designed to punch bunnies, then some real rifles, they were designed to punch paper. Then some bigger rifles, they were definitely designed to punch holes in the hun. Then shotguns, they were designed to put grub on the table.

Yes deadly, but I could kill you by stabbing you in the eye with a fork and nobody's saying to control them. You can also make bombs in your kitchen, or a sten gun in your garden shed... not hard.

I don't know what the answer is for the USA, personally I like shooting and I like guns. I'd have a fair collection if I could, but the laws here don't let me so I stick to clay shooting and taking the odd rabbit with air rifles.

I'm generally against gun control. When we had the Bradford riots up here there were plenty ethnics driving around brandishing firearms, same down in that London when it all kicked off... the odd savage getting perforated would soon calm them down a bit.

[busasean]

I strongly believe that we should keep our noses out of America's business. If the USA started campaigning for the UK govt to change the law we would be moaning like mad at them to STFU and keep out of it, no matter what the issue might be.

We should do the right thing and let them sort their own mess out their way.

+1

[anna]

I strongly believe that we should keep our noses out of America's business. If the USA started campaigning for the UK govt to change the law we would be moaning like mad at them to STFU and keep out of it, no matter what the issue might be.

We should do the right thing and let them sort their own mess out their way.

Surely that's just a very insular way of looking at things, after all if that were the case we wouldn't have gone into so many wars to help so many other countries, and if we hadn't the UK would also be a very different place today.

[yorkie_chris]

Are we talking about campaigning? I thought we were just talking about it.

I'd say trying to go to war with america to give them gun control would be a bad idea... some of them are rather heavily armed. :P
It would rather prove the point of why they need to keep and bear arms in the first place though!

[Lozzo]

Surely that's just a very insular way of looking at things, after all if that were the case we wouldn't have gone into so many wars to help so many other countries, and if we hadn't the UK would also be a very different place today.

Help? you think blindly following GWB into Iraq and then Afghanistan was helping anyone but the USA? Our recent choices of conflicts haven't been anything to do with policy-making within supposedly stable governments, they've been about control of oil supplies and it looks like the next one is going to be about who's allowed a nuclear deterrent and who's not.

You may think our presence in Afghanistan is helping, but all it's doing is costing British and American lives unnecessarily. As a nation we have a long and tragically dubious history of getting involved in American politics and 'helping' them out - this time I say leave them to their own devices and stay well out of it.

Unfortunately you'll probably find that 50% of those killed in the latest shooting had parents who were gun owners, and chances are they'll now buy more guns for added protection from nutters rather than campaign to have them abolished.

I'd certainly resent any attempt by any other nation to get involved with policy making in this country.

[The Basket]

On another forum....a Yankee doodle is scoffing the idea that the Bushmaster .223 Is high-powered.

Kinda odd that an almost military weapon can be bought.

[MisterTommyH]

On another forum....a Yankee doodle is scoffing the idea that the Bushmaster .223 Is high-powered.

Kinda odd that an almost military weapon can be bought.

And that's a point worth making again. You talk about gun control and an assumption is jumped to that banning is the only option and that any action will ruin sport or livelihoods.

Surely a first step would be some kind of action against assault rifles....which are designed for killing.

And then maybe handguns..... Which are not made for accuracy (putting the sport argument out) or hunting (which gets rid of that one too).

[Spank86]

Re-establish an unpaid militia, make anyone who wants an automatic or handgun have to be a member and only allow use and storage of those weapons at militia centres with rifle ranges.

Allow militia members and regular civilians to own as many shotguns/hunting rifles as they want at home assuming they are considered safe to do so.


All in line with the constitution and still allows sporting use of weapons.

[Specialone]

And that's a point worth making again. You talk about gun control and an assumption is jumped to that banning is the only option and that any action will ruin sport or livelihoods.

Surely a first step would be some kind of action against assault rifles....which are designed for killing.

And then maybe handguns..... Which are not made for accuracy (putting the sport argument out) or hunting (which gets rid of that one too).

Not true, there are events in the states for handgun target shooting, its popular as its more technical imo, i believe they have national championships.

Hunting? maybe.

[Specialone]

As normal, the uk media are going nuts now about gun laws, I hope the same knee jerk reaction that happened here doesn't somehow do irreversible damage over there.

They really pee me off generally tbh with their over dramatising of the truth, this morning, a BBC correspondent was talking about semi auto assault rifles, basically saying that they are capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a short period of time, no they are not, they are no quicker at putting rounds down range than any other firearm, but that doesn't make news, so they make it out like an automatic weapon (even though autos are banned already) because it sounds better and more dangerous somehow.

I did have a tear in my eye watching some of the footage of the event though and I hope something positive does come of this tragic act.

[yorkie_chris]

I did like this that somebody put up on facebook

TURN OFF THE NEWS.......

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

The only summation is the press are a rabid set of spunk buckets who will say whatever they want to sell papers, including a load of self righteously indignant bollox about firearms being the problem while making the sick animals dream come true by giving it worldwide fame.


Surely a first step would be some kind of action against assault rifles....which are designed for killing.

And then maybe handguns..... Which are not made for accuracy (putting the sport argument out) or hunting (which gets rid of that one too).

Handguns aren't made for accuracy or hunting? I think a lot of people might take issue with that.


They've already had an "assault weapons" ban. There's absolutely nob all difference between an assault weapon and any other, it's simply because the bushmaster has a pistol grip stock and is painted black they're going nuts about it.

[yorkie_chris]

its popular as its more technical imo, i believe they have national championships.

They do, and don't forget it's bloody good fun.

[The Basket]

An assault rifle can put rounds downrange better than a revolver.

[Biker Biggles]

Pistol shooting is also an Olympic sport,just one you cant do in the UK any more because of kneejerk bans.
I still say the answer is to control where the weapons are kept and used,rather than just antagonising responsible users by banning everything.

[yorkie_chris]

Pistol shooting is also an Olympic sport,just one you cant do in the UK any more because of kneejerk bans.
I still say the answer is to control where the weapons are kept and used,rather than just antagonising responsible users by banning everything.

Maybe so, but still a bit of a pain in the 'arris if you shoot "practical rifle"* and want to p*ss about with your rifle at home... a lot of these guns get quite modified. And what about if you want to travel to a different range?


* I can't remember the actual name of it but you run between targets and get scored on time and accuracy. Bloody good fun also...

[Specialone]

An assault rifle can put rounds downrange better than a revolver.

That's better not faster, my point above was the sensationalist media saying assault rifles can fire a lot of bullets in a short space of time, it's simply not true, a handgun is just the same, still takes one trigger pull per one bullet.

[The Basket]

True the civilian AR-15 is semi auto but you can get 100 round drum magazines. You can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger.

I would suggest that an assault weapon and a six shot revolver are not the same. I can explain in detail if need be but typing on a smart phone is such a pain.

[yorkie_chris]

Inside a classroom full of children and one teacher... this *rsepiece could have had the same number of casualties with a single shot musket with a bayonet on it.

[The Basket]

Musket fires 3 rounds per minute and that is best case. You can run away from a musket.

[Specialone]

True the civilian AR-15 is semi auto but you can get 100 round drum magazines. You can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger.

I would suggest that an assault weapon and a six shot revolver are not the same. I can explain in detail if need be but typing on a smart phone is such a pain.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic with the above statement about 'explaining it in detail' but revolver yes but have YOU ever heard of berettas or similar? You can get 20 round mags for these now (the max I believe) I also don't think 100 round mags are legal but id need to confirm this later.

I've fired and been round enough guns in my past to have a fairly informed opinion, so my general statement about speed of rounds being fired still stands, the shooter himself can vary trigger speed massively too.

[The Basket]

Beretta....I have heard really....maybe....have you heard of Glock?

I like this game. Shall we mention all the firearm manufacturers we know?

You can get 30 round magazines for 9mm weapons. But an assault rifle is a military weapon designed to engage multiple targets at ranges upto 300 metres. I have also fired various weapons. Have you ever tried typing on a smartphone? It is a pain.

[yorkie_chris]

It's also designed to engage targets that can shoot back. It's completely over the top yes but if your target is a load of unarmed children stuck in a room then any weapon would be sufficient.

What would happen? A load of 6 and 7 year olds batter him to death with pencil cases while he reloads his revolver?

Or are you saying nobody would be tempted to try a massacre with such unfashionable weapons?

[timwilky]

What claptrap some people round here spout.

When I used to shoot practical pistol, I went from my colt gold cup to a hi power simply to reduce the number of mags I had to carry/change. I did use a revolver (blackhawk in .30m1) for long range target. I also used a .357 for police pistol type coms where with a speed loader I was almost as quick a change as dropping a mag.

Although I lost my G1 after hungerford (That was high power as it was in 7.62, not 5.56) I then got a T4 still in 7.62.


Firstly, it is horses for courses. you use the tool for the discipline. that blackhawk had a loading gate and ejector rod. once you had emptied it it was a pain to reload. But boy was it a pistol to use at 100 yard.

The military in the main adopted .223/5.56 as they realised they don't need long range small arms. When I had the t4 I had occasionally used it at 1200m. So a small lighter bullet meant the solder could carry more, hence higher mag capacity and change in use philosophy to permit burst fire. Additionally the wound characteristics meant that when the .223 hit it would do more damage that the 7.62.

There is nothing wrong with the use of military style firearms for civilian sporting purposes. They lead the development cycle. so why shouldn't the civilian market pick up best design.

It might be heresy to traditional target shooters, but there is a lot to be said for the use of semi automatics in many mid range disciplines where you need to put a number of shots onto a single target. Not having to change your position/grip/stance in order to rechamber.

Knee jerk emotions don't work. logical thought with well designed legislation allows legitimate use and ownership.

[Ceri JC]

Beretta....I have heard really....maybe....have you heard of Glock?

I like this game. Shall we mention all the firearm manufacturers we know?


The following is honestly all 100% true:
I own a Glock. Bought it on the internet, arrived in the mail no problem. Used it when out hiking a few times and not uncommon for me to carry it on the bike when offroading and particularly when camping from the bike. I mostly use it in the UK, but have on occasion taken it into Europe via the ferry. Everything apart from the business end is made of Glock's special composite material that foils x-rays, so it'd probably pass through an x-ray unquestioned. I've never needed that feature though. The only time it came close to discovery was one time when customs at Harrwich ferry port asked if I had any knives in my panniers and I answered quite truthfully "no" and they waved me on. They never searched the pannier it was in.

NB: The Glock concerned is a folding shovel.

[Specialone]

Beretta....I have heard really....maybe....have you heard of Glock?

I like this game. Shall we mention all the firearm manufacturers we know?

You can get 30 round magazines for 9mm weapons. But an assault rifle is a military weapon designed to engage multiple targets at ranges upto 300 metres. I have also fired various weapons. Have you ever tried typing on a smartphone? It is a pain.

I'm typing on a iPhone now, it's no hassle ;)

With respect mate, I think you're missing my point, I know assault rifles are more efficient generally at killing, I'm not disputing that, I'm on about fire rate, my argument is, getting rid of semi auto assault rifles or smg's won't lower body counts significantly, I'm arguing that fire rates are similar between firearms because of the one shot, one bullet rate.

[The Basket]

I am using galaxy S3 and it not good!

I agree that a 9mm round fired at very close range is just as effective as an assault rifle at point blank range. My argument is that an assault rifle has no place as a civilian weapon.

[yorkie_chris]

I am using galaxy S3 and it not good!

I agree that a 9mm round fired at very close range is just as effective as an assault rifle at point blank range. My argument is that an assault rifle has no place as a civilian weapon.

My argument is that there are many other types of weapon that could be used to equally deadly effect in the same situation. So what difference does it make that they are a civilian weapon?

Case in point, a shotgun is about the deadliest thing available at close range, and they are probably the least regulated firearm.

[Spank86]

What would happen? A load of 6 and 7 year olds batter him to death with pencil cases while he reloads his revolver?
They could jump out of the window or run.

With a different weapon the whole scenario would play out differently from the start.

[Owenski]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20751625

"Should we accept that the year on year the lives of children is what we must pay for our freedom?"

Watch the above and you'll start to believe Obama wants something to change, I don't think the founding fathers of the USA really saw this coming when they agreed the right to bare arms.

IMO guns have no place in society, they're a tool of war and our troops should be armed, but in our homes and as a hobby they have no place. I don't care if you shoot paper or skeet, I don't care if you shoot game or pests.
there are other means which can equip you to complete those objectives which aren't nearly as devastating when in the wrong hands.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[Spiderman]

i havent read the whole thread so forgive me if this has already been said.

here are my feelings on gun control... Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sadly guns make it easier, quicker and less involved than almost any other type of weapon. its the people however who have the problems not inanimate bits of metal, even if their primary purpose is to kill.

[Specialone]

I guarantee, ban guns in the states and absolutely nothing will change, where you gonna draw the line? Long bows, cross bows, pea shooters etc.

If someone wants to kill, they will, guns are just a tool to them, same way a bomb would be.

Btw, in 2010 there were approx 20,000 murders, 75% of them were gun related, wonder how many were committed with legal firearms? A very low proportion I bet, so ban guns, achieve nothing but alienate responsible owners.

The NRA fund some high ranking politicians so don't expect anything too radical even if Obama does have the balls to do anything.

[Spank86]

I guarantee, ban guns in the states and absolutely nothing will change, where you gonna draw the line? Long bows, cross bows, pea shooters etc.
Name the last time you heard about a single murder let alone a massacre with any of those.

Guns are different and when you remove guns that doesnt mean people will kill with a knife or a longbow, it quite often prevents the death entirely even if a crime still ocurrs.

[Owenski]

i havent read the whole thread so forgive me if this has already been said.

here are my feelings on gun control... Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sadly guns make it easier, quicker and less involved than almost any other type of weapon. its the people however who have the problems not inanimate bits of metal, even if their primary purpose is to kill.

Never really agreed with that, it seems to be a very blinkered argument.
"Guns don't kill people, people do" surely the latter half of that passage is ... with guns or other such devices.
Take the ease of firearm acquisition away from John "shootemup" Smith and sure he'll find another way of getting his psychotic fix, no arguing with that. However at least you've removed perhaps the easiest and most devastating option from his killer catalogue.

You'll never get rid of them all (guns) I know this, we all know this but and I think what Obama was getting at is that there is more that can be done to make sure dippy-do-dar isn't capable of getting himself dressed for a zombie apocalypse and marching into a primary school... a primary school ffs as a parent of a young child I see this a lot more different than I would have 4-5 years ago, I've a lot more hope for my son than I ever had for myself. For that to be taken from him would be un-imaginable. I think I missed the most important thing from my earlier post and that's that I send my thoughts and best wishes to those families effected.

Talking of the families affected, I read at lunch time that the shooters brother spent a few hours been falsely reported as the shooter, he genuinely posted something on his facebook regarding it.


EDIT: Adding:
http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ryan-lanza-wrong-1.jpg
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/188co81hwvx9qjpg/original.jpg

Me thinks Ryan's going to be moving from New England.

[Specialone]

Name the last time you heard about a single murder let alone a massacre with any of those.

Guns are different and when you remove guns that doesnt mean people will kill with a knife or a longbow, it quite often prevents the death entirely even if a crime still ocurrs.

Thats a very naive statement that mate tbh, remove guns, they will use other tools, I'd bet bombs or driving cars into crowds would become more popular.

We want to be careful about campaigning for banning stuff, banning itself will become popular.

[Spank86]

Funny because longbow murders and car bombings have resolutely failed to skyrocket after they banned handguns in England.

It's very tricky to massacre a school full of people with a penknife, not impossible but would require much more planning.

The real naivety is in believing that taking away a device that makes it incredibly easy to kill will not make killing harder.

[acting_strange]

[QUOTE=

Just as an aside - does anyone like archery? A legal sport in this country and america. Would you expect to be allowed to walk down the street with a bow and arrow and not get arrested? Either here or in the states.

[/QUOTE]


Yes I have a longbow and take part in Field archery when I can (not very often nowadays :()

[Spank86]

I always assumed you'd be okay walking down the road with an unstrung bow.

I suspect they'd have something to say if you did it strung and with an arrow knocked though,

[yorkie_chris]

There have been murders with crossbows etc. Never heard of one with a longbow though.
What have the figures for handgun murders in England done since Dunblane?

We had a decent system for firearms here, until the odd nugget of a police chief let a lunatic slip through the net.



What would you do then? I reckon you should be able to own whatever firearms you like, I think we've got the correct idea here of control*, but subject to basic training and assessment**, being of previous good character etc. I think that would be the best balance of freedoms vs risk. At the moment over here we swung way too far the other way due to badly thought out knee-jerk reactions led by emotion rather than thought.



*locked storage, guns carefully tracked by serial number. Though they do get overzealous about adding/changing weapons on your ticket for no particular reason.

**From the sounds of it any sane person would be able to spot one of these nutters in seconds.

[Spiderman]

The real naivety is in believing that taking away a device that makes it incredibly easy to kill will not make killing harder.

Sadly the truth here is that only applies to legal held guns, criminals by their very nature will always be able to access guns. If someone is so deranged that they want to kill anyone in cold blood then they will simply plan it better. This loony and the other loonies before him had a problem whereby they felt for some absurd that killing innocents would resolve their issues, if they felt that way but couldn't buy a gun legally that does not mean they would stop feeling that way - they would simply plan better for it.

before 9/11 no one had used planes as weapons so effectively, we gonna ban planes too? or cars? Or petrol so people cant set fire to a house/school/airport??

you can ba what you like but the loonies dont suffer for it, they simply work around it. A very fine line between loonacy and genius you know.

[Specialone]

Funny because longbow murders and car bombings have resolutely failed to skyrocket after they banned handguns in England.

It's very tricky to massacre a school full of people with a penknife, not impossible but would require much more planning.

The real naivety is in believing that taking away a device that makes it incredibly easy to kill will not make killing harder.

No, but this is Britain not America, guns aren't ingrained in our culture, oh and btw, it's easier to obtain a bomb more than a gun and kill more people so I would say guns arent easier to do more damage.

We can go round and round, you're either pro or against guns, no forum debate will change anyone's minds, but I'll add one more thing before bowing out, gun crime is still rife in this country, guns have been banned for years, admittedly massacres are rare in this country, but we are 4 times less populated than the states.

[Spiderman]

A counter argument i read was that if MORE people were armed then this guy and others like him would never have got so far as they did.
imagine if each and every teacher had to do firearms training and carried a concealed gun, this loony would have been dead long before 26 others were. So again, is it the guns that do the killing or in some circumsatnces the guns that actually do the saving of life? tricky way to look at it eh?

[suzukigt380paul]

well i havent read all the posts on here,but what i will say is if the usa is to have guns freely available as it does,why o why would you need to have a assault weapon,guns that are rapid fire,a machine gun to you or me,surely if this type of gun was not allowed the chance of multiple casualties would be reduced,we all no the gun lobby in the states is almost as powerful as the government and a very big and profitable business so very little will ever happen to prevent this happening again

[Specialone]

well i havent read all the posts on here,but what i will say is if the usa is to have guns freely available as it does,why o why would you need to have a assault weapon,guns that are rapid fire,a machine gun to you or me,surely if this type of gun was not allowed the chance of multiple casualties would be reduced,we all no the gun lobby in the states is almost as powerful as the government and a very big and profitable business so very little will ever happen to prevent this happening again

With respect mate, what you're posting is completely wrong, automatic weapons ARE banned already, only semi autos are allowed, what weapon they use will have similar fire rate whether it's a pistol, rifle, assault rifle, smg etc etc, please don't believe the crap the media are spouting.

[yorkie_chris]

A counter argument i read was that if MORE people were armed then this guy and others like him would never have got so far as they did.
imagine if each and every teacher had to do firearms training and carried a concealed gun, this loony would have been dead long before 26 others were. So again, is it the guns that do the killing or in some circumsatnces the guns that actually do the saving of life? tricky way to look at it eh?

Or if Cletus T Redneck had been walking down the other side of the road when he pulled up outside the school. Different story entirely and probably quite amusing.

Look at the fairly recent college shooting... the campus was a "gun free zone"


Still would be a bit sad to have to do that.

[Spank86]

No, but this is Britain not America, guns aren't ingrained in our culture, oh and btw, it's easier to obtain a bomb more than a gun and kill more people so I would say guns arent easier to do more damage.

We can go round and round, you're either pro or against guns, no forum debate will change anyone's minds, but I'll add one more thing before bowing out, gun crime is still rife in this country, guns have been banned for years, admittedly massacres are rare in this country, but we are 4 times less populated than the states.

I'm pro guns, I'm pro me having guns, I'm just not pro everyone else having guns.

For some odd reason despite how easy it is to get guns or bombs or suits of armour and swords there is a hell of a lot less of it here than in America. It happens ocassionally and sometimes criminals get guns and often use them on other criminals but on the whole banning legal handguns has led to a drop in illegal ones and spreading that ban ever wider will only improve things because for them to be smuggled into the country they need somewhere to be smuggled FROM.

Gun CRIME is rife, but that's because having a gun is a crime, of course gun crime numbers went up when guns were banned, just having one was suddenly a crime, what went down was killings, and that's the important thing.

[suzukigt380paul]

With respect mate, what you're posting is completely wrong, automatic weapons ARE banned already, only semi autos are allowed, what weapon they use will have similar fire rate whether it's a pistol, rifle, assault rifle, smg etc etc, please don't believe the crap the media are spouting.well thats not what you see on these american gun programs that are showing on sky like "american guns"


The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act), a federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm), so called "assault weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon)". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision). There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#cite_note-1) but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.

[Spank86]

A counter argument i read was that if MORE people were armed then this guy and others like him would never have got so far as they did.
imagine if each and every teacher had to do firearms training and carried a concealed gun, this loony would have been dead long before 26 others were. So again, is it the guns that do the killing or in some circumsatnces the guns that actually do the saving of life? tricky way to look at it eh?

What is more of a deprivation of liberty... Having your guns taken away, or living in an armed state where every public employee is the equivalent of a national guardsman on the corner?

[yorkie_chris]

Full auto weapons are very tightly controlled.


Gun CRIME is rife, but that's because having a gun is a crime, of course gun crime numbers went up when guns were banned, just having one was suddenly a crime, what went down was killings, and that's the important thing.

Just having a gun was still a crime before, you needed a ticket for it...

The people with legal guns didn't tend to go out and rob post offices.

[Spiderman]

Or if Cletus T Redneck had been walking down the other side of the road when he pulled up outside the school. Different story entirely and probably quite amusing.

Look at the fairly recent college shooting... the campus was a "gun free zone"


Still would be a bit sad to have to do that.

What is more of a deprivation of liberty... Having your guns taken away, or living in an armed state where every public employee is the equivalent of a national guardsman on the corner?

I agree with you both here, and i dont like it either. Im simply making the point about a bit of metal capable of firing a smaller bit of metal. You see its not that thing that is the problem, its the person who holds it and their intentions.
I tink with so many guns in so many private hands there is no way any gun control will work, its just too late for all that.

And lets bear in mind one other thing about mentality and the human condition - it was only 150 yrs or so ago that america was dominated by cowboys on horseback who shot each other over a game of cards ffs, so its a way of life to them that is so ingrained in their history its sick.
i also saw a documentary where a prisoner was held down by 2 others, one of whom was stabbing him with a homemade knife, he stabbed the guy around 50 or 60 times before he got tired and got off him. The whole thing was filmed by the screws and not one of them stepped in and shot this guy - why? they felt it was excessive use of force!!! WTF????

A very strange mindset over their about guns and their use.

[Specialone]

well thats not what you see on these american gun programs that are showing on sky like "american guns"


The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act), a federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm), so called "assault weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon)". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision). There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#cite_note-1) but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.

I watch every single one of these programmes and all the similar ones, not one single episode has ever seen a civilian buying or selling a full auto, I've spent nearly 3 months in Texas, I've been to gun shows there, I can tell you full autos are not legal to buy or trade, this may have changed recently but i haven't heard about it.

I don't know whether it was full auto in this recent massacre but if it was I'm sure it wasn't a legal one.

[yorkie_chris]

Bear in mind if it was deemed excessive you could find yourself locked up for it... would you risk it?


We were far more civilised about firearms, my mates first gun was a .410 shotgun hidden in a gentlemans walking cane :)

[yorkie_chris]

I watch every single one of these programmes and all the similar ones, not one single episode has ever seen a civilian buying or selling a full auto, I've spent nearly 3 months in Texas, I've been to gun shows there, I can tell you full autos are not legal to buy or trade, this may have changed recently but i haven't heard about it.

I don't know whether it was full auto in this recent massacre but if it was I'm sure it wasn't a legal one.

It doesn't matter whether it was a full auto. This guy wasn't spraying rounds like a black and white tux wearing al capone movie with his tommie gun... he was by the sounds of it methodically executing people.

FWIW I believe full autos CAN be obtained through very special permits which are not often granted, perhaps even more strict than our own FAC laws. However they are very rare and expensive. And have been for a very long time.



The assault weapons ban sorted weapons out by features like quick-change magazines and having a bayonet lug, having a pistol grip stock.

So actually it made sod all difference because you could still have a bushmaster like this guy used, just with a thumbhole stock.

I had a quick scan round, some guy on youtube basically summed up some military style rifles
FN-FAL (very similar to our old SLR) $800
Long barreled semi automatic AR15 type thing $1000
Semi auto/sporter version of kalashnikov $400
SKS (wooden stocked, old style battle rifle, semi auto) also $400



As you can see they are dirt cheap.

[suzukigt380paul]

I watch every single one of these programmes and all the similar ones, not one single episode has ever seen a civilian buying or selling a full auto, I've spent nearly 3 months in Texas, I've been to gun shows there, I can tell you full autos are not legal to buy or trade, this may have changed recently but i haven't heard about it.

I don't know whether it was full auto in this recent massacre but if it was I'm sure it wasn't a legal one.one quote i found online after 2 minutes looking
In 17 States it is ILLEGAL to own a fully automatic weapon. In the rest one needs a Federal Permit that costs something like 700 dollars per weapon to own one. They have to keep the Fed and local authorities informed of where the weapon is stored and if it will be stored somewhere else as well.

One can buy a semi automatic rifle for about 1500 dollars that all it takes is sere to convert it to full auto. Any Gun smith can install the sere.

Hell those are top of the line weapons, you can get an AK-47 for a lot less and again get a sere to convert it. Of course you need that Federal Permit to legally buy the sere.

[Specialone]

It doesn't matter whether it was a full auto. This guy wasn't spraying rounds like a black and white tux wearing al capone movie with his tommie gun... he was by the sounds of it methodically executing people.

FWIW I believe full autos CAN be obtained through very special permits which are not often granted, perhaps even more strict than our own FAC laws. However they are very rare and expensive. And have been for a very long time.



The assault weapons ban sorted weapons out by features like quick-change magazines and having a bayonet lug, having a pistol grip stock.

So actually it made sod all difference because you could still have a bushmaster like this guy used, just with a thumbhole stock.

I had a quick scan round, some guy on youtube basically summed up some military style rifles
FN-FAL (very similar to our old SLR) $800
Long barreled semi automatic AR15 type thing $1000
Semi auto/sporter version of kalashnikov $400
SKS (wooden stocked, old style battle rifle, semi auto) also $400



As you can see they are dirt cheap.

That video I posted a while ago with me and the wife firing some guns, the ak copy was a sks I believe.
The guns at the shows are even cheaper or were back then.

I don't know about the full auto thing under special license, I know several Americans who wanted them but were restricted by law, perhaps bananaman could clear this up?

[Specialone]

one quote i found online after 2 minutes looking
In 17 States it is ILLEGAL to own a fully automatic weapon. In the rest one needs a Federal Permit that costs something like 700 dollars per weapon to own one. They have to keep the Fed and local authorities informed of where the weapon is stored and if it will be stored somewhere else as well.

One can buy a semi automatic rifle for about 1500 dollars that all it takes is sere to convert it to full auto. Any Gun smith can install the sere.

Hell those are top of the line weapons, you can get an AK-47 for a lot less and again get a sere to convert it. Of course you need that Federal Permit to legally buy the sere.

Actually, it's not hard at all to convert them, but generally it's illegal.

I didn't know about the odd state allowing autos under certain conditions, I imagine it's not easy to get and keep.

Google search for an exploded view of any weapon you like and you'll see how the sear works, it basically resets the trigger after every pull, in auto it moves out the way.

[yorkie_chris]

The SKS was the precursor to the AK47 as the russian front-line rifle.
The same people also make AK series rifles.

But anyway we are completely p*ssing in the wind talking about full auto fire... this bloke was using a semi auto to execute people with single shots.

[Spank86]

.
And lets bear in mind one other thing about mentality and the human condition - it was only 150 yrs or so ago that america was dominated by cowboys on horseback who shot each other over a game of cards ffs, so its a way of life to them that is so ingrained in their history its sick.

Don't believe Hollywood.

Apparently the most murders any old west town saw in a single year was 5.

Tombstones most violent year was when they had the showdown at the OK coral with a total number of killings for the year of... 3.



I'm also not coming down on which of my suggestions IS the worse for liberty but I reckon the USA is moving to one or the other and I know over here I don't feel emasculated by my lack of large weapon.

[MisterTommyH]

I keep seeing the argument that no matter what control you bring in 'criminals' will always get guns.

Fair enough... Gangs etc will do this... What no one seems to be able to justify is that this was not a criminal.

This guy, and probably most of those who have carried out massacres like this, hadn't committed a crime until they pulled the trigger.

So although there is a problem with illegally held guns that argument doesn't stand up when the worst (by numbers, effects and callousness) are carried out using legally held weapons.

[Spiderman]

I keep seeing the argument that no matter what control you bring in 'criminals' will always get guns.

Fair enough... Gangs etc will do this... What no one seems to be able to justify is that this was not a criminal.

This guy, and probably most of those who have carried out massacres like this, hadn't committed a crime until they pulled the trigger.

So although there is a problem with illegally held guns that argument doesn't stand up when the worst (by numbers, effects and callousness) are carried out using legally held weapons.

He committed the crime the second he decided he was going to kill or even try to kill someone, in law its called Mens Rea, having the intention to commit a criminal act. What you do after that is prepare for said act. A burglar plans to break in and hence takes the tools of his trade with him. Someone who wants to kill will simply take some more time and get hold of the weapons first and the headlines will read "spent 2 years amassing an illegal arsenal, none of his family or friends knew or suspected a thing" etc etc.

or he'd spend time making a home-made bomb if he couldn't get the guns. I doubt this kid, or the ones before him just lost control and grabbed a gun that was conveniently laying about, fully loaded, right?

[Spank86]

So how do you explain the much reduced rate of these massacres in places with much stricter gun controls?

We've already established that its impossible to create a situation where guns cannot be obtained and yet there are very few places like here where people do this sort of thing, as oppose to the USA's current rate of about one a year.

The Mental instability that causes people to do these sorts of things by its very nature doesn't tend to lend to long term planning.

[yorkie_chris]

I doubt this kid, or the ones before him just lost control and grabbed a gun that was conveniently laying about, fully loaded, right?

I'm shafting my own "lock and load" pro firearms argument here, but...


This nugget sounds like he was from exactly the sort of household where a weapon and ammunition was within easy arms reach at any time.

So yeah, he was a spacker anyway and one day snapped and went proper mental. But, they're not all like that, look at the unabomber.

[Spank86]

Not all no.

The difference in the arguments is between the people that don't think a change would be worth it unless it stopped all and those that think it would be an acceptable sacrifice if it stopped some.

Apart from those few who wouldn't give up guns even if it stopped all, but there's no discussion to be had there anyway.

[thulfi]

It's simple really.

Situation = poor mental health treatment and abundance of guns.

People need to also remember that the USA/Mexico border is almost 2,000 miles long, and people are generally looking to go one way. This means a free tax based healthcare system is not straightforward with the amount of illegals flooding in. Illegal immigrant estimates for the States in 2008 was 11 million, but could be anywhere up to 20 million!

It also means there is no chance any American would want to abolish gun laws, seeing as more illegal firearms are finding their way in than people.

Here are some stats for thought;

%of all homicides caused by firearms:

USA - 60, Brazil 70.8, Italy 66.7, Switzerland 72.2!, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

[Specialone]

In kids, ie under 21, I wonder how many play shoot em ups on game consoles to throw another branch to the argument?

This guy had aspergers (sp*) so they by nature don't see consequence in their actions.

I do think there is a link to violent films and games and some young minds believing in violence without consequence, I certainly don't like 12 year old kids playing COD type games, but this is another debate for another time.

[widepants]

In kids, ie under 21, I wonder how many play shoot em ups on game consoles to throw another branch to the argument?

This guy had aspergers (sp*) so they by nature don't see consequence in their actions.

I do think there is a link to violent films and games and some young minds believing in violence without consequence, I certainly don't like 12 year old kids playing COD type games, but this is another debate for another time.
With you on that one mate . As some of you know my 10 yr lad is autistic and he can flip from smiling and grinning like a 4 year , to a grinning maniac in a snap of the fingers .Some of his episodes can last for hours and the older he gets the longer they can last.He will think nothing of picking up any object at hand and hurling it at whoever is close enough.
At the moment I can pick him up and lock him in his room , but can show the bruises that I get daily.
He would think nothing of hurling a cup , plate etc , and I have to constantly check the house for objects /weapons .
How would he react if there was a gun lieing about............someone would be shot....simple

[Spank86]

@widepants: but would he plan and execute the acquisition of a gun or simply use it if it were to hand?