Americans

[Amadeus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34507760

The last line is especially ridiculous!

[maviczap]

You cant fight this kind of gun toting stupidlity.

[Sir Trev]

I've asked American colleagues before how they feel about concealed carry and several admitted to having weapons with all the time for "protection". Equally they were amazed that we could happily live without a gun in our houses at all or even consider getting one. Different mind set entirely.

[ethariel]

No need for concealed carry, open carry is a much better policy.

[Ruffy]

No need for concealed carry, open carry is a much better policy.
And No Carry is the best, if properly implemented. (But that boat has probably sailed now, sadly.)

[BanannaMan]

Beware the American gun nutter. :smt070
Facts, statistics, even common sense mean nothing to these people.
Especially the one's who favor open carry.
These are the paranoid psycho's who are afraid to go to even the most common places without their gun for protection even though they have never had to use a gun for protection and the places they visit have never had a gun crime.

[maviczap]

Beware the American gun nutter. :smt070
Facts, statistics, even common sense mean nothing to these people.
Especially the one's who favor open carry.
These are the paranoid psycho's who are afraid to go to even the most common places without their gun for protection even though they have never had to use a gun for protection and the places they visit have never had a gun crime.

Maybe not even the gun nutter Bill

When Ombama visited the site of the latest mass shooting, where the pro and anti gun brigades were holding their various rallies, the tv crew interviewed one normal looking woman.

She said "How am i going to protect myself if they take guns away, i want as many guns and as much ammo as i can have" Although normal looking, she was obviously nuts.

Another news story i read yesterday, is that its perfectly ok to take a gun into a school in the US, but you'll get a caution for taking a dildo into school? Some kids were protesting about the craziness of this situation., which it is.

[Amadeus]

Maviczap, if you look at my original post and my comment about the last line in the link. Look at the last line and it says:

"As a parent I feel more comfortable with my children having a weapon on campus rather than a dildo," read another.

:-)

[maviczap]

Ooh sorry, I had read it. :D

[ophic]

Maviczap, if you look at my original post and my comment about the last line in the link. Look at the last line and it says:

"As a parent I feel more comfortable with my children having a weapon on campus rather than a dildo," read another.

:-)
Simple case of level playing field. If one person is allowed to carry, all should carry. Otherwise you're giving away a huge advantage. Why do people have such a problem with this?

People doubt the ability of the government to enforce people not to carry. Probably a serious concern.

Gun free zones are pointless unless enforced.

[Amadeus]

Gun free zones are pointless unless enforced.

What about dildos? :p

[Spank86]

Simple case of level playing field. If one person is allowed to carry, all should carry. Otherwise you're giving away a huge advantage. Why do people have such a problem with this?


That logic only works if you believe you can spot a threat, draw, aim and pull the trigger before that threat can be carried out.

There's been two I ciders recently, one where someone actually had a gun at one of the school shootings and didn't use it and another where someone did use a gun to prevent an attack on a guy in a car and hit the guy in the head, he'd probably have preferred just the beating.

[ophic]

That logic only works if you believe you can spot a threat, draw, aim and pull the trigger before that threat can be carried out.

There's been two I ciders recently, one where someone actually had a gun at one of the school shootings and didn't use it and another where someone did use a gun to prevent an attack on a guy in a car and hit the guy in the head, he'd probably have preferred just the beating.
OK accidents will happen - they are dangerous things after all.

The logic you quote only works in a one-on-one situation. In which case you would probably end up dead (instead of definitely if you couldn't defend yourself), and it wouldn't make the news.

Any of these single shooter massacres wouldn't have as much of a death toll if everyone around him shot him immediately after the first casualty.

I'm actually all in favour of no guns but it's gotta be actually no guns, not most people with no guns and a few fruitloops with them. Just making them illegal would not work in this case. They would have to be completely purged from society.

We can't stand on our British high horses either as we have a similar problem with knives.

[ophic]

What about dildos? :p
Ban them. Dangerous immoral devices that will damn your soul to hell in a pit of screaming fire :smt083

[ClunkintheUK]

I read the statistic from a credible source (which I have now completely forgotten) that of the 239 mass shootings in the US, only one has been stopped by an armed civilian, in 1989.

Knives are not the same problem as guns, I am not saying it is not a problem and they are not dangerous but they are definitely not the same problem. Many of these mass shootings have victims in double figures. It is much harder to get this sort of death toll with a knife. You are less likely to get stray knife wounds in quite the same way that you get stray bullets when you spray a room at 20 rounds a second with a 400 round clip.

[Amadeus]

400 round clip? That's a f'in maching gun isn't it?? :-)

[ophic]

I read the statistic from a credible source (which I have now completely forgotten) that of the 239 mass shootings in the US, only one has been stopped by an armed civilian, in 1989.

Perhaps this is because when there are enough armed civilians around it never gets to be a mass shooting.

[Spank86]

OK accidents will happen - they are dangerous things after all.

The logic you quote only works in a one-on-one situation. In which case you would probably end up dead (instead of definitely if you couldn't defend yourself), and it wouldn't make the news.

Any of these single shooter massacres wouldn't have as much of a death toll if everyone around him shot him immediately after the first casualty.

I'm actually all in favour of no guns but it's gotta be actually no guns, not most people with no guns and a few fruitloops with them. Just making them illegal would not work in this case. They would have to be completely purged from society.

We can't stand on our British high horses either as we have a similar problem with knives.
Our knife problems nowhere near the American gun problem and as it happens it CAN not be no guns, look at Australia, even over here you can still get a shotgun yet neither place has anything like the American problem. Our "knife problem" is relatively minor but it does make a good story.

[ophic]

Of course knives are relatively minor compared to guns. However getting them off the street presents similar problems - level playing field. If you expect there's a possibility you'll be attacked by someone armed, you'll also go out armed. So making them illegal only makes the nicer folks more vulnerable - to either being seriously injured or prosecuted. Doesn't work.

In other countries than the US, there are far fewer weapons in general circulation. It's a lot easier to keep a society out of gun saturation than to bring a society back from it. What do you do? Forcibly confiscate all guns? Assuming you can find them all? There'd be a civil war.

As for gun free zones, who ever thought that was a good idea? Yes, nice people won't bring guns into gun free zones, but nice people don't tend to shoot other people anyway. So you've just made a nice big friendly target for loonies.

[ClunkintheUK]

400 round clip? That's a f'in maching gun isn't it?? :-)

Still legal in the US. Also not much use for hunting or personal protection, unless you house is assaulted by marauding Visigoths.

[ophic]

...unless you house is assaulted by marauding Visigoths.
What are they packing?

[Amadeus]

What are they packing?

Spoons!

[ClunkintheUK]

Of course knives are relatively minor compared to guns. However getting them off the street presents similar problems - level playing field. If you expect there's a possibility you'll be attacked by someone armed, you'll also go out armed. So making them illegal only makes the nicer folks more vulnerable - to either being seriously injured or prosecuted. Doesn't work.

In other countries than the US, there are far fewer weapons in general circulation. It's a lot easier to keep a society out of gun saturation than to bring a society back from it. What do you do? Forcibly confiscate all guns? Assuming you can find them all? There'd be a civil war.

As for gun free zones, who ever thought that was a good idea? Yes, nice people won't bring guns into gun free zones, but nice people don't tend to shoot other people anyway. So you've just made a nice big friendly target for loonies.

Getting knives off the streets presents a much greater problem. All guns are designed with the sole fundamental purpose of killing, yes a good marksman can disable an assailant with a pistol. Not all knives are designed for killing, in fact the majority are meant for peaceful purposes like cooking, though a big f-off kitchen knife is still pretty effective at severing an artery.

Of course its easier to keep a society out of gun saturation, but that doesn't mean you cannot brig it back. Gun laws, like gun free zones, are not just about getting guns off the street directly, but also about starting to reduce the number of guns in society. If fewer people insist on having guns for their personal protection, it will reduce the number of guns in circulation, and start to reduce the loonies' access to firearms. Further restrictions on type of gun will help.

Banning all assault rifles and automatic weapons, for example, will help reduce mass shootings. Loonies don't just materialise at gun free zones. So if someone is carrying an SA80 down main street (not a gun free zone) it is quite difficult to hide that in your waistband, the cops know immediately that they have cause to stop the individual, before they get to the gun free zone, and an appropriate response by trained professionals can be carried out. But with current laws in some states they don't know if they are a law abiding citizen getting groceries in an advanced state of paranoia, or a loony about to make it on the 6 o'clock news.

In the case of the university campus, they have controlled entrances, so it is much easier to enforce a gun free zone, allowing concealed carry here removes that ability.

[ClunkintheUK]

What are they packing?

I assumed they'd be more comfortable with battleaxes and bad breath, but even if they were marauding with a uzi, I can see that a 400 round clip machine gun would be an effective choice of home protection in this instance.

[ophic]

Just banning firearms takes them out of the hands of the good. The loonies will still have them, thereby increasing the advantage of the loony over the average joe. Bans don't really bother the folks who aren't trying to follow the law. Same applies to concealed carry.

Note to Visigoths: Eat Smints and maraud in groups of 401!

[Trev B]

Only way as I see it is the old deterent,there must be massive tarriffs applied when guns or knives are used in a crime,like 10 years minimum for having a weapon at crime scene,20 minimum if the actual weapon is used,and life if used and a person or persons are killed,no ifs no butts!!!

[ophic]

Only way as I see it is the old deterent,there must be massive tarriffs applied when guns or knives are used in a crime,like 10 years minimum for having a weapon at crime scene,20 minimum if the actual weapon is used,and life if used and a person or persons are killed,no ifs no butts!!!
That would really cut down the witnesses as everyone would scarper!

I carry a lighter and a pair of nail clippers... I reckon I'd get at least 6 months!

[ClunkintheUK]

Just banning firearms takes them out of the hands of the good. The loonies will still have them, thereby increasing the advantage of the loony over the average joe. Bans don't really bother the folks who aren't trying to follow the law. Same applies to concealed carry.

Note to Visigoths: Eat Smints and maraud in groups of 401!

But the data shows that having them in the hands of the good does virtually nothing for preventing mass shootings, with the exception of one case in 1989. Also I remember at least one specific case where the loonies obtained their guns from the hands of the good, without the consent of the good. One specific case being the shooting in Christmas 2013, where the perpetrator obtained all the firearms he used from his mother, who had them legally. In that specific case stricter firearms laws may have prevented his mother owning the guns in the first place, or at least placed greater requirements on her to keep them more secure. This would have stopped him getting the guns and thus prevented the shooting. I believe there are other cases, but I don't have the knowledge of all the shootings.

I also understand there are more gun deaths from legally obtained firearms. Things like suicides, children accidentally shooting their parents or mistaken identity with a shoot first ask questions later mentality. Having guns in the hands of the good has a net negative effect on peoples safety from guns.

Also most illegally obtained guns would likely have originally been purchased from a store legally, then had serial numbers filed off.

[Spank86]

Of course knives are relatively minor compared to guns. However getting them off the street presents similar problems - level playing field. If you expect there's a possibility you'll be attacked by someone armed, you'll also go out armed. So making them illegal only makes the nicer folks more vulnerable - to either being seriously injured or prosecuted. Doesn't work.

In other countries than the US, there are far fewer weapons in general circulation. It's a lot easier to keep a society out of gun saturation than to bring a society back from it. What do you do? Forcibly confiscate all guns? Assuming you can find them all? There'd be a civil war.

As for gun free zones, who ever thought that was a good idea? Yes, nice people won't bring guns into gun free zones, but nice people don't tend to shoot other people anyway. So you've just made a nice big friendly target for loonies.
I agree on gun free zones. That only works if you have checks on the border between that zone and the free for all areas, but Ive walked across Croydon Milton keynes and several other parts of London late at night and never felt the urge to carry a knife, I'd only wind up getting myself hurt. Pulling a knife back on someone wouldnt help you, it woul make things worse since you're then much more likely to be stabbed. A good pair of running shoes would probably be a better buy.



What do you do? You sacrifice the present for the future, you begin the process and make things better for your kids. Time was guns were available in the UK and in other places too, they were removed over time and most of those places are vastly improved for it.

Just banning firearms takes them out of the hands of the good. The loonies will still have them, thereby increasing the advantage of the loony over the average joe. Bans don't really bother the folks who aren't trying to follow the law. Same applies to concealed carry.

Note to Visigoths: Eat Smints and maraud in groups of 401!

But most of these mass shootings are with guns that started off as legal.

There's tw arguments here, one is about the mass shootings and the crimes of loonies, the other is about common or garden criminals using guns and the two arguments for and against aren't exactly the same.

[ophic]

But the data shows that having them in the hands of the good does virtually nothing for preventing mass shootings, with the exception of one case in 1989.
As I pointed out, the same data could be used to argue that mass shootings don't occur where there are enough armed people around. It never becomes a mass shooting. How can you possibly measure the number of mass shootings that have been prevented? All the data you've got shows that one mass shooting was stopped by a member of the public - ie it was already a mass shooting in progress that was prevented from going further.

You'd need to look at how many occurrences of any gun crime were stopped by an armed member of the public.

[ophic]

Pulling a knife back on someone wouldnt help you, it woul make things worse since you're then much more likely to be stabbed. A good pair of running shoes would probably be a better buy.
It would definitely help if they pull a knife on you, unless you're some sort of martial arts superhero. Running shoes also good. However random knife crime of this sort is still relatively unlikely. Might be a mugging, in which case you're best off just handing over whatever they want. This is a different scenario.

If you feel you were likely to be attacked with a knife, you'd take some measures to protect yourself. Either avoid the area or carry one yourself. Some people don't have the freedom of avoiding the area. This is basically the gang problem.

I've never felt the need to carry a knife for defense either. However I have felt the need to "accidentally" leave a large wrench within reach of my front door when I was a teenager. Didn't have to use it, fortunately.

But most of these mass shootings are with guns that started off as legal.
I think many are with fully legally held guns. You can buy them at the supermarket, effectively. Many of the mass shootings end up with the shooter topping himself anyway, and they never had any intention of getting away with it so using an untraceable weapon would be pointless.

As it is now, every person in the US has the freedom to choose whether to carry or not. They can choose not to. That's their choice and I respect that. However making guns illegal would remove that choice and put some severe responsibility on the government to ensure that no-one else carries one either, to maintain the level playing field. It's the effectiveness of the government's role here that I would be concerned about. I don't see how they can possibly achieve it, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice anyone's safety any further while they try.

[Heorot]

Case in point today. A police officer was shot today in London with an illegal automatic pistol. Banning guns doesn't solve the problem as it only affects law abiding citizens.

[Specialone]

I've not read the whole thread but want to clarify a few things.
Only some states in America allow concealed firearm carry, you also have to attend a compulsory one day training course to do so and if you have anything but a squeaky clean record, you won't get granted one.
There are reportedly over 20 million illegal guns in circulation so banning legal guns will have minimal effect.
The culture needs to change, especially around the storage of guns at home, many people in places like Texas have land and plink on their land causing no bother to anyone, should they be punished for the actions of a very small minority?
Legislation only targets the law abiding, remember that.

[ophic]

The culture needs to change...
The only bit I could find to disagree with.

Actually I don't disagree, but wanted to point out that this is a highly subjective point. Many people in the US are quite happy with the culture regarding guns just as it is.

[Specialone]

That's true to an extent but the ones I've spoken to, realise that a change is better than a ban.
Obama won't be happy until he's moved the debate forward with some kind of positive change, personally I think if they could insist on how guns are stored, at home and in transit, restricting access to minors and only be accessible to the owner then I think it would pacify the nay sayers for a while.

[ClunkintheUK]

As I pointed out, the same data could be used to argue that mass shootings don't occur where there are enough armed people around. It never becomes a mass shooting. How can you possibly measure the number of mass shootings that have been prevented? All the data you've got shows that one mass shooting was stopped by a member of the public - ie it was already a mass shooting in progress that was prevented from going further.

You'd need to look at how many occurrences of any gun crime were stopped by an armed member of the public.

The one where it was stopped the death toll was 2 I believe. It is a fine example of a good citizen using his legal right to carry a firearm to protect himself and others. Other mass shooting have been stopped by police before large death tolls were reached. The number of dead does not define whether an event was a mass shooting.

For example a person goes to a family home and kills 9 members of their estranged family before turning their gun on themselves is not defined as a mass shooting, though the death toll is high.

Or a man walks into a market he has no prior connection with but gets handful shots off and injures two people before he is shot by a policeman is a mass shooting despite the only death being the perpetrator, as his intended target were random and had no prior individual connection.

There are statistics on the number of armed felonies and those prevented by armed citizens. There are significantly more successful armed felonies than those prevented. Even the number of accidents which cause death from legally owned firearms compared to the number of prevented felonies (which would not necessarily have resulted in death of the victim, potentially just their being robbed) show that legal defensive gun ownership is not an effective deterrent.

Also as SP1 pointed out gun laws are not necessarily about outright banning at the stage, more effective storage and carrying restrictions would help which is i believe all they are talking about.

[ophic]

...show that legal defensive gun ownership is not an effective deterrent.
Don't see how anyone can possibly claim that. No-one has any idea how bad it would be if things were different.

You can only measure deterrents by their impact after the deterrent was introduced. You can't count how many people don't do something that they would otherwise have done.