anyone else think this is hot?

i read somewhere that since the dreadful shooting in that american school where lots of little children was killed, that there has been another 3000 deaths by shooting in the USA.

 

The bad guy only has one because they are so freely available and he in turn knows that the good guy is likely to have one too - much akin to the cold war arms race.

Thankfully in the UK we have a relatively gun free society - sure some of the bad guys have guns but only the more hardcore and usually to shoot each other (good luck to them on that score). The penalties for even owning an unlicensed (heavily restricted) gun let alone carrying one in public or god forbid using one in anger, are big enough to deter the more casual criminal who in turn knows he is high unlikely to come across an armed "victim" to his chosen crime and pretty unlikely too to come across armed Police - unless of cause it is known he is armed in which case a suitably armed and highly trained specialist Armed Response Unit would be dispatched to the scene.

The reasoning behind the second amendment is heavily outdated - the concept that the people could rise up against an overly oppressive government is farcical (you've not done it yet have you), they are far too well armed, defended and organised to be vulnerable to any form of coup. And for self defence the weapons at the time it was written were almost as likely to injure the user as the target, and a single or perhaps double shot would be the best they could do - not semi auto hand guns capable of emptying an 8, 9, 10, even 13 shot magazine quicker than you can read this sentence - let alone assault rifles in private hands. The UK and it's legislation has it's faults for sure but gun legislation isn't one of them.


If you really want to bear arms - wear a T shirt.

 

And have you, like, tried to take a look at the rising knife crime rates and violent crime rates in the UK? Tried comparing it to before-the-ban stats?

Guns are tools. Guns are inanimate objects. Guns do not make anyone shoot other people, the same way *cars* do not make the drivers kill people. Firearms are not evil. They're not good, either. *People* can be evil and use them to do terrible things. But the best tool for stoping a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

We might wish to live in a world where nobody would have to use violence to defend herself/himself. But the world we do live in is not such a place. Murderers, robbers, rapists, madmen and other bad people do live among us and the good folk *need* some tools to protect themselves and their families, friends and even other random people.

What is good? When you see a man with a knife and a club beating an old lady to within an inch of her life, and maybe to death, because she was not willing to part with the money she *needs* to be able to buy food and pay rent? When a man rapes a woman because "she dressed like a slut and was asking for it"? When five guys break into a house they think is empty and then try to kill the whole family who lives there because they don't want any witnesses? What is good? Pretending these things never happen, even though they do? Or using force, even deadly force, to stop the evil and protect innocent lives?

And the argument about making guns unavailable is laughable. It never worked, period. Not even when the penalty was death. Take a look at drugs and tell me how efficient the law has been at making them unavailable. Do you think banning guns will be different? In this day and age, guns can be built in a garage using off-the-shelf tools and materials. One can made explosives out of the stuff you can buy in a pharmacy. Poisons are easy stuff. Highschool-grade knowledge is enough to build a gamma-radiation source you can simply plug into a socket and kill someone with it - no radioactive material needed. One could find anthrax spores on *coins in your pocket* and make more. I could go on and on and the point is, you have no chance in hell of stopping those who have a reason to arm themselves. As long as there is profit to be had, or causes to fight for, or madness that leads to violence, some people will find ways of obtaining weapons. What are the good people to do? Behave like sheep and let the wolves kill them?

And anyone who thinks governments would be able to stop mass civil disobedience is either naive, uninformed, pessimistic or maybe even supports questionable policies. Take a look at Dzhokar Tsarnaev. It took a thousand armed law-enforcement officers and the lockdown of a big city to hunt down one *unarmed* man (because as it turned out, he was not even armed when he was found). If one in a thousand took to arms, if some of them were members of police or armed forces (as invariably happens in *all* such cases, as history taught us), if they used insurgent tactics, where would you find that million of LEOs to hunt them them? They could pick their fights. They could assassinate key officials. They would be unremarkable faces in a crowd. And they would be people willing to fight - and die - for a cause they'd believe just. Pray this never happens in our lifetime, because the costs would be terrible.

 

The ban is so old such figures do not exist - however all violent crime has been down year on year for quite some time.

Guns are indeed tools, however no other tool of violence is so avidly supported by organisations such as the NRA and except perhaps for explosives no other tool allows the killer to operate so remotely, a knife, club or other such hand held weapon requires direct one to one interaction something far more people find difficult than the totally impersonal simple pulling of a trigger, and no other weapon is so instantly dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands.

Most of the rest of the world looks on in horror at the shootings etc that seemingly occur on a day to day basis in the US yet many people in the US continue to advocate there day to day use and carriage. A gun to hand doesn't give you time to think or cool off, act in haste regret at your leisure. The announcements we hear from the NRA after every meaningless loss of life are frankly laughable - maybe Barack will finally have the balls to do something about it, he seems the nearest president you've had in recent years to one who might - but how many more schools etc have to suffer senseless killings before it happens

 

For one thing, I do not live in the US. But I do live in a country that has shall-issue concealed carry licenses, where it is legal to carry in schools, where some people legally own fully automatic weapons... And we have had ZERO mass shootings during the last 25+ years. Our total criminal offence rate and homicide are less than half of those in the UK.

Gun violence is a result of the state the society is in, not something caused by guns themselves.

Disarming law-abiding citizens never helps the good people, only the bad guys, Yes, some of the legal gun owners turn out bad. But, if we are to talk about the US, CCL holders have lower crime rates than off-duty police officers. They are about the most law-abiding demographic group in the whole US.

Sure, some of them kill people. Have you ever bothered to give a thought to how many lives have been *saved* by legal guns? Anti-gunners often use phrases like "if it saves just one life..." Well, legal guns do save lives, US government's own studies indicate that defensive gun uses save more lives than legal guns used illegally take. More legal guns usually lead to less violent crime and deaths. Take a look at Chicago or New York. They are examples of strict gun-control laws in action - and their gun crime rates are horrible.

 

This was always going to be a thorny issue and in hindsight maybe should not of been posted on a international site like this one.

I do think it's very sad that people find it's necessary to carry any kind of weapon just to make them feel safe (or is it so they feel big or good) I've visited many countries around the world including ten of the States in the USA and never once felt threatened or in danger in any of them.

And this good guy bad guy thing, what is that all about. If a "good guy" shoots some bystander by mistake because he feel threatened, is he still a good guy.

Can I suggest that the MODS lock this thread before it get out of hand.

 

Susan S - I'm done with what I wish to say, but regardless I don't see any need to lock the thread, this is healthy debate between adults i don't see any flaming or personal attacks.

@sandman - apologies, your mini profile in the forum bar doesn't show where you are from, however the OP is from the states.

 

Susan S - I'm with buzz on this one. I don't think this is a flamewar, and I do apologize for those words I've said which might have been bordering on impolite. This is a sensitive issue for me, as someone very close to me has had to use a weapon (not a firearm) to defend her life. So I'm damn strongly opposed to any efforts to disarm honest, law abiding people, and I tend to react somewhat strongly.

And maybe I should add that I do not hold a CCL permit and I do not carry a firearm myself. I'm simply defending something I consider a natural right.

As for the good guy killing an innocent bystander, yes, he remains a good guy. Sadly, the justice has to be served, because good intentions are no excuse for killing innocent people. He made a mistake and he will have to pay for it. But again, statistically speaking, CCL holders shoot innocents less often than on-duty law enforcement officers. There are understandable reason why it is so and I'm not saying the police should be disarmed. The police usually arrive some minutes after an incident begins whereas the intervening CCL holder tends to have been on the spot at the very beginning, so the CCL holder has an easier time figuring out who the bad guys are (and there are other factors too, I know). However, the police do shoot innocents more often and we accept this as an unfortunate necessity. So why demonize good, honest folk who actually make less of these tragic mistakes than the police do?

As for weapons making someone safe, well, they don't. They give you a choice. They provide another option. They might give you a chance in a desperate situation. They might save you or kill you or kill another or do nothing at all. But while they might make some people feel safer, they are no magic wands. And not everybody has the mindset that makes a good, responsible gun owner. However, pro-gun supporters rarely propose that just about everybody should be armed. No. What we do support is the right to make this choice for oneself.

And as an old saying goes, it is better to have a weapon and not need it than to need a weapon and not have it.

 

I definitely came on in a somewhat confrontational fashion so I'll try to be a little more adult about this.

But still just as opposed

Sandman, the legislation that just died here in the US was strengthening background checks, wanted by a clear majority here. And yes, our local gun lobbying group, which in large part was responsible for this, has advocated pretty much arming everyone. One of their recommendations in response to the killings in Connecticut was to propose that we arm the teachers in elementary schools. That faded away in the embarrassing silence that surrounded it but it tells you their motivation. They don't really care what happens so long as they can continue to sell more guns in the market that is the US.

The local gun folks love to throw out stats about NYC and all "them there liberals", the problem is they pretty much make them up. New York City, with the toughest gun laws in the US, had a murder rate in 2011 of 6.3 per 100,000 (I can't find the 2012 numbers but I know in the first 6 months of last year they were on a record low pace) contrast that with the two biggest cities in the yippee ki yay state of Texas, Houston 9.2 - and that was a very good year for them - and Dallas at 10.9

Chicago does have fairly strong gun laws, though no where near as strong as NY and you are right, they are a mess at 15.9 last year and I believe they are even worse this year. Gang warfare seems to be the problem.

And the comparison that gets made here between cars and guns just breaks me up. Fine, they want to say guns are just like cars, I think that's ludicrous but OK, everyone who wants to operate a gun needs to get learning permit, get trained and pass a test, go through a period of limited use of the gun, get fined and have points on their license if they are found to be using it irresponsibly, get fined and or thrown in jail if they are drunk and have it with them (you get behind the wheel of a car that is not moving but are drunk and they still will haul you in, I'm give them a pass if the gun has no bullets in it and they have none with them) and every few years they have to renew their license and, if their faculties decline too much, they lose their license.

Your friend didn't need a gun and I'm glad she was able to defend herself, but let's say she had needed a gun, would she have needed a SIG with a speed loader or a AK47 with an extended clip? Those are completely legal here and off the table in the effort to rein in the shooting. Because of the second amendment, written when the most dangerous firearm was a flintlock with mini-balls. I can't prove it but I strongly suspect that if you took a AK47 with a banana clip back to the time the bill of rights was being written and demonstrated it to Jefferson he might have written the second amendment a little differently.

The problem is that when you talk about taking guns out of the hands law abiding citizens you have to realize that the kid who shot up the teachers and students here was a law abiding citizen right up to the point that he carried his automatic rifle into the school and started killing. Everyone is law abiding citizen in the beginning and none of us have warning stickers stating when our law abiding status will change in the future.

And yes, it may be that someday I will be accosted by someone with a gun who wants my money, I'll hand him my wallet, and yes, he may shoot me anyway. So it goes ... better that than I come home in the future and discover that my grandson found my gun placed where I can protect myself and accidentally shot himself or a neighbor. If I owned a gun, and i have shot pistols and rifles - hunting was big where I grew up, it would be securely locked in a gun safe and of little use to me as day to day protection.

Better still to work toward making it harder for my assailant to be armed.

 

ya, glad to live in a place where i can still speak out against a nanny govt, that wishes to protect me from the evil guns