/ Get your shit together America

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Michael Ryan - on 14 Dec 2012
Get your shit together America. I hope Obama can do something to stop the slaughter in the USA.

Mick
Michael Ryan - on 14 Dec 2012
I'm distraught. The pain that those parents are feeling is unimaginable, and I have two kids in the USA. It is time to put a stop to the National Rifle Association....they are a bunch of murderers and terrorists.
Darren Jackson - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Sadly, I suspect that Obama would have more chance of knitting fog than he would have banning firearms.
ice.solo - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

it is odd isnt it. a political system so bent on disarming others because of the threat to fellow'mericans but adverse to disarming themselves.

Michael Ryan - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to ice.solo:

a war on the streets of the USA: 30,000 a year killed by guns....
ice.solo - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

personally i think the 'war on americas streets' cliche is half the prroblem, makes it sound organized and stoppable with some sort of top-down treaty, that due to the decree of the president (or whoever) everyone will lay down arms happily.

if a term needs to be used its more like an insurgency - disparate, opportunistic, no chain of command, no accountability. needs to be faced accordingly, like projects to disarm other gun-saturated populations, but more importantly, to root out the reasons for using gun violence as a primary form of resolution.

ive worked on gun-reduction projects in places far more arrmed than the US and its been successful (relative to the problem) because the groups carrying it out were tasked properly. in the US it appears so disjointed a process the body doesnt exist to take it on.
AdrianC - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: I wouldn't get your hopes up. I've just driven for three hours through South Carolina listening to the radio coverage. The only person expressing anything other than shock was a guy who argued that the only solution is to have armed *teachers* in schools here. Apparently having uniformed armed guards makes them too obvious a target...
ena sharples - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: for this to change would need a 2/3 s majority of both the senate and the congress to ammend the constitution-forget it, not going to happen.
andreas on 15 Dec 2012 - host109-155-66-34.range109-155.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: But the gun laws exist so that Americans can overcome their government if necessary. Admittedly high school shootings happen, and they're horrible, including the ones we hear about in America. But they ain't nothing compared to the CIA droning the f*ck out of Pakistan in any sensible sense of morality.
Ben Sharp - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to AdrianC:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH) I wouldn't get your hopes up. I've just driven for three hours through South Carolina listening to the radio coverage. The only person expressing anything other than shock was a guy who argued that the only solution is to have armed *teachers* in schools here.

Exactly, that's the stock answer I've heard from every American I've talked to about gun control. The problem isn't the person with the gun, the problem is that there weren't enough people in the area with guns. Maybe if the kids were armed as well...
TheDrunkenBakers - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Coulcnt believe it this morning when I turned on the news. My first reaction was "Not again!"

Its time that guns were brought under control in the States. It is just not acceptible that you can walk off the streets into a gun shop and acquire almost military grade weapons. How many times does this need to happen before those gun lobby throwbacks realise this cannot go on.

Those poor people.
Fraser on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
> It is time to put a stop to the National Rifle Association....they are a bunch of murderers and terrorists.

The problem is, statistics show that the vast majority of these mass murderers are not your average gun-toting, psychopaths with a history of violence, they're 'Mr Normal' who just snaps and goes on the rampage. The availability of guns is a separate issue I think, and the one needing addressed. The NRA & lobbyists have such a stronghold and this, combined with the constitutional element will make it very difficult to achieve meaningful change.

As an aside, what we don't usually hear about over here is the almost daily occurrence of shooters killing 4 or 5 people in some American town or city. It's so common-place now, it simply doesn't make the international news.
IainRUK - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Fraser: Yeah, a city I visited recently had a murder rate of 0.1%.. so i in a 1000 killed each year..

What I don't understand is why the mother had 3 guns in her house? And in a house with a young person who supposedly had behavioural issues..

There's such a back lash over this maybe things will change, tightening up of gun laws, but I'd have thought it would have to be incremental changes to stand a chance..
muppetfilter - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: "almost" .... I went to a gun range in Phoenix and in 60 minutes saw more sophisticated and diverse weapons than I have in 4 years working in West Africa and the middle east . I talked to a guy with a fully automatic 22 rifle with a laser sight for "Home Protection" .... From what ? The Zombie Apocalypse ?
woolsack - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: Within days of a nutcase going bezerk with a knife and wounding 22 or so kids in China it seems to be a popular target.
As to any politician even thinking of taking on the NRA, not a chance, I doubt anyone would fancy their chances of rolling that through without having their own 'grassy knoll' moment
IainRUK - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to woolsack: Yeah the NRA are powerful, but as there is a democrat in on his second term, he can afford to make enemies and upset people, if anyone can make a change its Obama right now.
Dave C on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to IainRUK: Four words to sum up why Obama will not be able to do anything of substance - Supreme Court, Second Amendment - stops 'em every time. One day, the court may finally acknowledge the bit about being part of a state militia but it is not going to be the current Roberts-led bench.


Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

On one of the bowline threads you posted:

> .... (and the slagging off of Yanks....I find that really sad and insulting, having two children who are American...and I have something more important on my mind today after what has has tragically happened

And now you post:

> ... Get your shit together America.

Is there some mistake?

Personally I think the second remark is wishful thinking, and as for the first, I would be quite happy to stop slagging off Yanks (I don't slag off Chileans, Argentinians etc who are Americans too, the confiscation of the word by the inhabitants of the USA is another sign of their arrogance) if they would withdraw their armed forces from all over the planet and stop waging war on all those they think are enemies or rivals
neilh - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
There is absolutely no chance of any change. I have given up arguing the point on gun control with the Americans that I know.

As Brits we fail to understand the importance of guns in their culture and particularly that so many go hunting.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to neilh:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)

> As Brits we fail to understand the importance of guns in their culture and particularly that so many go hunting.

Perhaps so and many people go hunting in the UK too and many farmers have guns. I have also done a fair bit of clay pidgeon shooting which is a lot of fun. The thing I find hard to fathom is the need for some of the gun types that they have access to.

Hunting can and should be done with two types of gun - a single shot rifle/long range rifle - or a twin barrel shutgun.

In both instances the hunting fraternity can be satisfied because they arent being told they cannot hunt.

What's more, I am sure that if some young fool is hellbent on carnage they would use a shotgun but a shotgun or rifle takes time and lots of effort to reload and so the potential for many death would be reduce as you could intervene.

There is absolutely no justification for the supply of automatic and semi-auto handguns, pistols, rifles, SMGs and all the other stuff in ready supply in the States.

These weapons should be banned in all but military and law enforcement applications.
Michael Ryan - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to neilh:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)


> As Brits we fail to understand the importance of guns in their culture and particularly that so many go hunting.

Having lived in the USA for 12 years I understand the gun culture in the USA.

I too have used guns for both hunting and sport (biathlon).

It is the availability of hand guns and automatic rifles that needs to be dealt with.

I believe in time, the Second Amendment will be reinterpreted.

Mick

IainRUK - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Dave C: I worry you are right..

I posted a link to the ammunition/fire arm industry economics on the other thread.. 100'000's of jobs, and its been a big job creator recently..

There will be a huge resistance to any change so I can't see anything radical, just tightening up, slowly, bit by bit..

But there is american paranoia.. they do like to have assault rifles as many do have a fear of being attacked, its going to be a huge fight for obama to even start getting them off the streets..

I'm not up on guns, but thought/presumed it was just hand guns in this attack anyway.. just assumed that as they were his mothers guns, and assumed a middle aged/NE/educated woman wouldn't chose to have assault rifles..
Dauphin - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Almost every film that comes out of the states has the male protagonist holding a handgun on the poster / DVD cover. A lovely line in product placement.

The funny thing about the 2nd amendment - wtf are 'the people' going to now with pistols & rifles against a government with tanks & attack helicopters?

D
Matt Amos - on 15 Dec 2012
I rather hope Obama actually does something to stop HIS slaughter of civilians in other countries, mainly the middle east
"The death of civilians in america is a tragedy, when they kill civilians in other countries, its just foreign policy"
Don't get me wrong, it is a tragedy, but America has more pressing issues to sort out first. Drone strikes in Pakistan... The 100,000 or so civilians that died in the Iraq war... the list goes on....
Mark Reeves - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: I am not sure about the statistics but I suspect more american civilians have been killed in the US by handguns in the last year than american soldiers around the world in laces like afganistan.

This seems a rediculous set of affairs, I worked with some americans a few years back who seemed proud to have a concealled firearms licence, that allowed them to carry arms covertly in public.

We once had a visiting Texan in Llanberis and a friend suggested he call into see someone, and just to knock, open the door and head in. To which he was shocked, "I'd be shot on sight if I didn't phone my neighbour before calling round".

One can only hope that America and Obama have reach a tipping point on the 2nd ammendment rights.
Gudrun - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)

> if they would withdraw their armed forces from all over the planet and stop waging war on all those they think are enemies or rivals

+1 and all covert operations.

But i don't believe in miracles,although Shirley this will happen when their empire collapses.
winhill - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
> (In reply to ice.solo)
>
> a war on the streets of the USA: 30,000 a year killed by guns....

Whilst I agree that gun ownership is unnecessary, a cool head may be required when considering the stats.

Of those 30,000 ( I think it's been reducing recently) over half of them are usually suicides, 40% homicides.

Last figures I saw about 9,500 homicides in 2009 or something.

So the problem exists as a perputual struggle, the high profile ( and hugely emotional) cases like these actually contribute very slightly to that larger figure.
neilh - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Was not there a recent ban on various automatic rifles that recently expired but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would renew it because of the political consequences.

Since when was anything as important as the Second Amendment been last changed?
andreas on 15 Dec 2012 - host109-155-66-34.range109-155.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Dave C:
> (In reply to IainRUK) Supreme Court, Second Amendment - stops 'em every time.

Yes, American's supreme court could uphold the view that citizens should be able to take up arms against their government. I think this is what they refer to as freedom.

America has so many guns it would be impossible to remove them, and instantly a black market would appear if they somehow miraculously manged to. These tragedies would occur regardless because they're part of American culture, America needs to address why this culture exists, which is much more to do with poverty, equality and social division than guns.

If American politicians were to use this tragedy to try and push for gun control it would be nothing more than a populist policy that would achieve little in it's own right. Things would get pretty violent with the NRA, it could even start a civil war.
andreas on 15 Dec 2012 - host109-155-66-34.range109-155.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Personally I think the second remark is wishful thinking, and as for the first, I would be quite happy to stop slagging off Yanks (I don't slag off Chileans, Argentinians etc who are Americans too, the confiscation of the word by the inhabitants of the USA is another sign of their arrogance) if they would withdraw their armed forces from all over the planet and stop waging war on all those they think are enemies or rivals

+1. Although I'd change the last bit to: waging war on all those they think they can gain economically from.

Am I the only one who thinks that the state having a 100% monopoly on armaments is a bad idea?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Flatus Vetus - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

The NRA have come up with a sensible suggestion that should make the reoccurence of this massacre almost impossble...


http://newsthump.com/2012/12/15/us-national-rifle-association-calls-for-ban-on-schools/
Trangia - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Flatus Vetus:

My first reaction to that piece of satire was revulsion at it's insensitivity and poor timing. Then I thought, no, if they are ever going to come to their senses over the issue of guns, American public opinion needs to be hit by shock tactics like this.
JoshOvki on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Possibly change the thread title Mick so you follow the same Posting Guidelines as everyone else?

Not entirely sure there is much Obama can do on the matter either.
a lakeland climber on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mark Reeves:

There's an American manager at our workplace. A month or two ago I asked him what was different about living in Britain. "I feel safe" was his reply.

ALC
Tim Chappell - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

It is so sad that these things happen. It's just insane that a relatively small fraternity of lunatics can hold to ransom a nation of 300 million people.
MikeTS - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
Yes, other countries manage. In fact, almost every other countrty manages. Growing up in the UK (50 and 60s) I literally never saw a gun. But in Israel I see a lot, and guns are controlled and limited, most of what you see are not personal weapons but government issued. I have seen people leading prayers in synagogue with a gun tucked in the back of their pants. But In both places murder rates are much much lower. So presumably it is in the US both a control and a social acceptability issue, and USA has got both wrong.
Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

> Am I the only one who thinks that the state having a 100% monopoly on armaments is a bad idea?

I don't know if you are the only one but I disagree with you, the price we pay in a democracy is giving up the possibility of defending ourselves with the most lethal weapons. If the police do their job properly we shouldn't need one, which seems to have worked for me, in 63 years I've never been faced with a situation in which a firearm would have helped me.

The exception of farmers and vets or people who need certain sorts of non-automatic weapons could be an exception. As for small arm shooting as a hobby, I can't really decide on that, but it might be possible to allow it but with the guns being kept on the firing range rather than in the home.

This would be in a perfect world, for the USA they could start by a total ban on automatic weapons and high velocity rifles. They could also limit them to single shot, or maybe double barrel for low velocity weapon firing shot. It would be a start.
Tim Chappell - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I (gasp) agree with Bruce. I don't think there's a problem about people who do sport shooting (of targets, or of animals/ birds) owning sport rifles. But these NRA types have f*cking rocket lauchers and kalashnikovs. It's insane. What does anyone need those for, except a war?
Dauphin - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Tim Chappell:

America is at war. War all the time. War with itself. War with the rest of the planet.

D
Eric9Points - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)
> [...]
>
> Whilst I agree that gun ownership is unnecessary, a cool head may be required when considering the stats.
>
> Of those 30,000 ( I think it's been reducing recently) over half of them are usually suicides, 40% homicides.
>
> Last figures I saw about 9,500 homicides in 2009 or something.
>

Looks about right, all the facts and figures here: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

andreas on 15 Dec 2012 - host109-155-66-34.range109-155.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Bruce Hooker: I see what you're saying, for me it's a very tough call but I think I'd own a gun if I could. During our lives we might only find ourselves in a situation where we need a firearm once.
Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

But such a situation increases mathematically according to how many people have guns... until when everybody has guns in which case it's pretty obvious how things would turn out!

This subject has come up before and there were statistics posted that showed that the number of firearms deaths in a country was pretty well proportional to the number of firearms possessed by the public.
andreas on 15 Dec 2012 - host109-155-66-34.range109-155.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Agree entirely. It's all well and good if you assume society will remain relatively stable. I don't, and I don't believe in democracy either.

Were there more total deaths in the firearms countries?
marmot hunter - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
When I watched Bowling for Columbine (a long time ago) I seem to remember it said there is greater gun ownership in Canada but only a small fraction of shootings. It seems there is more of an issue with US Americans' attitdues to guns and general fear of everything. Guns make them feel safe. Then some nutter goes mad AGAIN. Maybe a War on Guns is more important than a War on Islam, sorry, I meant Terror?
elsewhere on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> I don't believe in democracy either.

That's a good reason to keep you away from firearms then.

Douglas Griffin - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> This subject has come up before and there were statistics posted that showed that the number of firearms deaths in a country was pretty well proportional to the number of firearms possessed by the public.

It doesn't appear to be that simple:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map
The key facts are:
• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

highclimber - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Erm, I think its something to do with the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights

something along these lines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk
Tom V - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Are you saying that 88 out of every 100 people in America own a gun, on average?
Does this include people of all ages as in a census?
If so, some individuals must have mighty impressive gun collections
Douglas Griffin - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Tom V:

Im not saying that - the Guardian data report from July 2012 is. Though I don't have any particular reason to believe that it's not reliable.
andreas on 15 Dec 2012 - host109-155-66-34.range109-155.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Tom V: I know a guy who lives opposite his Dad in the North. Pretty liberal, voted for Obama, pillar of the community type (retired now but runs the town's voluntary fire service). Between them they've got about 50 guns.
Eric9Points - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

As I understand it there is a correlation between gun deaths and injuries and the number of guns in a country. It would be remarkable if there wasn't.

Of course there are lots of other factors which also influence the level of gun crime so you don't get a y=mx relationship.

Dauphin - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Tom V:

No that is nonsense - plenty of gun owners multiple weapons though.

D
Douglas Griffin - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Dauphin:

No, it's not nonsense - that's what makes the average figure 88 guns per 100 people.
Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

> Were there more total deaths in the firearms countries?

I think everyone died eventually in all countries :-) I can't remember the details and as has been pointed out it may not have been an exact correlation - maybe it didn't cover the less stable countries either, but it did give a few pointers. For example I remember being struck by the high number of firearms deaths in Switzerland, which I always thought of as being a country of placid rather stable sort of people, but it turns out that there is a high level of gun ownership in the country as after their obligatory national service the Swiss keep a rifle in their homes.

So more guns more gun deaths seems to be the case, although obviously other factors like standard of living, stability and so on must play a role too - the number of gun deaths in Syria, Lybia last year and Gaza must be quite high too, but would hardly be of value in this correlation!

Dauphin - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

88% gun ownership on average.

D
Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Quite a few statistics available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Shows that although the USA isn't the highest in the world it is amongst developed countries, 9 deaths per 100000 per annum. It also shows the high position of Switzerland (6.4 - highest in developed Europe Europe), France come quite high (3) which corresponds to a high level of gun ownership and lax legislation. Britain is near the bottom at 0.22. Lowest are Azerbaijan, (0.07) and Chile (0.06) which might surprise a few.

There are loads of other studies but I think I've had enough of such morbid texts for one night.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: One thing I haven't heard or seen mentioned is that it often seems that the perpetrators of these atrocities are social awkward young men, who don't meet the ideal presented by American TV. Who knows what sort of angst they go through, and what abuse they suffer for being different. If the American children's TV I sometimes see is anything to go by, I suspect they're pretty heartlessly marginalised.

In the UK in my day, you listened to The Smiths; in the US now you get a gun and kill people.

Perhaps the answer lies not only in gun control but also in trying not to marginalise those that are a bit different.

stroppygob - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: Posted in another thread but worth posting here;

> Murders per 1.000.000 inhabitants in the US: 56,3. And in Germany: 9,7. That means the murder rate is nearly six times higher in the US than in Germany

> n the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders each year. Children are affected particularly hard. An American youth is murdered with a firearm every four and a half hours on average. And an American youth commits suicide with a firearm every eight hours. It's worth remembering that many of the most spectacular mass murders of recent years were really suicides, with the perpetrators choosing to take a few other people with them while they were at it.
mockerkin on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Hungerford,Dunblane, West Cumbrian taxi driver. With a UK population of 60 million compared to the US with 300 million we may not be so far behind them statistically.
In reply to mockerkin:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)
>
> Hungerford,Dunblane, West Cumbrian taxi driver. With a UK population of 60 million compared to the US with 300 million we may not be so far behind them statistically.

Mmm. I heard on the radio that there has been 61 such incidents in the Us since Columbine. I think we're a long way behind them statistically.

mockerkin on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

That's statistics for you. "There are lies, damn lies and statistics" as someone once said. If you use the number of guns legally held in a country as a factor then divide that by the number of gunshot murders, then we are closer to the US than other figures suggest.
ScraggyGoat on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:

I think America will only disarm itself after the trauma of civil war or anarchy, at present anarchy seams to be the most likely route, but listening to some republicans, only just.

I can't see anything of a lower order of magnitude, persuading or changing their outlook en masse.
drsdave - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
I suspect you're right about knitting fog. American gun law and politics
are so intertwined that any president challenging this as an issue around
an election time would not be voted in! You mess with the NHS at your peril
in the UK, and in the US its their gun laws.

If you open a door for something to live in your house so to speak you may
find that you cant close it again and this particular lodger ''The founders
second ammendement'' is so camped out in the constitutional rights and
american psyche that nothing short of a woman i suspect will change it.

just a thought
jon on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Michael Moore has this to say:

> "This isn't the time to talk about gun control." Really? When is that moment? Too soon to speak out about a gun-crazy nation? No, too late. At least THIRTY-ONE school shootings since Columbine.
Bruce Hooker - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:

Look at the list I linked above, Britain is right at the bottom of the ladder in terms of fire-arms deaths, 40 times lower than the USA (9 compared to 0.22 deaths per 100000).
Tom V - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
If it's true, it means that there are 275 million guns in circulation. Can this be right?
Tom V - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Tom V:
Apparently so. Shocking.
jonny taylor on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:
> If you use the number of guns legally held in a country as a factor then divide that by the number of gunshot murders, then we are closer to the US than other figures suggest

And your point is?
NeilMac - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Tom V:

2009: 305 million people, 310 million guns.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
MikeTS - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

This is an interesting picture of an Israeli schoolteacher armed with a gun with her kids.
http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/528286_4935822792369_1594713443_n.jpg
Not too sure about the accompanying logic though!
GridNorth - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to ScraggyGoat:
> (In reply to mockerkin)
>
> I think America will only disarm itself after the trauma of civil war or anarchy, at present anarchy seams to be the most likely route, but listening to some republicans, only just.
>
You are forgetting that they have had their civil war and it actually contributed big time towards arming them. Especially in the south where many soldiers just went home after losing and took their Confederate supplied guns with them.
tony on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)
>
> This is an interesting picture of an Israeli schoolteacher armed with a gun with her kids.
> http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/528286_4935822792369_1594713443_n.jpg
> Not too sure about the accompanying logic though!

If you do a per-head of population calculation, it means that Israel and USA have pretty much the same rate of school killings.
marmot hunter - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to tony:
And compare to a less extreme coutry (UK?)
School shootings in last ten years: 0 (according to the ultra-liberal BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7631162.stm ))
So NOT arming teachers is far safer!
MikeTS - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to MikeTS)
> [...]
>
> If you do a per-head of population calculation, it means that Israel and USA have pretty much the same rate of school killings.


They were all terrorist attacks.
Non-terrorist gun homicide rate was 0.09 per 100,000 cf England and Wales 0.07 (figs from Guardian 2012). Which is interesting considering there are many more guns around than the UK
tony on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
>
> They were all terrorist attacks.

I did wonder about that. The idea of comparing Israel and the USA in this context seemed a bit far-fetched. Another way of looking at it would be to say that the USA suffers the same level of school murders as a country which is under perpetual threat of terrorist attacks. I'm not sure the US gun lobby would want to see it expressed it in those terms.
MikeTS - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to MikeTS)
> [...]
>
> I did wonder about that. The idea of comparing Israel and the USA in this context seemed a bit far-fetched.


Although maybe thinking about the US school killings as a form of terrorism is interesting?

BTW, the number for Israel was for the attack on 6 March 2008, when 8 students were killed and 11 injured at Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem; the terrorist was killed by an IDF officer
IainRUK - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mark Reeves: I jumped a one bar gate in texas to run down a private track into a state park.. came back and the police were there.. basically told that in Texas that's a shootable offence.. there's just no questions asked either.. it worries me with the police..

In NYC 9 bystanders were shot by the police trying to shoot one guy, to a man they all thought it was fair enough and that the police were right to shoot so wildly in a pedestrian street..
subalpine - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to IainRUK: meanwhile in cleveland..
A chase that ended with 13 officers firing 137 rounds, killing two people, began with a pop – perhaps a gunshot or backfire from a car speeding past police headquarters
subalpine - on 16 Dec 2012
lost1977 - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

read various posts on FB and still cant understand the American way of thinking where guns are concerned.

2 common things i have heard

"Arm teachers"

"We need to have guns to defend ourselves" (love the irony)
IainRUK - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to lost1977: There's a large movement wanting to arm students in Uni.. most campuses are gun free.. which is why massacres happen of course.. if the other students had guns it'd be safer. scarey..
subalpine - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to lost1977: big discussion on supertopo as expected: http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2011674
Eric9Points - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Seems like you can buy the murder weapon in Walmart: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Bushmaster-M4A3-.223-REM-16-Patrol-Carbine/19235996

In fact it looks like they have an extensive slection of semi automatic rifles: http://www.walmart.com/cp/Guns-Rifles-Ammunition/1088608

I thought Walmart had stopped selling weapons after the Bowling for Columbine film. Maybe it was just the ammunition they stopped selling.

IainRUK - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Eric9Points: I've never seen guns in walmart either.. but they are huge so easily missed.. and I don't shop for guns much..
andreas on 16 Dec 2012 - host109-155-66-34.range109-155.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Eric9Points: Do you think Tesco wouldn't sell them if it was legal? I don't think where you buy your gun from makes much difference, you might as well get some clubcard points too.
Eric9Points - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

You're missing my point.

It seems utterly remarkable to me that you can buy a weapon like this in a supermarket.

I reply to IainRUK:

I simply put the gun's name into Google and the link I posted was about fourth down the page.
IainRUK - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Eric9Points: I know.. I'm surprised.. and it does say available in stores..

I've seen them in sports/outdoors shops, but mainly in Texas..
mark s - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to IainRUK: google class 3 guns its shocking what is available.
i really cant see any defense for owning these types of guns let alone the type used on friday
Ridge - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)
>
> Seems like you can buy the murder weapon in Walmart: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Bushmaster-M4A3-.223-REM-16-Patrol-Carbine/19235996

It gets 5 stars:

The Bushmaster M4A3 is a fantastic rifle to either add to a collection or for a first rifle, very easy to shoot and accurate. My fivteen year old daughter can shoot this rifle with very accurate results and loves to go out shooting it with dad, you will not be disapointed with it!
Dauphin - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CoIhl3puuI

Fella loves the high capacity clips

D
ads.ukclimbing.com
Ridge - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to mark s:
> (In reply to IainRUK) google class 3 guns its shocking what is available.
> i really cant see any defense for owning these types of guns let alone the type used on friday

It's bizarre. I can see that calibre being used for smallish game hunting, (it's the standard NATO rifle round, although you'd want something bigger for deer etc), but 30 round magazines? Plus if you were into that sort of thing you'd want a quality rifle, not something churned out cheaply. Marketed directly at wannabe kiddie massacres IMHO.
mark s - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: the religious hate mongers westboro church are planning on picketing the funerals of th kids!!
Bruce Hooker - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
>
> They were all terrorist attacks.
> Non-terrorist gun homicide rate was 0.09 per 100,000 cf England and Wales 0.07 (figs from Guardian 2012). Which is interesting considering there are many more guns around than the UK

You don't count Palestinian deaths apparently, not a surprise really.

MikeTS - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

you really are obsessive
dissonance - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:

> Marketed directly at wannabe kiddie massacres IMHO.

i would guess the main intended audience are the more survivalist oriented/everyone else is a potential burglar and hence need enough firepower to take on a section.
That or just like running around with military style guns. Its not like we dont have those types too just fortunately they are restricted to airsoft replicas.

marmot hunter - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to dissonance:
'Survivalist'? Who's survival?
AdrianC - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Mark Reeves) I jumped a one bar gate in texas to run down a private track into a state park.. came back and the police were there.. basically told that in Texas that's a shootable offence.. there's just no questions asked either.. it worries me with the police..

I think this is really close to the crux of the problem. I really doubt that changing the gun laws will help - it's deeper than that. There's an acceptance here that someone's violent death is potentially "just" - that it's a desirable outcome to some situations. They fundamentally think that in a fairly wide range of circumstances it's helpful to kill people (remember that most Americans support the death penalty.) Guns are simply the most convenient means of achieving that. It's something they learn at an early age so it's pretty hard-wired into the culture - just watch an American action movie - how many of those end in a court scene and life imprisonment? Not many - it's usually a shoot-out that brings a sense of finality the drama.

I think that for things to change, the attitude that they have to tackle is the one that says "OK - you've changed the gun laws and taken away my collection of assault rifles. How do you expect me to kill the person who walks onto my property uninvited now?"
Ridge - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> [...]
>
> i would guess the main intended audience are the more survivalist oriented/everyone else is a potential burglar and hence need enough firepower to take on a section.
> That or just like running around with military style guns. Its not like we dont have those types too just fortunately they are restricted to airsoft replicas.

True, we've enough Walter Mittys running round the country. Walmart could probably double the price, weld them up and flog them over here as deactivated toys by the thousand.
Ciro - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

As much as I'm against the idea that the public should be entitled to own assault rifles and what have you, I just came across the following which really seems more important to sort first:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_23110...


Ridge - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to AdrianC:
I wouldn't say the attitude in the UK is much different. Faced with a burglar/murderer/rapist in the house I'd quite like to dispose of them with the minimum risk to myself or the family. Also there's massive outrage when people do kill intruders and get charged with it. I don't think there's the huge gulf that people like to believe.
Also gun laws in the UK are relatively recent, brought in after WW1 IIRC, when the ruling classes were terrified of demobbed soldiers taking part in a revolution.
Ciro - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to AdrianC)
> I wouldn't say the attitude in the UK is much different. Faced with a burglar/murderer/rapist in the house I'd quite like to dispose of them with the minimum risk to myself or the family.

Really? Faced with a murderer I'd obviously rather he died than me or someone I loved, but if there was a burglar in my house, I'd much rather find a way of getting him out of the house that didn't involve having the loss of a human life on my conscience.


Ridge - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ciro:
It's getting the intruder to fill out the questionnaire regarding his intentions that's the problem.
Ridge - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
TBH we're getting a bit off topic here.
Eric9Points - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to AdrianC)
> I wouldn't say the attitude in the UK is much different. Faced with a burglar/murderer/rapist in the house I'd quite like to dispose of them with the minimum risk to myself or the family. Also there's massive outrage when people do kill intruders and get charged with it. I don't think there's the huge gulf that people like to believe.


I think the difference is that in Britain you can expect to be charged with murder if you shoot a burglar. In the US, or parts of it anyway, it seems you're seen as a hero defending your property and unlikely to end up in the dock.
AlunP - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ciro:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> [...]
>
> Really? Faced with a murderer I'd obviously rather he died than me or someone I loved, but if there was a burglar in my house, I'd much rather find a way of getting him out of the house that didn't involve having the loss of a human life on my conscience.

The sight of me bullock naked with an ice hammer in my hand might do it.

AdrianC - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Eric9Points: Exactly. There's a sense that that outcome serves the purposes of justice and makes the world a better place. Until that changes I don't see that gun laws are going to make any difference.
SAF - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ciro:


Really interesting article, and as much as the NHS is struggling with funding (particularly in mental health) it makes you realise how important a service that attempts to be equally accesible to all is to society.
Enty - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to AlunP:
> (In reply to Ciro)
> [...]
>
> The sight of me bullock naked with an ice hammer in my hand might do it.

Not if he's got a gun ;-)

E
Ciro - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Ciro)
> It's getting the intruder to fill out the questionnaire regarding his intentions that's the problem.

Unless you're involved in drug dealing or some such, it's fairly unlikely that the stranger in your house is there to commit murder.

The only time I had someone break in, he about turned and left when I confronted him with a baseball bat in my hand.

I was shitting myself, so had I been in possession of a longer range weapon, I may well have used it rather than standing there and telling him to get to f*ck back out the way he came.

Obviously had things gone differently I might feel otherwise now, but as it stands I'm kinda glad I didn't have one.
Ridge - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ciro:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> [...]
>
> The only time I had someone break in, he about turned and left when I confronted him with a baseball bat in my hand.

But in the UK that's pretty much the equivalent of pulling a gun. Your burglar wasn't likely to be carrying a gun, but quite likely to have a knife or screwdriver. You probably had better weaponry. In the US chances are the burglar has a gun, so the householder gets a bigger gun. That doesn't indicate a greater propensity for violence on the part of the American public, just more effective weapons in circulation.

> I was shitting myself, so had I been in possession of a longer range weapon, I may well have used it rather than standing there and telling him to get to f*ck back out the way he came.

True, but if you had whacked him with the bat and killed him, it's highly unlikely you'd have been convicted. Same goes for the US. (Although they'd let you off for whacking him the moment his toe touched the garden path).

I'm not saying the number of guns in circulation in the US is healthy, far from it, but it's hard to see how you reverse that.
Blue Roses on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Eric9Points: In reply to winhill:
>
> Whilst I agree that gun ownership is unnecessary, a cool head may be required when considering the stats.
>
> Of those 30,000 ( I think it's been reducing recently) over half of them are usually suicides, 40% homicides.
>
> Last figures I saw about 9,500 homicides in 2009 or something.
>

Looks about right, all the facts and figures here: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states


Not arguing about the stats but I think the suicide/murder distinction can be something of a red herring (that sounds dismissive but I don't mean it that way).

Two points, 1) these stats don't distinguish between suicides and murder/suicides. The murderer of these little children and their teachers would add to the suicide stats, as well as being a murderer.

2) If not having a gun, could save someone commiting suicide, who would have otherwise, it's still saving a life. Someone else is not widowed, orphaned, sibling-less.

Selling paracetamol and other painkillers in smaller pack sizes reduced suicide rates by a quater.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-323960/Suicide-rates-curbed-smaller-paracetamol-packs.html...
yes, I know it's the daily fail.

A bit tired so I am not meaning this to come across condescending in any way.
Ciro - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Ciro)
> [...]
>
> But in the UK that's pretty much the equivalent of pulling a gun. Your burglar wasn't likely to be carrying a gun, but quite likely to have a knife or screwdriver. You probably had better weaponry. In the US chances are the burglar has a gun, so the householder gets a bigger gun. That doesn't indicate a greater propensity for violence on the part of the American public, just more effective weapons in circulation.
>
> [...]
>
> True, but if you had whacked him with the bat and killed him, it's highly unlikely you'd have been convicted. Same goes for the US. (Although they'd let you off for whacking him the moment his toe touched the garden path).
>
> I'm not saying the number of guns in circulation in the US is healthy, far from it, but it's hard to see how you reverse that.

I'd hardly say a baseball bat was a better weapon than a knife, especially in the confines of a narrow hallway as we were, but that's beside the point... you said you'd rather "dispose of them with minimum risk" and suggested most of us in the UK think that way, I was merely pointing out that I'd rather ask the guy to leave and avoid a violent confrontation if possible.
John_Hat - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Blue Roses:

There's also the point that in the absence of a gun, suicide has to be thought about fairly carefully.

If we take someone who is at a low ebb late at night, there's relatively few fairly painless methods of killing yourself that can be carried out in the comfort of your own home that will work fast enough to ensure that you're not going to be found and carted off to A&E and rebooted, so to speak.

Guns make it too bl**dy easy, either to take your own life, or the life of others.

I quote the New York Times, today.

"The tragedy isn’t one school shooting, it’s the unceasing toll across our country. More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined." .

Blue Roses on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to John_Hat: yes, very true :(

that was kind of what I was trying to get at, re the changes to pain killer dispensing leading to a drop in the suicide rates here in the UK.
Blue Roses on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to John_Hat: Just re-read that NY Times stat. Wow.
John_Hat - on 16 Dec 2012
stroppygob - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: From the local rag;

1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the US. Mother Jones has tracked and mapped every shooting spree in the past three decades. ''Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,'' they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally.

2. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the past 50 years happened in the US. In second place is Finland, with two entries.

3. Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp from the Cato Institute writes, ''In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a licence to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel 'have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States'.''

4. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened since 2006. That doesn't include the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting.

5. America is an unusually violent country. But it's not as violent as it used to be. Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, in July made a graph of ''deaths due to assault'' in the US and other developed countries. The US is a clear outlier, with rates well above other countries. As Healy writes, ''The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the US is than other OECD countries … and (2) the degree of change - and recently, decline - there has been in the US.''

6. Gun ownership in the US is declining. ''For all the attention given to America's culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,'' political scientist Patrick Egan, of New York University, wrote in July. ''Long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the US.''

7. More guns tend to mean more homicide. The Harvard Injury Control Research Centre assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.

8. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. Last year, economist Richard Florida dived deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

9. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular in the US. Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don't. ''The percentage in favour of making the laws governing the sale of firearms 'more strict' fell from 78 per cent in 1990 to 62 per cent in 1995, and 51 per cent in 2007,'' Gallup reported after a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, last year. ''In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44 per cent in favour of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.''

10. But particular policies to control guns often are. An August CNN poll asked Americans whether they favour or oppose a number of specific policies to restrict gun ownership. And when you drill down to that level, many policies, including banning the manufacture and possession of semi-automatic rifles, are popular. About 90 per cent support background checks and no guns for felons or the mentally ill.

11. Shootings don't tend to substantially affect the views of Americans on gun control. That, at least, is what the Pew Research Centre found in a poll taken after the Colorado movie theatre shooting in July that killed 12.
USBRIT - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:In America 85 a DAY die by the gun..
999thAndy on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH) But the gun laws exist so that Americans can overcome their government if necessary.

2nd amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing in there about overthrowing a govt.

When the constitution was drafted there was no regular standing army as there is today, so arguably the security of the state is now sorted and the 2nd amendment could be repealed. However because the NRA are such a powerful lobby group it won't ever happen. Yanks are quite happy burying their children as long as they can arm bears, it seems.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to andreas)
> [...]
>
> 2nd amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

There's so many ways to interpret that. They wrote it following a prolonged and bloody revolution with a tyrant 3000 miles away. I think the reason it's so simple is to make the second half 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' unchangeable. And I'm sorry, I know it makes me seem like a NRA child hating psychopath in the eyes of most but I 100% agree with them.
SAF - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH) From the local rag;
>
>
> 5. America is an unusually violent country. But it's not as violent as it used to be. Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, in July made a graph of ''deaths due to assault'' in the US and other developed countries.

Surely this could simply reflect an improvement in Trauma care in the USA resulting from the lessons learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan filtering there way into mainsteam Emergency Rooms and patients who would previously have died now being saved. Like people have already said statistics can tell you what you want/need them to, it just depends what slant you put on it.

999thAndy on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
> [...]
>
> There's so many ways to interpret that.

I can't see that many alternative interpretations TBH

[...]
>I think the reason it's so simple is to make the second half 'the right >of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' >unchangeable. And I'm sorry, I know it makes me seem like a NRA child >hating psychopath in the eyes of most but I 100% agree with them.

If the people bearing the arms were in a well regulated militia, it would be fine. When the people bearing the arms have mental health or other problems you end up with yet another mass killing.

If you're happy with that, and see a few kids lives cut short as a price worth paying for your right to bear arms; so that you can overthrow the government (if you felt you were being oppressed) I'd suggest you have some issues that require medical intervention.
SAF - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Ciro:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> [...]
>
> you said you'd rather "dispose of them with minimum risk" and suggested most of us in the UK think that way,

I live in the UK and certainely don't think this way either...

I am happy to live with the outside chance that oneday if I'm really unlucky someone might break into my house whilst I am at home. In which case I intent to hide, avoid a confrontation, let them take what they wanted and claim on the insurance...after all my life's worth more than material possesions.

dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

> There's so many ways to interpret that. They wrote it following a prolonged and bloody revolution with a tyrant 3000 miles away.

A tyrant? Note propaganda isnt always accurate. Plenty of things wrong with the gov at that time but tyrant is a tad overstated.

> I think the reason it's so simple is to make the second half 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' unchangeable. And I'm sorry, I know it makes me seem like a NRA child hating psychopath in the eyes of most but I 100% agree with them.

i take it you have some limits though eg interpreting it as small arms , and a limited set of those, rather than any arms?
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to 999thAndy:

> If you're happy with that, and see a few kids lives cut short as a price worth paying for your right to bear arms; so that you can overthrow the government (if you felt you were being oppressed) I'd suggest you have some issues that require medical intervention.

That is so simplistic and reactionary I won't even try to defend myself.

Since the vast majority of the human population agrees with my position, including most Americans and the American supreme court, perhaps you have issues that require medical intervention. Pathological dependency and trust?

Earlier in the the thread I gave my reasons as to why I think gun control laws are impossible to implement and would do nothing to stop these killings occurring.

andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to dissonance: Apologies you're right. Tyrant was the wrong word and I should have used dictator.

Yes, small arms. Afghanistan has proven time and time again that an AK, hand grenade and some home explosive will resist any invader if you're determined and you feel you have nothing to lose. I absolutely despise ballistics - they ruined the art of war and they ruined natural law. The only possible way to defend from one is to have one.
Sir Chasm - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> I absolutely despise ballistics - they ruined the art of war and they ruined natural law. The only possible way to defend from one is to have one.

Are you drunk? Stones and spears are ballistic weapons, what was the "art of war" like prior to sticks and stones?

999thAndy on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

Every few years, or months there is a mass shooting in the states. Columbine, the Batman movie theatre and now Sandy Hook.

Every time its the work of a nutter, who, having his right bear arms uninfringed uses them to kill lots of innocent people indiscriminately.

And every time the NRA rub their hands together and say nothing can be done. Which is clearly bollox.

andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to dissonance: That's not to say a ban on automatic assault rifles wouldn't be very welcome, as they're only a useful weapon when fighting equal opposing forces or massacring people. Single shot large caliber rifles, shotguns and six shot pistols would be more than enough in my eyes, and I think that would certainly cut down the scale of these incidents. But how could you impose such a ban?
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Sir Chasm: Stones, spears, arrows, javelins, trebuchets, sling shots all require a huge amount a skill and are relatively easy to defend against. Nothing can stop a bullet. The art of war (art in the sense of mastering a skill) was reduced to pot luck. I believe 'ballistics' generally refers to guns but I could be wrong.
Dave C on 17 Dec 2012
A little note about Australia:
Between 1980 and 1996 there were 13 mass shootings here finishing up with this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29
...which in turn led to the National Firearms Agreement removing self-loading weapons from circulation. Guess how many mass shootings we've had since 1996....?
mkean - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
But how could you impose such a ban?

Lots of countries have sucessfully banned things in the past, take the UK ban on handguns (which admittedly did sod all to reduce crime with handguns).
Step 1: Decide to ban something
Step 2: Offer an amnesty period (which may include a cash payout for handing stuff in)
Step 3: Ban it.
Step 4: Arrest and prosecute anyone found in possession of the thing you've banned.
Step 5: Either destroy the things of flog them to some impoverished 3rd world dictatorship.
Step 6: Sit back and relax.

andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to 999thAndy: If I owned a gun and the state told me they were going to take it off me, how hard would it be to keep it? And whom amongst the population is likely to? You presume the state has far more power than it does.

It's easy to keep guns out of Britain, not so easy in Switzerland, impossible in the US. It's down to the size and boarders of said nation.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to andreas)
> But how could you impose such a ban?
>
> Lots of countries have sucessfully banned things in the past, take the UK ban on handguns (which admittedly did sod all to reduce crime with handguns).
> Step 1: Decide to ban something
> Step 2: Offer an amnesty period (which may include a cash payout for handing stuff in)
> Step 3: Ban it.
> Step 4: Arrest and prosecute anyone found in possession of the thing you've banned.
> Step 5: Either destroy the things of flog them to some impoverished 3rd world dictatorship.
> Step 6: Sit back and relax.

For real?
needvert on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
> I'm distraught. The pain that those parents are feeling is unimaginable, and I have two kids in the USA. It is time to put a stop to the National Rifle Association....they are a bunch of murderers and terrorists.

NRA are a bunch of murderers and terrorists? Lying - or hypoerbole if one is generous - is not the approach I'd have taken.


I can't say the deaths from guns in the US outrage me more than the continued availability of tobacco. 49000 innocent people killed by the selfish actions of smokers.

When I hear numbers like "In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants"** I think hey those are pretty good odds! Obesity is the biggest killer of Americans, that overshadows gun deaths by orders of magnitudes but I don't see anywhere near as much conviction against fast food.

Then I look at how many people have died in the middle east as a consequence of recent actions by the west...And it makes it even more harder for me to get worked up about this.

It is a tragedy when a person dies, to me it isn't more or less of a tragedy if it's due to some mentally ill person with a gun, a parent who feeds their kids shit, a cruise missile, or whatever other thing we could have prevented.


I guess what I'm saying is, statements from emotionally charged individuals such as yourself don't sway me in your direction at all. If anything, I'm even more interested in hearing the NRAs perspective.



"On a per-day basis, the highest intensity of civilian killings over a sustained period occurred during the first three "Shock and Awe" weeks of the 2003 invasion, when civilian deaths averaged 317 per day and totalled over 6,640 by April 9th, nearly all attributable to US-led coalition-forces"***

"Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1

443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure"*


* http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
*** http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/03/iraq-body-count-report-data
dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> Nothing can stop a bullet. The art of war (art in the sense of mastering a skill) was reduced to pot luck.

oh? So are you saying that if i grab a gun and challenge a member of the SAS to a gunfight it will be pot luck who wins?
Dunno why but i feel slightly less optimistic.
999thAndy on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

So nothing should be tried then? Every week, 85 people get shot (about one every 2 hours), and every few years we'll have a mass killing, and that's OK?



andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to dissonance: I'm saying you'd have a chance. If you grabbed a sword and challenged a 15th century knight, or you grabbed a bow and challenged a 15th century archer I guarantee you would die.
mkean - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
If I owned a gun and the state told me they were going to take it off me, how hard would it be to keep it? And whom amongst the population is likely to? You presume the state has far more power than it does.

Altering behaviour through legislation is never easy but you just need to apply the right quantity of pressure:

I (The State) want you to stop owning ARs, you want to continue owning ARs. I ban ARs and give you an initial grace period where I will incentivise you to stop (normally cash). After the grace period I impose sanctions on you (normally jail time) if you are caught owning ARs.

In the glorious spirit of capitalism I balance the risk/returns ratio to make it unfavourable for you to continue to own ARs.

Your risk of getting caught * the severity of the sanctions > the rewards of continuing to own ARs

What if I offered you $500 for every assault rifle you owned if you hand them in now. Then I make the penalty severe say 2 years for possession and 10 for aggravated possession/ possession with intent and this will reduce the number of people who think it is a worth while risk. Once the number of ARs in circulation drops the reason for owning them (protection from other people with ARs) drops so the rate of decline in AR ownership drops further.

This sort of system has worked in every other country in the world including bigger countries with leakier borders. The USA is fairly unusual position in that most of the gun crime is committed with legally owned guns, whereas most other countries see the vast majority of their crime committed with illegally owned guns. Unlike in the UK banning ARs in the US would actually reduce the number of firearm related deaths.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to 999thAndy: Yes, an awful lot of things should be tried. But they should be sensible, reasonable and stand a chance of success.

I stick by my earlier statement that poverty, inequality and social division cause these crimes.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to andreas)
> If I owned a gun and the state told me they were going to take it off me, how hard would it be to keep it? And whom amongst the population is likely to? You presume the state has far more power than it does.
>
> Altering behaviour through legislation is never easy but you just need to apply the right quantity of pressure:
>
> I (The State) want you to stop owning ARs, you want to continue owning ARs. I ban ARs and give you an initial grace period where I will incentivise you to stop (normally cash). After the grace period I impose sanctions on you (normally jail time) if you are caught owning ARs.
>
> In the glorious spirit of capitalism I balance the risk/returns ratio to make it unfavourable for you to continue to own ARs.
>
> Your risk of getting caught * the severity of the sanctions > the rewards of continuing to own ARs
>
> What if I offered you $500 for every assault rifle you owned if you hand them in now. Then I make the penalty severe say 2 years for possession and 10 for aggravated possession/ possession with intent and this will reduce the number of people who think it is a worth while risk. Once the number of ARs in circulation drops the reason for owning them (protection from other people with ARs) drops so the rate of decline in AR ownership drops further.
>
> This sort of system has worked in every other country in the world including bigger countries with leakier borders. The USA is fairly unusual position in that most of the gun crime is committed with legally owned guns, whereas most other countries see the vast majority of their crime committed with illegally owned guns. Unlike in the UK banning ARs in the US would actually reduce the number of firearm related deaths.

So how many countries in the world have anti-gun laws?

IainRUK - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas: It's going to be a hugely complex issue.. I still feel small measures, tighter gun control will help..

Quite simply I don't think guns should be allowed in a house with someone with behavioural issues..

I just cannot see any argument for needing assualt rifles.. no good for hunting and totally excessive for personal protection..

But it's a massive industry.. Obama should certainly use this to make inroads but it has to be bit by bit.. Americans generally don't like an interfering government..
999thAndy on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

The cause of the crime might well be poverty, inequality and social division, the *magnitude* of the crime is due to the ready availability of firearms.
mkean - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
So how many countries in the world have anti-gun laws?

I don't have numbers to hand and I'm sure you are as capable of using Google as I am. As far as I'm aware the large majority of Europe has implemented some form of gun control. The UK has fairly sucessfully banned handguns and large magazined rifles/shotguns.

andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to andreas) It's going to be a hugely complex issue.. I still feel small measures, tighter gun control will help..
>
> Quite simply I don't think guns should be allowed in a house with someone with behavioural issues..

> I just cannot see any argument for needing assualt rifles.. no good for hunting and totally excessive for personal protection..
>
> But it's a massive industry.. Obama should certainly use this to make inroads but it has to be bit by bit.. Americans generally don't like an interfering government..

I agree with you Iain.
Rob Exile Ward on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas: I agree with you as well Iain - anyone who thinks this is easy is kidding themselves, Obama may well consider other changes (strengthning healthcare; sorting the economy etc etc) are more achievable and in th elong run will benefit the US more.

One thing that has occurred to me is that maybe the US could/should make more of the reason behind the 2nd amendment - e.g. yes people can have hand guns for 'self defence', shotguns and rifles for hunting; but of they want to play with assault weapons and the like, they would have to join a militia that would impose some standards, and also provide secure storage. Just a thought.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to mkean: Europe isn't the world, Japan have reduced gun ownership very effectively too. America is a very different beast to Europe and Japan and so are most countries. It has nothing like the national history or any real sense of itself. It's far more divided than Europe or Japan, no Aristocracy, no Lords. It is and I guess always will be a free for all.

Guns are legal in the USA, but so is pot.
SAF - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to needvert:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)
> [...]

>
> I can't say the deaths from guns in the US outrage me more than the continued availability of tobacco. 49000 innocent people killed by the selfish actions of smokers.

I the UK this was identified as a problem resulting in unnecessary suffering to innocent people...

so legislation was brought in... a smoking ban in public places.

At the time the smoking ban was being introduced it was very unpopular with a lot of smokers, but it went ahead anyhow, several years later there is still a minority of people against the ban, but now many smokers out there will openly say that it should have happened sooner.

mkean - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
I should add I'm not anti-gun as such I was a keen target shooter for years and have also done my fair share of shooting for pest control. I am also not saying that passing this legislation would be easy but that the legislation itself is simple.

My position is quite simply that the idea that you need to own PDWs, ARs or LMGs is utterly bonkers and I'm not convinced about large magazined handguns either as they don't serve a purpose other than killing lots of people.
Monk - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Ciro:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> [...]
>
> I'd hardly say a baseball bat was a better weapon than a knife,

A baseball bat would get you nicked though (unless you are on a baseball team). Pretty much anything counts as an offensive weapon in the UK. Basically, in the eyes of the law in the UK what you did is actually more illegal than a US citizen brandishing a legal gun towards a burglar, or even shooting him.
ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to mkean: Not in the USA..

As said it'll be a complex legal argument.. the right to have a gun in enshrined in law..
needvert on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to mkean:
> My position is quite simply that the idea that you need to own PDWs, ARs or LMGs is utterly bonkers and I'm not convinced about large magazined handguns either as they don't serve a purpose other than killing lots of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

Not saying I agree or disagree.
mkean - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to IainRUK:
As said it'll be a complex legal argument.. the right to have a gun in enshrined in law..

They already have some state level gun control so why can't this be widened? For instance to the best of my knowledge it would be illegal to own a 15" naval gun or an unmodified M240 in quite a few states. I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to carry a loaded, unmodified AK47 in public in most states. So the US has already got exemptions to the Second ammendment. Some states have a concealed carry permit system which could be seen as an infringement of your Second ammendment rights and I'm pretty sure that convicted felons have their second ammendment rights curtailed at least while they are under supervision.

It shouldn't be difficult, but I don't doubt that it would be ;-)

IainRUK - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to mkean: yeah true, I know there are state level differences and maybe that will be the way to go..
GrahamD - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to mkean: The thing is, the second amendment is just that - its an amendment and there is no reason at all why there can't be further amendments. There is no reason why it should be so revered - unless you still think you live in the wild west.
Ridge - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to andreas)
> I should add I'm not anti-gun as such I was a keen target shooter for years and have also done my fair share of shooting for pest control. I am also not saying that passing this legislation would be easy but that the legislation itself is simple.
>
> My position is quite simply that the idea that you need to own PDWs, ARs or LMGs is utterly bonkers and I'm not convinced about large magazined handguns either as they don't serve a purpose other than killing lots of people.

+1

I don't see an issue as such with the American hunting culture as such. Hunting rifles and shotguns don't seem to be used much by the criminal fraternity. Handguns are a bit more problematic. They're probably the criminal weapon of choice. Even if you buy into the 'home defence' argument, a shotgun is far more effective.
But the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to purchase enough ammunition to take on the Red Army, together with the weapons to do it, then leave them discarded around the house, is frankly deranged.
IainRUK - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to GrahamD: But to amend an amendment is a big thing..
In reply to andreas:

> Guns are legal in the USA, but so is pot.

No it's not. Cannabis is legal for medical use in a few states and was just legalized for recreational use in Washington and Colorado, but the federal government have stated the case that it is still illegal federally. I presume this means that if local and state police will no longer arrest you in, say, Portland - the FBI still can. It will probably end up in the supreme court to decide whether state or federal law is legal.
GrahamD - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to IainRUK:

Apparently so.
In reply to Ridge: I think actually that the NRA are probably right in their argument "assault weapons" is a misleading (or at least not very useful) term. The legislative basis for the assault weapons ban was actually mainly cosmetic issues, pistol grips, folding stocks and the like. Machine guns are not legal anywhere in the US I believe, so the Bushmasters look like the military AR15 but there is no fully auto setting for them. And there are plenty of hunting rifles with magazines - not like you are loading every round separately. The high capacity clip ban for hand guns was also rather arbitrary - I think the legal limit was 10 rounds to a clip, but of course you can have as many clips as you want, and having watched too many movies I've always thought that watching the empty clip jump out (in slo-mo of course) and slamming in the next one would be half the fun of blasting away with a glock or similar?
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to mkean: The legislation is very far from simple and it's pointless if you can't enforce it (like drug laws but I don't want to get into that).

If I was fighting as part of a militia the last weapon I'd pick up is an assault rifle, machine gun or a sub-machine gun. AK yes, very versatile weapon but I'd except that if I had to resort to holding the trigger down I was probably already dead.

So no, I can't see any justification for automatic weapons of any kind other than chambered pistols.
dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to GrahamD:

> There is no reason why it should be so revered - unless you still think you live in the wild west.

the "wild west" actually had fairly stringent gun control within the limits they had available. Many towns had a requirement to hand weapons over to the local sheriff when entering.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to TobyA:


A fully automatic weapon isn't much better than a semi. We took on the Nazi's with 5 round bolt action rifles while they were using automatic weapons, and we didn't need to upgrade. Automatic and semi automatic weapons are very useful for keeping the enemy suppressed, clearing trenches or slaughtering unarmed people.

and having watched too many movies I've always thought that watching the empty clip jump out (in slo-mo of course) and slamming in the next one would be half the fun of blasting away with a glock or similar?

It is. What they don't tell you in the movies though is it's nigh on impossible to hit anything more than 30 yards away...
dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

> If I was fighting as part of a militia the last weapon I'd pick up is an assault rifle, machine gun or a sub-machine gun.

i am curious as to why? I aint an expert (or even close) in that area but working on the grounds that modern armies like to equip their basic infantry with a mix of assault rifles and light machine guns i am curious as to why you think they are wrong?

> AK yes, very versatile weapon

that is an assault rifle.
Orgsm on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to andreas)
>
> So nothing should be tried then? Every week, 85 people get shot (about one every 2 hours), and every few years we'll have a mass killing, and that's OK?

About 780 people die in vehicle crashes every week in the USA.

They seem to think that is ok also.

mkean - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to dissonance:
The majority of assault rifles are not very accurate, even less so when firing rapidly. The Russian make AK47s had a reputation for reasonable accuracy when firing controlled single shots, probably in part due to the weight as the shorter barrelled crew versions were a bit more wayward :-)
999thAndy on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to A Game of Chance:
> [...]
>
> About 780 people die in vehicle crashes every week in the USA.


Of the 780 deaths, how many are caused by accident, as opposed to deliberate acts?
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to dissonance: Assault rifles generally have an automatic and semi setting. I could hit a man sized target at 200 yards from standing one out of two shots with an iron sight. I couldn't hit a barn door at 100 yards on auto. Two equal opposing forces will try to suppress the other with fire, rounds flying all over the place make people duck and take cover, making them very easy to take out with explosives. A common tactic in the second world war, apparently, was to empty a full belt at the enemy, stand up and run as fast as you could from your machine gun before German artillery obliterated you. Assault rifles are the best 'all round' weapons.

If I was warring as part of a militia I'd be outnumbered and outgunned. My number one priority would be not to give away my position. So long range - accurate rifles would be my choice, one shot then move - automatic weapons would just encourage me to pray and spray, and god seems to favour those with air support. Alternatively very short range concealed weapons (assassinations). An AK is a good long range rifle with a scope and long barrel fitted, being the same caliber as anti-personnel sniper rifles. I've never fired one but I've been told it's quite easy to tap off single shots.

A militia could therefore be effective with hunting rifles, shotguns and chambered pistols (chambered pistols being semi auto but six shot and slow loading).
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to mkean: Sorry missed that. Spot on.
In reply to andreas:
> (In reply to dissonance) Assault rifles generally have an automatic and semi setting.

But not what are called "assault weapons" in the US debate.
Ridge - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Ridge) Machine guns are not legal anywhere in the US I believe, so the Bushmasters look like the military AR15 but there is no fully auto setting for them

It's not rocket science to convert a Bushmaster to full auto, less easy with a dedicated hunting weapon.

And there are plenty of hunting rifles with magazines - not like you are loading every round separately.

True, but if you need to give Bambi 30 rounds rapid you shouldn't really be out hunting anything. Smaller magazines drastically reduce the rate of fire. If the killer in this case had to do five magazine changes per 30 rounds it might have slowed him somwhat. Also having a minimum legal weapon length, as with shotguns, would make things a lot more difficult for the gunman. I suppose it's pretty much academic, as the US is awash with the things.
GridNorth - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: Can't believe that a thread about the horrors of what happened in America and it's liberal gun laws has turned into a discussion about the merits of various firearms. Come on guys show some taste. You could at least start another thread.
999thAndy on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> [...] If I was warring as part of a militia I'd be [...]


Just exactly *how* likely do you think it is that you will ever have to 'war as part of a militia'?

This thread has me very, very depressed.
SAF - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to GridNorth:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH) Can't believe that a thread about the horrors of what happened in America and it's liberal gun laws has turned into a discussion about the merits of various firearms. Come on guys show some taste. You could at least start another thread.

Exactly what I was thinking... but in itself it probably sums up the problem with the mentality of a most of the Gun owning Americans...a reminder of why not to go there on holiday or for any other reason!!!
Bruce Hooker - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to A Game of Chance)
> [...]
>
>
> Of the 780 deaths, how many are caused by accident, as opposed to deliberate acts?

In London quite a few elsewhere not so many... don't know about in the USA though.

This thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
mkean - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to GridNorth:
Come on guys show some taste.

While it is pretty distasteful (I'd argue the thread as a whole was pretty poor taste) it is rather relevant. You can't really discuss gun control without discussing guns.
dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> An AK is a good long range rifle with a scope and long barrel fitted, being the same caliber as anti-personnel sniper rifles.

Many muskets were .5 calibre but good luck sniping with them.
You might want to see the round a SVD takes, for example, compared to an AK-47. They aint the same despite both being 7.62.

anyway this is getting a walter mitty and missing the point of whether gun control is possible.

IainRUK - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to SAF: A nice open minded view of the world..

Just stay in western europe...

I don't see Grid North's view at all.. this is the sort of debates which will have to go on... tbh most people on this thread seem to have more of an idea of the issues in the US than you do..

Its not that dangerous, that's what so shocking about this attack, as it was in a liberal, NE well of neighbourhood.

But lots of info on this thread will just help explain how hard the issue will be to resolve.. for political, cultural and political reasons.
Ridge - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to GridNorth)
> Come on guys show some taste.
>
> While it is pretty distasteful (I'd argue the thread as a whole was pretty poor taste) it is rather relevant. You can't really discuss gun control without discussing guns.

Whilst that's true, and I'm guilty of that, there's a big difference between suggesting workable legislation and certain posters survivalist fantasies.
dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:

> True, but if you need to give Bambi 30 rounds rapid you shouldn't really be out hunting anything. Smaller magazines drastically reduce the rate of fire.

another option, which has been used elsewhere, is to go for bolt action as well.
All of which slows down the usage rate and, like you say, if they need 30 rounds rapid when hunting they probably could do with sticking with paper targets for a bit.
That or push for RPGs to be made legal.

ads.ukclimbing.com
GridNorth - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to IainRUK: We shall have to agree to disagree and I won't be saying any more on this particular thread.

I would be happy however if people are so inclined to discuss guns and their merits and features but on a new post.
IainRUK - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to GridNorth: There are a few posts which have sailed close to the bone I know.. I've just ignored them.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Ridge: It's not survivalist fantasies at all and it's perfectly relevant to the thread.
999thAndy on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to mkean:
> [...] You can't really discuss gun control without discussing guns.

The numerous threads which pop up regarding speed cameras, don't usually end up comparing Maseratis with Ferraris. Some of the comments on here read like they were written by Shandy McNab.

andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to GridNorth: Look, I know it's in bad taste in light of what's happened which is why I let the thread go on a while before arguing my view. I want these things to stop as much as anyone but I won't pretend to get anymore upset about these individual people than I do about all the people dying in hospitals all over my town.

UKC always turns into this sort of debate once the trying to sound more outraged than the previous poster hysteria has passed. I'd suggest rather than trying to guilt trip people you stop reading them. The mods can pull or stop the thread when they feel it's out of line.
Ciro - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to Ciro)
> [...]
>
> A baseball bat would get you nicked though (unless you are on a baseball team). Pretty much anything counts as an offensive weapon in the UK. Basically, in the eyes of the law in the UK what you did is actually more illegal than a US citizen brandishing a legal gun towards a burglar, or even shooting him.

Eh? Fairly sure it's legal for me to possess said offensive weapon, and have it in my hand whilst asking an intruder to about turn and exit the flat. Had I used it as a weapon, my actions would have been subject to a judgement of whether it was "reasonable force" - i.e. if he came at me with a knife it would have most likely been legal to take a swing, but not to chase him out of the flat and then bludgeon him to death with it.

But either way, I'm not sure what your point is... the anecdote was to illustrate attitudes towards dealing with an intruder, not the legality of various weapons in the two jurisdictions.
mkean - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to 999thAndy:
The numerous threads which pop up regarding speed cameras, don't usually end up comparing Maseratis with Ferraris.

Which is mainly because all cars are capable of vastly exceding the speed limit in the UK, thus making the variety of car irrelevant for discussions of speeding. I don't think anyone is seriously talking about banning the sale of cars capable of exceeding 70? However the distinction between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle is quite important when discussing gun control.
climbercool - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
i cant find how to post a link, but if you type "Slate australia and gun" into google you will find a great article which hopefully can show america that stricter gun control can prevent tragedies like this occurring again.
Slate is an amazing website by the way!
Monk - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Ciro:
> (In reply to Monk)
> [...]
>
> Eh? Fairly sure it's legal for me to possess said offensive weapon, and have it in my hand whilst asking an intruder to about turn and exit the flat. Had I used it as a weapon, my actions would have been subject to a judgement of whether it was "reasonable force" - i.e. if he came at me with a knife it would have most likely been legal to take a swing, but not to chase him out of the flat and then bludgeon him to death with it.
>

I know it sounds stupid, but having a baseball bat in your possession in an unlikely place (car, bedroom etc) would count as being in possession of an offensive weapon unless you can provide a very good reason why you are carrying it/keeping it in that place (i.e. on the way to baseball training). I guess that I was pointing out that you owning a baseball bat and using it in that way is very similar to the argument that people in the US have for owning a gun. You and Ridge are basically saying the same thing - you like to have a weapon handy that is sufficient to deter any violence against you and your family.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to dissonance: Sorry, are we having an argument? I see your point about a musket having a large caliber round but I'm talking about rifles.

I think the point is how to reduce or eliminate school shootings and the type of armaments necessary to uphold the second amendment. But you're right, there is no way to control guns in the USA.
MJ - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to climbercool:

i cant find how to post a link, but if you type "Slate australia and gun" into google you will find a great article which hopefully can show america that stricter gun control can prevent tragedies like this occurring again.

Think this is the one: -

http://tinyurl.com/a2mtgvl

(To the OP, the Website address was too long and UKC blocked it. I shortened it using: http://tinyurl.com/ )
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to 999thAndy: It was a hypothetical answer to a question I was asked. It was the best answer I could give in the language I am familiar with on account of having warred against a militia. You're right, I'm much more Shandy Macnab than Andy Macnab, or a REMF in our language. But I was also an outstandingly accurate rifleman and got to play with many rifles because of this.
dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> (In reply to dissonance) Sorry, are we having an argument? I see your point about a musket having a large caliber round but I'm talking about rifles.

no you are failing to understand the point. An AK-47 round is not the one used for sniper rifles, even Russian variants.

> I think the point is how to reduce or eliminate school shootings and the type of armaments necessary to uphold the second amendment. But you're right, there is no way to control guns in the USA.

actually as the Australia example shows there possibly is. While I doubt any really sensible laws could be enacted quickly or cheaply some additional restrictions could help limit the potential death rates.
After all the US already passed laws restricting selective fire weapons so it would be a case of extending it further, eg restricting availability of high capacity semi automatics.
Sadly though i suspect though nothing will happen and these sort of massacres will keep occuring.
off-duty - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to Ciro)
> [...]
>
> I know it sounds stupid, but having a baseball bat in your possession in an unlikely place (car, bedroom etc) would count as being in possession of an offensive weapon unless you can provide a very good reason why you are carrying it/keeping it in that place (i.e. on the way to baseball training). I guess that I was pointing out that you owning a baseball bat and using it in that way is very similar to the argument that people in the US have for owning a gun. You and Ridge are basically saying the same thing - you like to have a weapon handy that is sufficient to deter any violence against you and your family.

just a side note. The offence of possession of an offensive weapon requires that you have it in a public place .
I see where you are coming from with your argument but it would be quite legal to have a baseball bat in your bedroom for your own defence.
How and why you used it would determine whether or not it was self defence or not.
Ciro - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to Ciro)

> You and Ridge are basically saying the same thing - you like to have a weapon handy that is sufficient to deter any violence against you and your family.

You've made rather a long leap of logic there, faced with an intruder I picked up the first thing that came to hand, which happened to be a baseball bat because in my rundown student pad we used to play tape ball cricket with it in the hallway. That's rather different to keeping a weapon.
In reply to Ridge: Totally agree. Slate had a piece making exactly the point. Speed = massacres. There were the reports of the guy going crazy in China the same day and attacking kindergarden age kids, 20 injured but no deaths. I'm no hero but if I was a school teacher I would definitely try and stop a knife attacker even if it was just throwing chairs at him or something! It sounds like all the teachers in Newtown tried their best to save their kids but just got shot down.

I'm always reminded of Lisa Potts at this point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Potts She's a total hero and totally deserved her George Medal, but I still suspect the teachers at Dumblane and last week in Newtown were no less brave, they just couldn't take on a gunman in the same way.
pneame on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
Thoughtful and sad post here:
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
which points out that, whatever people think, it's not just the oodles and oodles of guns in private hands
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to pneame: A very poignant piece. The discussion of inequality is far more relevant to this case than that of legislative gun control. It is also much more complicated to get round. Poor mentally ill people are completely ignored without loved ones forcing them into care (quite literally). Most of the tramps I speak to have obvious mental health issues.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to dissonance: It matters not mate in the context but I'll stop. If you think you know more about guns than me so be it.

These sort of massacres will keep occurring if people always look for the easiest solution, the easiest solution being barely effective in it's own right.

My line is I accept that guns are there to stay, it can't be prevented. So why not try to determine the causes of these massacres and address that rather than meaningless debates about tools.
stroppygob - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to needvert:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)

>
> I can't say the deaths from guns in the US outrage me more than the continued availability of tobacco. 49000 innocent people killed by the selfish actions of smokers.
>


That has to rank as one of the most bizarrely dumb comparisons ever posted here, surely?

Come back and let us know when a smoker murders a class of kindergarten kids armed with his lethal fags.
dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> (In reply to dissonance) It matters not mate in the context but I'll stop. If you think you know more about guns than me so be it.

I suspect you get more excited about them than me.

> These sort of massacres will keep occurring if people always look for the easiest solution, the easiest solution being barely effective in it's own right.

who is saying just one solution? There are plenty of things which need doing but one of the more obvious ones is that when someone does lose it for whatever reason make sure their access to firearms is reduced. They may still go on the rampage with a knife etc but the odds are high they will hurt less people

> My line is I accept that guns are there to stay, it can't be prevented.

There are plenty of countries which show otherwise. Access to guns can be greatly reduced and those which are available arent as effective.

> So why not try to determine the causes of these massacres and address that rather than meaningless debates about tools.

because the tools make the difference. By making sure they only have less effective weapons the potential damage is decreased.
Take the two examples in the last few days. The one in China with a knife vs the USA example. Guess which one had the more deaths?
dissonance - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to stroppygob:

> Come back and let us know when a smoker murders a class of kindergarten kids armed with his lethal fags.

especially since passive smoking is being reduced by various bans and restrictions on smoking in public areas anyway.
People choosing to smoke, so long as they get the full info on the dangers that's their choice.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to andreas)
> [...]
>
> I suspect you get more excited about them than me.
>

Oh right, so all that getting me to explain about guns and stuff was just leading questions to which you knew the answer? Very clever.

>
> who is saying just one solution? There are plenty of things which need doing but one of the more obvious ones is that when someone does lose it for whatever reason make sure their access to firearms is reduced. They may still go on the rampage with a knife etc but the odds are high they will hurt less people
>

So how do you do that?

>
> There are plenty of countries which show otherwise. Access to guns can be greatly reduced and those which are available arent as effective.
>

The USA is an unique country. There are countries with as high gun ownership rates as the USA yet very low levels of gun crime. Each case is different.

>
> because the tools make the difference. By making sure they only have less effective weapons the potential damage is decreased.
> Take the two examples in the last few days. The one in China with a knife vs the USA example. Guess which one had the more deaths?

The one with in USA. How do you get rid of all the guns in the USA?
Bruce Hooker - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

> There are countries with as high gun ownership rates as the USA yet very low levels of gun crime. Each case is different.

Such as? For Switzerland the figures I linked above disproves what someone else posted - 9 per 100000 gun deaths in the USA, one of the highest in the world, the highest of similarly developed countries, and 6 for Switzerland, the second highest in Europe after Montenegro. Britain is at 0.22 as are other countries with strict gun laws so there seems no doubt that on average more guns equals more gun deaths.

It's pretty trivial to say so in fact, killing with a gun is so much easier, compared to clubbing or stabbing someone to death, as several have already posted. Obviously if you really want to hit the big time, bombs, rockets and artillery make killing even easier, but this is rarely an individual decision, it's reserved for governments. Once again the USA must be near the top of the table of recent years... maybe there is a link, a government that openly uses extrajudicial murder and regime change by military force doesn't exactly create a state of mind at home which enables them to take the moral high-ground concerning decrying violence.

The USA was built on blood, the last Indian massacres were only last century, it would need a much stronger political leadership than is likely to come to power over there to take measure that will change this.

All IMO, obviously.
needvert on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to stroppygob:
> That has to rank as one of the most bizarrely dumb comparisons ever posted here, surely?

Why's that?

> Come back and let us know when a smoker murders a class of kindergarten kids armed with his lethal fags.

As you know that will never happens, but what of all the kindergarten kids who will develop cancers from their apathetic smoking parents? It's far more likely a person at random in the US will be killed by second hand smoke than by a gun welding murderer.

I'm trying to insert a large scale perspective into the conversation, and hopefully make people see the bigger picture.

We know life is just one long risky exercise. We each have our own standard for what's an acceptable risk.

Personally the risk of second hand smoke hadn't overly concerned me, as it turns out it kills 5x more people than gun totting murderers. In order to be consistent I can't honestly say this 3.0/100000 gun homocide rate per year terrifies me as much as other people.


You may notice I'm not really focusing on this latest shooting spree incident, and that's because when governing a large number of people we have to look at that big picture. This is a relatively tiny incident, which doesn't won't make a single pixel difference in the graph of "things that killed Americans this year".


This is the time old challenge of weighing up freedom with safety. It seems America has opted for a different balance to other countries. I don't believe it right or wrong, it has it's own set of issues and benefits.
needvert on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> especially since passive smoking is being reduced by various bans and restrictions on smoking in public areas anyway.

Do we know how many of these passive smoking deaths are due to smoking in public vs private areas? My greatest exposure was certainly due to a parent smoking.

> People choosing to smoke, so long as they get the full info on the dangers that's their choice.

The unborn don't choose for their mothers to smoke. Children don't choose for their parents smoke.

[It would be interesting if the ban on public smoking moved more smoking into the home, typically much smaller volume venues, and consequently increased the average childs exposure to smoke.]


I'd outlaw smokes long before I outlawed guns. 440000 dead Americans a year, I find that number hard to fathom.

....But, like [all of?] the west, we seem to consider the freedom to smoke a liberty/safety benefit we are happy to have. If we are happy with that tradeoff, having guns too doesn't seem so bad to me.


I'm guessing guns are so evil because they are not at all insidious in their murder of people.
andreas on 17 Dec 2012 - host86-149-182-100.range86-149.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Bruce Hooker: The USA uses terrorism to keep the world under its heel. It creates spectacles on it's own soil and it uses highly sophisticated military weaponry to terrorise other countries, it goes to war with countries illegally. The nation is kept in a constant state of fear through the media. The entire country is armed to the teeth and hopelessly obsessed with it's own sense of righteousness. Because the USA functions as a democracy they can't undo the decisions of their forefathers regardless of how short sighted they were. The USA electoral system is hopelessly corrupt, there is a strong case that Bush cheated in his first election. USA's terrorism is a product of its democracy and the UK is its chief ally.

The Chinese defend their borders. Like all countries they have terrible, bloody periods of internal conflict from which they emerge as a united nation and empire. They control the world through trade. They invest Chinese money in third world countries on infrastructure creating jobs and wealth. The have human rights problems that the governing central body are trying to address. It is called the People's Republic of China and it is ruled by the Communist Party of China.
stroppygob - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to needvert:
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> As you know that will never happens, but what of all the kindergarten kids who will develop cancers from their apathetic smoking parents? It's far more likely a person at random in the US will be killed by second hand smoke than by a gun welding murderer.

Really? Come back when you have facts to hand.

> Personally the risk of second hand smoke hadn't overly concerned me, as it turns out it kills 5x more people than gun totting murderers. In order to be consistent I can't honestly say this 3.0/100000 gun homocide rate per year terrifies me as much as other people.

Really? Where did you get these "facts" from?

> You may notice I'm not really focusing on this latest shooting spree incident, and that's because when governing a large number of people we have to look at that big picture.

Unfortunatly, the shooting spree is what we are discussing here, why not ride your hobby horse elsewhere?



needvert on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to needvert)
> [...]
>
> Really? Come back when you have facts to hand.
>
> [...]
>
> Really? Where did you get these "facts" from?
>
> [...]

My initial post contained references, I didn't feel the need to repeat them. Though, it seems I was mistaken.

I said:
It's far more likely a person at random in the US will be killed by second hand smoke than by a gun welding murderer.

And:
Personally the risk of second hand smoke hadn't overly concerned me, as it turns out it kills 5x more people than gun totting murderers. In order to be consistent I can't honestly say this 3.0/100000 gun homocide rate per year terrifies me as much as other people.

This was based on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
And
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

CDC states there are 49.4k [2008] passive smoking deaths a year

Looking at the homicide with firearm stats, I went with the UN numbers:
In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants

With a population of around 307e6 in 2009, that yields about 9.2k.

49.4/9.2 is 5.4x.

If we go by the two years older CDC 2007 12.6k number, we get:

49.4/12.6 is 3.9x

I didn't think too much into it at the time, and am only noticing the discrepancy now.


At any rate, I stand by my position that passive smoking is far more likely to kill an american at random than a gun wielding murderer*.

* In case there's any ambiguity, I've used the terms gun wielding murderer and gun totting murderers to refer to people engaging in firearm homicide.

> Unfortunatly, the shooting spree is what we are discussing here, why not ride your hobby horse elsewhere?

Well, I'd say a lot of this thread is about how the US should change to prevent incidents such as this shooting spree. Certainly Mick's opening words are in this vein.
neilh - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
I would prefer to live in the usa than china if given the choice. I suspect that most people on this forum/in the world would. China ..creating jobs and wealth in third world....mmm...at what price..do they really use local labour?. Internet censorship...China...mmm. Not sure your comments are really valid.

Are you being sarcastic?
IainRUK - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to neilh: The USA is so varied I can't see how people can dismiss it.. there are parts which are so liberal, so open and friendly..

I felt so at home in the NW, Portland, but really like the New England area..

Generally I like the NE..

The south isn't my cup of tea, but TX takes time to get to know.

TBH I rarely feel scared.

I'd move to the US in a shot.. its a very positive place.
jkarran - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:

> The USA uses terrorism to keep the world under its heel. It creates spectacles on it's own soil...

Care to elaborate on that second point for me?

jk
Sir Chasm - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to jkarran: Perhaps conspiracy nuts who think the twin towers were demolished by thermite/lasers/lizards should have their own thread.
Gael Force - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas: I think you have mixed up the USA and Russia in your post.
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to neilh:

I don't know how China got into this but if you insist, I'd just point out that the USA is one of the richest countries in the world, per capita, whereas China is still one of the poorer ones, per capita, but it has an awful lot of capita! So questions like which country would you prefer to live in are somewhat irrelevant.

China is pulling out of two centuries of defeat, domination and chaos, in a few decades I think, and hope, they will have caught up and regained their historical place in the world.... but is this anything to do with the subject of this thread?
neilh - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Nor do I see earlier post.
bootsie - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: No amount of gun control will save the American
people from psyco's any more than we in Britain were able to prevent the Dunblane and Hungerford tragedies. Thomas Jefferson was right to insert the 2nd amendment( the right of the people to bear arms), not so they could kill
each other but as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. The time is fast approaching when the American people will have reason to thank Thomas
Jefferson. One has only to see the laws passed recently by congress to realise that the "Land of the Free" is anything but.
Rob Exile Ward on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to bootsie: No laws will stop deranged people causing death and mayhem. However, partly at least as a result of the gun control laws that were passed after Dunblane, the law can work to reduce fatalaties.

Which it has done.

It's not complicated, there are hundreds of years of statistical data - because weapon availability and violent deaths are both subjects of great interest to governments - and the incidence of violent deaths is directly correlated with availability of weapons. It's practically a frigging straight line, over hundreds of years and different cultures.

'The time is fast approaching when the American people will have reason to thank Thomas' I'm fascinated by this. Pray tell more.
bootsie - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas: Full marks to andreas, anybody who thinks the USA is a
democracy is sadly deluded. One has only to see the Laws passed by Congress
in the last few years, under the guise of the "War on Terror" to realise that
its anything but. If you dont believe me, DO SOME RESEARCH.
bootsie - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to andreas:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) The USA uses terrorism to keep the world under its heel. It creates spectacles on it's own soil and it uses highly sophisticated military weaponry to terrorise other countries, it goes to war with countries illegally. The nation is kept in a constant state of fear through the media. The entire country is armed to the teeth and hopelessly obsessed with it's own sense of righteousness. Because the USA functions as a democracy they can't undo the decisions of their forefathers regardless of how short sighted they were. The USA electoral system is hopelessly corrupt, there is a strong case that Bush cheated in his first election. USA's terrorism is a product of its democracy and the UK is its chief ally.
>
> The Chinese defend their borders. Like all countries they have terrible, bloody periods of internal conflict from which they emerge as a united nation and empire. They control the world through trade. They invest Chinese money in third world countries on infrastructure creating jobs and wealth. The have human rights problems that the governing central body are trying to address. It is called the People's Republic of China and it is ruled by the Communist Party of China.

Full marks to andreas, anybody who thinks the USA is a
democracy is sadly deluded. One has only to see the Laws passed by Congress
in the last few years, under the guise of the "War on Terror" to realise that
its anything but. If you dont believe me, DO SOME RESEARCH.
In reply to bootsie: Which laws in particular?
ice.solo - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to TobyA:

jesus toby, it doesnt work that way, dont expect answers when rhetoric is enough. you have to do the research yourself. wheres the fun in a cliched rant if youre expected to provide actual information too??

even better, dont question it, uninformed lefty conspiracies work better that way. surely your phd in political science taught you that...
ice.solo - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to bootsie:

and anyone who thinks china is a united, altruistic nation happily supporting undeveloped democracies with stable finances is sadly deluded.
one only has to see the corruption, ethnic suppression and dirty money trade in the last few years under the guise of 'booming 2nd largest economy' to realise its anything but. do some research.
Kemics - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to bootsie) Which laws in particular?

If I had to pick one: The 2012 NDAA. Which allows indefinite detention without due process.

Essentially they can lock you up without a trial or the prospect of one. Now, whether or not they choose to use that power or not, they have it. It's undemocratic because they are supposed to be 'a representation of the people' and I dont think a single American wants that. Land of the free...and all that.
whispering nic - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to ice.solo:
> corruption, ethnic suppression and dirty money trade in the last few years under the guise of 'booming 2nd largest economy' to realise its anything but. do some research.

Sounds like all the other major economies then?

ice.solo - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to whispering nic:

pretty much, just on a larger, more opaque, less accountable scale.
stroppygob - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to needvert:
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> I said:
> It's far more likely a person at random in the US will be killed by second hand smoke than by a gun welding murderer.
>
> And:
> Personally the risk of second hand smoke hadn't overly concerned me, as it turns out it kills 5x more people than gun totting murderers. In order to be consistent I can't honestly say this 3.0/100000 gun homocide rate per year terrifies me as much as other people.
>
> This was based on:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
> And
> http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
>
> CDC states there are 49.4k [2008] passive smoking deaths a year

Well unless that report contains answers to questions like these:

1.What exactly is is it that they are measuring that they are calling "second hand smoke"?
2.What concentrations of gases from "second hand smoke" are they measuring?
3.What sort of exposure times are they working with?
4.What methodology did they use to isolate "second hand smoke" as the cause for this increase?

There are a number of others...

But unless the study has good answers to those sorts of questions, then it's junk science and the claims are specious, no matter what the source.


In reply to Kemics: Yeah, I think there are lots you can pick, legalised torture for example, but there are also some pretty dubious laws (often introduced also for "counter-terrorism" reasons) in the UK and various European countries. But we don't generally think that arming ourselves to the teeth in the expectation of government storm troopers is a sensible response to them.

Anyway, back on subject did any one else read: http://t.co/CQ0m0fwg

It's a military style rifle called the "bush master", FFS. What type of people still need further advertising suggesting that it extend their dingdong?
ice.solo - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

a grim scenario was bought up last night whilst discussing this (excuse if its too close to the bone for now):

the guns were his mums. mum owned an assault-grade weapon and 2 hand guns.
during whatever nastiness took place at the house before he went to the school, would his mum - who could well have been armed due to the 'gotta protect ourselves from loonies' idea - have used them on her son in the circumstances?

at what point does an armed do-gooder use their bushmaster? in the house where it starts? when he pushes thru into the school? when he enters the classroom?
without the skill of seeing the future youre not a hero, youve just shot a 20 year old. its not an easy call to make.

if this kid had been blown away by an armed-samaratin outside the school what would the story have been?
what if mum had shot him because she got a gun?
what if school guards confronted him and knew he was armed? he looks like a teenaged kid to me - what would anyone do?

cos if youre going to go about armed with military rifles you need to know this shit - this is the difference in being trained to use such weapons in a compromised scenario, and being an armed wannabe or psycho.

theres too many factors here that cant be arranged sensibly, it goes too far into peoples heads.
regulating hardware is easier than regulating obligations and behaviour. its simply easier to remove as many guns as possible from the equation because its the primary common denominator in EVERY ONE these sorts of crimes
off-duty - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Kemics:
> (In reply to TobyA)
> [...]
>
> If I had to pick one: The 2012 NDAA. Which allows indefinite detention without due process.
>
> Essentially they can lock you up without a trial or the prospect of one. Now, whether or not they choose to use that power or not, they have it. It's undemocratic because they are supposed to be 'a representation of the people' and I dont think a single American wants that. Land of the free...and all that.

"essentially" it is a lot more complex than that. But luckily the deomcratic process in the US has resulted in numerous challenges, amendments, various presidential statements on its terms of use etc etc.
Just like China.... ;-)
USBRIT - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:Just today in this area parents sent their eleven year old son to school with a .22 pistol (they said for protection) ...he at one time held it to a girls head and threatened to kill her .Only in America !
USBRIT - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to USBRIT: Also today (18th Dec) sales of Assault Rifes are at record levels thoughout America...
dissonance - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to ice.solo:

> cos if youre going to go about armed with military rifles you need to know this shit - this is the difference in being trained to use such weapons in a compromised scenario, and being an armed wannabe or psycho.

and your scenarios were a single do gooder. If instead several people are armed what are the chances (assuming that they dont freeze up which a fair proportion of the population would do (quite likely including me)) of them shooting each other instead.
Without extensive training the chances of a person being a liability is high.

ice.solo - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to dissonance:

Even more so. The chaos factor rises fast. no good outcomes.

Itd be great if society could cope with guns in it, but it cant. And its easier to address the guns than the spectrum of humanity.
Good people are still good, gun or no gun.
USBRIT - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to USBRIT: There is but ONE problem in America regarding weapons and that is guns of any type.. If you ban assault rifles and other selected high power weapons, then those inclined will just arrive with a backpack full of .22 seven shot pistols and....They will do anything but give up their guns.These supporters of gun rights most often blaim insanity...>Latest count.100,000 a year get shot...270 a day get shot, 87 a day die from gun shots...Lot of insanity ! Maybe they are right?...However I do not think in this day and age there is a solution to America's "right to bear arms".At best things might slow down a bit,for awhile.
needvert on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to stroppygob:

Feel free to read the report and related papers and publications.

Personally, I'm happy to trust CDC publications for the purposes of arguing on the internet. :)
MikeTS - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

A couple of days ago, when I was comparing Israeli and American gun homicide, availablity, and murder rates I was wondering if school massacres could be considered to be a form of terrorism. After all, they often target innocents like school kids (the terrorist part) and often the perpetrator commits suicide after leaving a message to the world (like suicide bombers do on video).

Seems this has been thought of before. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/what-drives-suicidal-mass-killers.html?hp

The point of this is that if the phenomena are related, then anti-terrorism approaches might be a way to stop school massacres?
MikeTS - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to USBRIT:
.However I do not think in this day and age there is a solution to America's "right to bear arms".

In Australia they had a successful multi-pronged approach to removing guns from the community after a massacre in Tasmania about ten years ago
MikeTS - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH)
>
> school massacres could be considered to be a form of terrorism.


Another similarity is that both groups tend to be in their late teens/early twenties, male, and unmarried/unattached
dissonance - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to MikeTS:

> Another similarity is that both groups tend to be in their late teens/early twenties, male, and unmarried/unattached

that ticks the boxes for a wide range of crimes though.
There was a case in the US recently of anti-terrorism laws being used against some gang members.
MikeTS - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to MikeTS)
>
> [...]
>
> that ticks the boxes for a wide range of crimes though.
>

True. But all in all, a lot of similarities, especially a f**k you attitude, attacking innocents, and suicide
IainRUK - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to MikeTS:

Interesting response in NJ with the buy back programme due to the shooting..

http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2012/12/camden_cash-for-guns_program.html
MikeTS - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to MikeTS)
> buy back programme due to the shooting..


They got 2 Tec 9s and an Uzi. People have them at home as personal weapons? This is insane
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to USBRIT:
> (In reply to USBRIT) Also today (18th Dec) sales of Assault Rifes are at record levels thoughout America...

Normal, Christmas is coming! You surely don't want to deprive those youngsters the pleasure of waking up on Christmas morning with their first little gun in the stocking... such smiles, wouldn't miss it for the world!
IainRUK - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: My mate Scottish got a hand gun off his American father in law for a wedding gift.. just what he always wanted..
graeme jackson - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
The whole thing is appalling and it's bringing the f*ckwits out of the closet. Received this email yesterday (no idea who from)...

"The primary-school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, approximately 45 miles from the Colt Arms Factory, is just another one in the long line of government psyops designed to persuade the public to allow the government to take away their guns, and their means to defend themselves against the government and the banksters that the politicians really serve.

The small children murders are designed to create hysterical emotions in women to get them to demand that guns are banned. If that doesn’t work they will continue with their evil agenda with worse and worse atrocities on younger children, until they get their way and disarm the people, so that they cannot fight back against government tyranny.

Newtown is the U.S.A.’s Dunblane, which was orchestrated in Scotland in 1996 by the British establishment, to whip up hysteria in order to ban all handguns from the U.K. It was a follow-up to the Hungerford Massacre in England in 1987, which was carried out by mind-controlled Michael Ryan, who then shot himself so he could not be questioned, and it was used to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

It’s always the same people behind it – the gun-grabbers who want the people to be defenceless against the gun-grabbers’ employers – the banksters who own all of the politicians. They get their politicians to pass legislation for them, in order to remove the people’s freedoms and means of defending themselves, and enslave them in a draconian police-state, under a mountain of debt, and then exterminate the useless-eaters.

The Dunblane massacre was supposedly carried out by Thomas Hamilton, who was a paedophile and procurer of children, for a high level paedophile ring involving senior members of the Tony Blair Labour-Party shadow-cabinet and others. The massacre served two purposes, it achieved their desired handgun-ban and killed the abused children, so they could not be witnesses against the elite-paedophiles. They then had the findings of the inquiry sealed for 100 years, which is proof of the above.

Like Newtown there were two shooters, Hamilton and a hit-man who shot Hamilton and made it look like Hamilton committed suicide after shooting 16 children, so that he couldn’t be questioned. Hamilton was found in the school gymnasium slumped against a wall and still gurgling, when an off-duty policeman PC Grant McCutcheon entered the gym and saw two semi-automatic pistols, one on either side of Hamilton’s body.

The autopsy revealed that Hamilton was killed with a .38 revolver. These people always slip-up with their crimes. There was no .38 revolver for him to have shot himself with. Thus, there was a second shooter who killed Hamilton.

Similarly, the first reports from Newtown were of two shooters, just like mind-controlled James Holmes in the Denver Batman Cinema massacre, the story then quickly changes to just one.

Columbine was similar, in that a team of shooters in black outfits were seen there and the two accused were on mind-altering prescription-drugs.

Wake up and see the pattern and their modus operandi and don’t fall for it. Never let them take your guns, except from your cold dead hands.

All of these are staged events to whip-up hysterical public support for banning the people from having guns. It works the same in every country – Hungerford in England, Dunblane in Scotland, Port Arthur in Australia and the list in America is endless, because of the Second Amendment and the people having a pro-gun culture. That makes it much more difficult to break the Americans’ love of guns and the Second Amendment, which was put in place to protect the people from the government.

Gun bans work well for tyrants. They worked well for Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao, to name just three.

If you want to stop these massacres, wake-up and get rid of the banksters, their puppet-politicians and all gun-grabbers; arm teachers and ban gun-free zones.

From one who can see the pattern and hopes to enable you to see it too."

FFS!
George Ormerod - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to graeme jackson:

Surely that's a spoof. No one could be that stupid?
graeme jackson - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to George Ormerod:
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> Surely that's a spoof. No one could be that stupid?

I think you'll find that most conspiracy theorists really are that stupid (and offensive to boot).

Sir Chasm - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to George Ormerod: What makes you think that? Bootsie and andreas have both posted in the same vein on this thread.
MikeTS - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to graeme jackson:

And so how do Australia, Britain, Israel have stable democracies with citizens' rights coexisting with gun laws and murder rates a fraction of USA?

It sounds like a spoof but I have American friends who would agree with the sentiments, perhaps not the conspiracy
Ava Adore - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Whether it's a spoof or not, none of us know. And it's insensitive.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Ava Adore: I agree that we don't know whether it's a spoof or not, but on this thread andreas posted that the US created "spectaculars" on its own soil. He can tell us whether that's a spoof or not.
And yes, it's hardly in the best taste.
johnj on 19 Dec 2012 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Ava Adore:

Regardless of the context when you read the OP title what did you expect?
USBRIT - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to USBRIT)
> .However I do not think in this day and age there is a solution to America's "right to bear arms".
>
> In Australia they had a successful multi-pronged approach to removing guns from the community after a massacre in Tasmania about ten years ago

Yes but this is America!!!
In reply to graeme jackson: An old climbing partner - American, nice guy, smart, lived in Europe for a number of years and on everything else really rather left-wing - wrote on facebook the other day that 50 million people died in the 20th century because they were disarmed by tyrannies. He really seemed to think that WWII wouldn't have happened if everyone in Europe had been armed US style. It's a very weird mindset, but shows how deep the propaganda goes.
ChrisBrooke - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: Poe's law applies in this case:

"The core of Poe's law is that a parody of something extreme by nature becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe's law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs being mistaken for a parody of that belief."
Ridge - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to graeme jackson:
Truly frightening.
Michael Ryan - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Things are moving in the best direction.....

Obama calls for US gun control proposals by January

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20782805

and then this press release from the NRA

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads,sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg
neilh - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to TobyA:
I have met plenty of Americans who believe that.One a gun toting guy in Tennessee who had 60 weapons at home.This sort of thinking is normal.

Had a discussion with a Detroit based guy I speak/see to regularly on business this afternoon. So we talk about the gun stats - UK v USA - and he goes well of course USA figures include " black on black" gun crimes and drugs related firearm offences.....Unreal....He then of course trots out the second amendment right.It just shows what has to change.

Meanwhile I see Walmart have decided it may not be a good idea to sell semi automatic rifles and some investments are being pulled out of the gun makers.This is a more telling indication of potential change...thank goodness.
stroppygob - on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to George Ormerod:
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> Surely that's a spoof. No one could be that stupid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q566ys0sqVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuKMtLOKG8k
needvert on 19 Dec 2012
In reply to TobyA:

What makes his view propaganda and yours not?
Offwidth - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: Obama and the NRA said much the same in the last gun tragedy though. Change will likely be slow. I'm impressed with the broad thrust of media comment here in the US at the moment and public views seem to be shifting to a clear majority for change. The sensible stuff in the media is pretty clear that its little to do with the second amendment and much more with looking at specific weapon types and controlling how people can obtain guns and ammunition in different circumstances (ie not if ill etc). The crazy responses (guns in schools will make us safer) are very much visible here too.

On the positive side the sun is shining and the climbing is as good as ever at Red Rocks.
Ava Adore - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to johnj:

Oh I fully expected SOME smart arse to come up with the conspiracy theory and be "clever" and "controversial". That's the way UKC rolls innit... ;-)
johnj on 20 Dec 2012 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Ava Adore:

Hey Ava, thanks for the connection by the way :+) Oh i don't think it so simplistic as that, having an Inquisitiveness for learning I've been reading about all that stuff for as long as i care to remember so once that piece was posted yesterday whilst as it is which what it is, it is very difficult to read and possibly believe. However as we see with the gate gate incident and other so called conspiracy situations, there is always more to the story than us the viewing public which consume the daily soap opera called the mainstream news.

Therefore these so called smart arses aren't going to come up with clever and controversial viewpoints just for shit and giggles, more and more folk are starting to see that we've been lied to by authority for a long time about a lot of things. For example when the Soviet State started to break down many folk would say you know we didn't really believe everything they were telling us but what can you do?

And the thing about the lie is it's so compartmentalized that it changes at every single level so it can be justified and it will always go as deep as your world view can comprehend till some one starts shouting tin foil where the tin foil i've got a big fubar dragon that needs chasing away!!!

Happy Christmas Love X
In reply to needvert: A basic understanding of both European history and the recent development of the insurrectionist rhetoric within the American second amendment discussion I suppose.
seankenny - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the vast inequality that exists in the USa as part of the reason they love their guns. In the early 70s the US was at it's least unequal (going by Gini coefficient and from memory here - if my stats are wrong then feel free to correct me), and it was at the same level the UK is now, which isn't great. Since then it's become an ever-divided society.

Everything I've read about inequality suggests that as societies grow more unequal, people lose trust and begin to fear each other more. Which is perfectly rational, after all if you've nothing to lose then committing brutal crimes makes some kind of sense. And if you do have some degree of wealth, then it's very easy to lose that in America (think of the number of cancer sufferers that end up bankrupt). I'm guessing that for a lot of people guns are a way of assuaging that fear, and of course it's easier to see the danger as another person rather than big, impossible social forces. You can't shoot the guy who closed your factory but you can blow away an intruder.

Also I think it's very American to view people as essentially bad. Witness the number of signs telling you exactly what to do or more likely what NOT to do that you see everywhere in the US. Maybe that's something to do with being founded by a bunch of puritanical religious zealots.

Add those together and you get the kind of stubborn attachment to guns which makes no sense to us Europeans.
In reply to seankenny:
> Witness the number of signs telling you exactly what to do or more likely what NOT to do that you see everywhere in the US.

I walked a lot around bits of LA a few years ago and was struck by exactly that. Land of the free? Land of huge list of by-laws and keep out signs more like... The specificity of what you can't do on the beach was really funny.
seankenny - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to TobyA:

It was the Post Office which most impressed me. Scribble all over the address on an old jiffy bag and write a new one on the back? Not in America. It must be completely taped over, there was a handy little photo to show the only acceptable way of re-using an envelope.

I suspect partly it's being an immigrant society, so they have to impress new social norms on people who might not be familiar with them. However I'm sure part of it is the sense of the badness of people... I read a book of essays called "Pulphead" by a very good American journalist, who mentioned having just the same attitude. Plus I feel US society does rather encourage the mistrustful side of people.

Fwiw, I really like the States. Just in case someone comes on here and accuses me of being all anti-American and such.
ksjs - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: Can't read all the thread right now but will do - very interesting and balanced (up to where I got to).

Just wondering... My assumption is that statistically, the USA has more of this type of incident per head of population than anywhere else in the world. Now, if the availability of guns isn't the prime factor in this then what is? I don't mean that rhetorically, I just mean is there actually any kind of introspection on the part of US citizens? Do they wonder how they got to where they are, why their society alone produces this sort of event?

But then I think about stuff in the UK: Dunblane, Hungerford and Cumbria, are we any different? I think we are but that maybe says more about my views of the US.
neilh - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to seankenny:
Not sure I agree. One of the things that strikes you in USA is how easy it is to greet and strike up conversation with anybody anywhere.People are generally very polite and easy going.

I have also been in numerous houses where the doors are left unlocked all the time.


ads.ukclimbing.com
Ava Adore - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to johnj:

And thank you for your reply :-)

Whilst I am not naive enough to think that we are always told everything, I accept that there are good reasons for not being told everything. For example, to prevent copycat crimes or to avoid whetting the appetite of those with a "kink".

I find conspiracy theorists frustrating because most of the time heir theories can never be proved or disproved and all it does is spread unrest and dissent where there may be no need for either. Me, I reckon I'm happier not knowing :-).

And I wish you a Merry Christmas too :-)
seankenny - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to neilh:

I totally agree, it's very easy to talk to people in the States. One of the things I love about it. People are indeed very polite.

But... I think they can get very angry very quickly. Not all, by any means, but some. Perhaps a culture which encourages extroversion, being pleasant and instant gratification has a problem in dealing with anger, upset and violence?

It's certainly a pretty contradictory place, at least in my experience.
Moley on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: I am uneasy about this whole debate of trying to tell America how they should conduct their gun laws.
It isn't our country. They are Americans, with different culture, different laws, different constitution and this is one of their problems to solve. America receives enough s**t for sticking their noses into other countries problems, yet some on here seem to be almost acting the same in telling them how to conduct their internal affairs. A rather: Holier than thou attitude.

It would be good to stop these massacres(America, UK, everywhere) but nobody seems to asking the question why they happen?

The first USA (recognised) public massacre took place in 1966 - why none before? Americans had guns, there was raceism, inequality, poverty before 1966.

Since 1982 there have been 62 mass shootings, the incidence escalating - why? What in society makes individuals (average age 37, so not all "kids")do this? Why do individuals see this as a great way to go?

Of these 62 shootings only one has been by a female, do they not suffer the problems of men? Maybe only women should be alowed guns in USA.

The NRA have over 4 million members and there's aprox 30 million privately held guns in US, they have different values to most of us in UK and I don't think most of us really understand the problems or their culture. They are the ones to sort it, not for us to tell them to "Get their shit together".

seankenny - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Moley:
>
> The first USA (recognised) public massacre took place in 1966 - why none before? Americans had guns, there was raceism, inequality, poverty before 1966.

A very interesting point. Perhaps violence took a different form in society before then - the massacres of Native Americans, the Wild West, the gangsters of the Prohibition Era, the likes of John Dillinger. Or maybe it's something to do with increasing alienation in (as you point out) men in their 20s and 30s.


>
> I don't think most of us really understand the problems or their culture. They are the ones to sort it, not for us to tell them to "Get their shit together".

Oh I don't know, we've had some pretty informed replies on here it seems to me, an attempt to understand how this has happened. That's what forums are for no?

We could have a thread titled "India, get your shit together" and talk about the caste system and its associated violence, but it would be a short thread because not so many people are interested or knowledgeable. The USA is culturally dominant (particular for us English speakers) and lots of people go there, or know Americans. So whilst it's not our problem, it's certainly of interest to us...
Rob Exile Ward on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Moley: Good and interesting post.
Moley on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Thanks, an article (by a psychiatrist) in the Tuesday Times paper got me thinking. I'm simply trying to look at things from a different perspective, why it happens, what has changed so much in 45 years to make men take this way out?
What has changed since the 60's? Obvious thing is access to TV and onscreen violence and glorification (but there were plenty of war films at the cinema), escalating to the current situation with youngsters. I'm sure "copycat" has something to do with it as well.
Dunno the answer, all very sad and complicated and I think it will carry on regardless for many years - until people don't want to do it anymore.
dissonance - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Moley:

> The first USA (recognised) public massacre took place in 1966 - why none before? Americans had guns, there was raceism, inequality, poverty before 1966.

they did.
The worse school massacre in the USA was Bath School in 1927.
There is also a long list of other shootings etc its just most had limited numbers involved (which is also true of most shootings after that date as well).
neilh - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to seankenny:
Yep. Just as you thing you know it you go 100 miles to the next county and it's different and your observations are shot---if that is the right word-- to pieces.

Me, I do not think anything will change on gun control. Having driven out of Minneapolis one day in the fall, and seeing a shot deer strapped to the roof of every second car , coming back to the city on the freeway, I just do not thing they will overcome the hunting lobby. Mind you hunting deer with bow/arrows is a popular sport, so maybe they could all take that up instead.
ajsteele - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Moley:
>
> The first USA (recognised) public massacre took place in 1966 - why none before? Americans had guns, there was raceism, inequality, poverty before 1966.

A quick look on Wiki brings up the earliest known USA school shootings as July 26, 1764. Then theres a few in the 1800s and plenty in the early 1900s.
a lakeland climber on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Moley:

I was reading a piece that reckoned we should be looking at many of these mass shootings as suicide-murders. Hardly any of the perpetrators survive the actual incident and many die by their own hand rather than in a shoot-out with police. If you are an anonymous loner determined to end it all then taking a few people with you is going to get your name talked about.

Another point raised was the reaction of the press/media who go overboard on these occasions and could well influence future events.

Americans in general are very friendly but there's also a lot of distrust (gated communities) and social division. This is the flip side of the "get up and go" attitude of American society in general and it's likely that you won't get rid of one without the other.

I saw some stats (from 2009) showing that 10 US states in that year had higher numbers of deaths from being shot as from road accidents.

There does seem to be a tendency in the States towards force as a means of settling disputes and the ready availability of firearms isn't helpful.

ALC
tony on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to ajsteele:
> (In reply to Moley)
> [...]
>
> A quick look on Wiki brings up the earliest known USA school shootings as July 26, 1764. Then theres a few in the 1800s and plenty in the early 1900s.

But the vast majority resulted in single deaths, which suggests something different to the more recent multi-death events. The Bath School bombing in 1927 sounds horrendous, and is interesting in that the rationale sounds quite well established as a very personal grudge. The more recent killings do seem to be more a result of sheer anger at something a bit more vague and nebulous.
alicia - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

More grimness: guns being sold so quickly now that Wal-mart is running out of stock. The article reads like a spoof but sadly it appears to be real:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/guns-stock-wal-mart-magazine-191639000.html
mick.h on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

The tragedy is that its happened before, and it will happen again. The UK is not safe either, think Hungerford, Dunblane.

We do what we can but shit happens and always will.
Moley on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to ajsteele:
> (In reply to Moley)
> [...]
>
> A quick look on Wiki brings up the earliest known USA school shootings as July 26, 1764. Then theres a few in the 1800s and plenty in the early 1900s.

I was quoting from the Times article, ".....but mass killings of the Newtown type are a comparatively recent phenomenon and the first is generally held to have been committed in 1966."
And then: "There have been prolific killers in the past, but generally speaking they have had two motives: money or sex. Moreover they killed successively rather than all at once."

I guess it's in interpretation of the killings? There will always be killings for a reason, such as a husband shoots his wife, children and self, which can be understood (sort of). But to kill your mother (for some reason)and then go into a young kids school and slaughter randomly - that is what is so strange, where is the grudge?
In reply to Moley: I have a friend who is currently studying parallels between school killings and lone perpetrator terrorism. We've had endless discussions about how you classify them. Is using a gun particular for instance? If not, look at the 1927 Bath, Michigan attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
MikeTS - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Moley) I have a friend who is currently studying parallels between school killings and lone perpetrator terrorism.

Hi Toby
I posted about this idea earlier on this thread. My friends (in Israel) don't agree, since they see terrorism defined as driven by religious hatred, and so it is a distinctly different phenomenon. Myself, I still see close parallels. I suspect that if the Americans who committed these massacres had lived in Gaza or the W Bank they would be prime targets for recruitment as suicide bombers since they would fit the profile.
What do you think?
MikeTS - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Moley:
> (In reply to ajsteele)
> [...]
then go into a young kids school and slaughter randomly - that is what is so strange, where is the grudge?

Well kids represent the future of your society. So killing them seems like a clear message.

needvert on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

Heard an interesting point, how do US violent crime rates compare to UK?
a lakeland climber on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to needvert:

To be comparable the figures in the UK would have to be roughly 1/6th of those of the USA. This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate gives the murder rate per 100,000

USA: 4.2
UK: 1.2

Note that there's roughly 60 gun related deaths per year in the UK and 8750 or so in the USA. I can't see any actual figures split down in to violent/non-violent crime but have come across one stat that reckons the likelyhood of being a victim of violent crime is about four times higher in the UK than in the USA. So it may be that both populations are as uncivil to one another just that the availability of guns in the USA means that things go a bit further.

It would be interesting to see these figures broken down in to specific categories: gang related; domestic arguments; etc. I suspect that there are very few violent crimes where the perpetrator doesn't know the victim.

ALC
dale1968 - on 24 Dec 2012
jon on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to dale1968:

I used to think Morgan was a complete arsehole, especially after watching one particular HIGNFY. Then earlier this year I saw him on American TV in his role as Larry King's successor, a strange mix of confrontational and charming, and partly changed my mind. Now standing up to these people - whether it's his place to do so or not - convinces me he's OK.

> "You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?"
> "Bring it on, you goon."

Brilliant and quite brave! But would Britain have him back?!
johncoxmysteriously - on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to MikeTS:

Surely terrorism has nothing to do with religious hatred necessarily. It's (loosely defined) the attempt to achieve political aims by a campaign of terror. The Baader-Meinhof lot, for example, were not religiously motivated.

The present episode isn't terrorism at all, I wouldn't have thought. It's just a random nutter running amok.

jcm
dale1968 - on 25 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH: sadly another shooting/needless deaths

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925
mark s - on 25 Dec 2012
In reply to dale1968: the nra will want armed firemen next,irrelevent of the bullets going off in the fires
pneame on 25 Dec 2012
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:
The uber-statistician, Nate Silver, has a nice breakdown -
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-s...

no surprise - republicans tend to own guns, democrats tend not to.
jon on 25 Dec 2012
In reply to pneame:

That link isn't working for me Peter.
IainRUK - on 25 Dec 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to Moley)
>
> I was reading a piece that reckoned we should be looking at many of these mass shootings as suicide-murders. Hardly any of the perpetrators survive the actual incident and many die by their own hand rather than in a shoot-out with police. If you are an anonymous loner determined to end it all then taking a few people with you is going to get your name talked about.
>

This for me must be a huge outcome..

Mental health funding, welfare and guidance..

This was actually quite avoidable in many ways, that's what is so sad. But suicide is a huge issue for young adult males in many western countries, look at Bridgend in Wales..

Its something that needs tackling, someone on here said about how she would have taken a gun option if it was available..

This lad how no intenion on surviving.
pneame on 26 Dec 2012
In reply to jon: might be a nyt permissions thing. Try googling fivethirtyeight

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.