UKC

A reporter and her cameraman shot dead live on air!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34062118

FFS! <shakes head in despair>

In reply to ByEek:
no, they won't learn. There could be a massacre every year (practically is) and the pro gun lobby, nra etc.. will still not give in. In their logic the more shootings there are, the more guns you need.

Their classic answer to this incident will be that if the interviewee was armed she could have saved them.

In reply to ByEek:

There have been a number of gun related acts of terror in Europe this year including one last week on a French train. Banning guns certainly helps a great deal however it will not solve the problem and is most definitely not a 'wonder solution'.

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year (for 2010):
USA 3.55
UK 0.05
France (2009) 0.22

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Those figures make it look pretty wonderful!

In reply to ByEek:

Probably never................................

In reply to MG:
I took from those figures that it will likely help to stop the regular high casualty school shootings by young gunmen ... though isolated (we hope) incidents like this are likely to continue... a la Charlie Hebdo, or the recent Paris bound train.

But I could be entirely wrong. The point is... guns control is a very wise choice. However it does not guarantee safety and is therefore not the 'wonder solution' everyone seems to paint. Far from it.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I dont think anyone is claiming gun control is a "wonder solution" that will solve all. Just that it is rather good at solving a specific set of crimes.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Take a look at the suicide stats and accident stats too.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


And to make those numbers a bit more realistic that is approximately:

US ~11400 shootings
UK ~31 shootings
France ~147 shootings

Give me the UK or France any day. You also don't categorise your figures. Since most guns are illegal in the UK I would imagine most of those shootings will be criminal in nature i.e. armed robbery / gang feuds, compared to the US where you get someone with a grudge who just decides to go out and shoot someone with his lawfully owned gun.

In reply to summo:


There are dozens every year in the US.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:



I think you may be giving the figure for homicides, the overall rate for the U.S. including suicides (nearly twice as many fatalities as homicides) and accidents is consistently around 10 per 100,000 population.

In reply to EddInaBox:
The point I'm trying but failing to make is that those who want to commit premeditated murder are often able to get hold of guns even in highly regulated environments. Gun control will of course lower the US figures for homicide/accident/suicide significantly - I'm not contesting that. And it's important they do this, and as soon as possible.

But I don't think it's particularly relevant to this specific case. This guy was a respectable member of society it seems. It seems likely he'd be granted a license.

In reply to ByEek:

The NRA have a lot to answer for in the states.
If that group were in the middle east the Americans would class them as a terror group.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:





That shows a reasonable correlation between gun control and deaths, France is a bit more lax than the UK but nothing like the US.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

It worked in Australia ...

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

In reply to ByEek:

When George Bush ice skates to work.

In reply to KevinD:


True, however Canada has much higher rates of gun ownership than the U.S. and the cuddly Swiss keep automatic weapons in the house as part of their militia duties and there's hundreds of thousands of privately owned semi automatic rifles kicking about.

Gun control is undoubtedly a good thing, but how would you apply it in the US where there are millions of the things already in circulation? I can see the law abiding handing in their guns if forced by legislation, but not the street gangs.

Gun related deaths in the UK were pretty much unaffected by the banning of large calibre semi auto rifles and handguns, and have been fairly constant per head of population. Not sure what the effect would be on murder rates in the states, but would certainly stop muppets killing themselves and their family members by poor handling and storage of guns.

In reply to EddInaBox: True but suicides don't kill anyone but themselves otherwise it would be classed as homicide.
Accidents I agree should be included, there was that little girl who shot her brother not long ago (I think).

Not only will they never learn but its probably too late, guns are so widespread there they ll never be able to get rid of them all

In reply to Ridge:


That seems based on a claim about percentage of households and there are some wildly varying figures on the Canadian side of things. Plus the Canadians have very limited handguns as compared to hunting rifles and shotguns and most are in rural areas.


They also changed the laws after several shootings to restrict access to ammunition and to make it harder to retain the weapons after completing service.


No but it would help dry up supply to them. Those places with stricter laws on firearms, like Chicago, are pissing into the wind when all that is needed is to pop down the road to Indiana to a gunshow.


It would likely reduce suicides as well since firearms make it unfortunately easy for impulsive suicide.

In reply to Ridge:

For some incidents, removing all guns, would only change the weapon used to murder, or kill themselves. Swappd for a knife, drugs, baseball bat etc..

But, what it would do is slow the murdering down, reducing the high number of deaths / massacres. One person can easily knife someone, but no guns almost prevents a rampage. Guns alsomake it less personal as they put distance between killer and victim, much easier psychologically.

Besides it has to be worth a try, even if it takes a few decades to solve, eventually they'll have to make start.

In reply to ByEek:

Sorry, but guns aren't bad. I've never fired a real gun.

I wonder if the NRA are responsible for more American deaths than any other group?

In reply to ByEek:
Again a murder suicide...

I'm all for restricting guns but mental health spending is non-existent. If it was a legal handgun I doubt they'll be restricted for decades, if ever..

In my town we have TWO! Mental health crisis beds, which have a waiting list.. One of the most crime ridden impoverished cities in the U.S.

the millions we pour into combating terrorism yet the risk of suicide and murder suicide is far greater.

People see no way out so go and kill themselves and others first.

Really shocking footage.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

I doubt it..

The handguns won't go away, it'll be the assault rifles they keep in business.
if this was a legal handgun, which as a young professional is likely, then there's little that could have been done.

As much as I want guns banned we won't see UK style gun legislation in the US, however a lot can still (and should) be done such as who has guns, central records, linking mental health databases and the type of guns allowed.

However right now its going backwards in some states with guns being allowed on Uni campuses.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:






I'm not very good at maths but do those statistics not show that I'm about 75 times less likely to killed by a fire arm in the UK compared to the USA?
That's pretty close to a 'wonder solution' for me.

In reply to deacondeacon:


yes, that's the kind of maths play tabloids love, but it really shows the risk of being shot has increased from almost unlikely, to ever so slightly more then unlikely.

It's a little like the chance of being hit by a meteor could be 1 in a quadrillion today, but tomorrow there is a shower and it's 1000 times riskier. Still 1 in a trillion though.

Everything is relative to the risk in the first place. But yeah, ever so marginally safer in the UK.

In reply to summo:


No it's not, it's the difference between

1 in 28,000 (US)
1 in 2 million (UK)

The starting point is not 1 in a quadrillion. I wonder how that compares to deaths due to climbing. I'm fairly confident that sport or possibly single pitch trad climbing, as subset is less risk than 1 in 28,000 annually (and bear in mind that's voluntarily engaged in).

In reply to John Roberts (JR):



I know that. I was using big figures 'IN AN EXAMPLE' to show how when someone says the risk has gone up or down 1000 times, it could actually still be extremely low risk. Quadrillion was just a random big number I thought of. At no point did I say the shooting risk was 1 in a quadrillion, in fact if you re-read it, PROPERLY, you'll see I that I applied MY MADE UP STATISTIC to the risk of being hit by a meteor.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


I don't think going about your job filming a news broadcast(in the West) is considered to be an activity where you are normally expected to accept the risk someone might come up and shoot you whilst live on air. It's clearly not the same as someone going out climbing in their spare time.

Perhaps a better analogy would be climbing on a moorland crag whilst they are grouse shooting around you?

In reply to summo:


But if you look at the US figures, the risk isn't *that* low. Something like 0.25% chance of dying from gunshot in a lifetime, and that is on average. If you are, poor, black and ill-educated it will be much higher..

In reply to summo:

Perhaps my post wasn't as clear as it could have been but...


Yes, of course it can, but it's made up and a pointless example relevant to the post you replied to. You said "relative to the risk in the first place". Then used a huge "first place" with no relevance to the relatively high risk of getting shot in the US. The point is 1 in 28k is quite a high risk.... in the first place.


Actually, you misread my post... That's why I said...


i.e. going climbing is a risk we voluntarily accept, with potentially a lower chance, than getting shot in the US, which has a potentially higher risk that the US have accept involuntarily. That's why there should be tighter controls.

Your post comes across like it's acceptable in the first place, because it's unlikely with varying degrees of unlikeliness. I'm highlighting it's not all that unlikely in the first place, and you're not voluntarily accepting it (short of leaving the US).

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
my point was and is 75 times a small risk, is still a small risk. And these kind of headlines like something is now 100 times worse, more dangerous is usually statistically correct, but in no sense represents the real everyday odds of that event.

Plus, those figures are national averages. If you live in an inner city, a certain age, male, in a gang or involved in crime then the risks are much much higher, in either country. If you don't fit any of those groups, ie a female professional going about their job in daytime, the odds of being shot at work are exceedingly low.


Nope, I think the USA needs to get a grip and it completely lacks leadership on the subject.

There is no reason why he needed a gun. If you want a hand gun, it should be for targets, competition only etc.. you should be in a club and it should be stored in a club, end of. That starts to solve the concealed weapon problem instantly. Next move to the bigger stuff, hunting and targets, comps... prove you have a need, otherwise no licence. Again problem will slowly start to solve itself. Big fines and sentences for anyone carrying unlicensed weapons or ammunition.

In reply to summo:


I agree with all of the points you made, unfortunately I also suspect that any candidates expressing a position of leadership on gun control would either a) fail to be nominated and/or b) generate such a significant target to be railed against that they would fail to be elected.

Possibly the only way would be for a candidate to present themselves as a moderate whilst hiding their true position until actually was in a power and able to do something about it.

In reply to ByEek:

The U.S. is a strange country. They're obsessed with personal freedom, have the highest crime statistics, highest prison population.

Yet they persist with this idea that you're either a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'. That you can recognise a bad guy and only need a good guy with a gun to stop him.

500 accidental deaths per year from firearms.
Toddlers killing siblings and parents is quite high on that list along with people shooting objects in their back yards, missing and hitting their drunk mate or forgetting the gun was loaded and shooting themselves.

Really, let them get on with it. It's a mindset. <sarcasm> Luckily God will make sure the good guys always win. <sarcasm>

In reply to zebidee:


I agree, if the shooting like this on live tv doesn't move them towards it, nothing will. Clearly mass school shootings have not worried the senators enough either.

In reply to zebidee:



Even when in power there seems to be very little that can be done. The NRA hold a lot of political sway, Obama has tried and pretty much failed to push through even fairly minor gun control measures, even with widespread public support.

A good article here about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-the-power-of-the-nra.html...

In reply to ByEek:

Thinking out loud as it were, and I'm not being flippant, guns pose little danger to anyone and aren't really the problem, ammunition on the other hand is very dangerous. The US constitution bangs on about the right to bear arms, but does it mention ammunition? Could a way of restricting access to ammunition be worked out? The constitution has been amended over time and can be done so again.

It wont stop shootings, would obviously be opposed by the NRA etc, and would be very difficult to impose, but could be a route to some kind of harm reduction. Some ideas, mostly based on an assumption that in legitimate shooting activites retrieval of spent cases is usually possible; Shotguns not restricted, possibly even small bore rimfire ammuntion, Target shooters can only obtain ammunition at ranges and must return spent cases and unused live rounds, Hunters can obtain a reasonable amount of suitable ammuntion for 'off the premises' use but can only obtain more when spent cases are returned. Historical enthusiasts can fire machine guns all day at the range but cannot retain ammunition. Just thoughts, and I'm under no illusions about how this infringes every redneck conspiracy nuts pet passions of big government and personal freedom, but failing to do something clearly points out that American lives are held cheap by their own society. Sad that a country puts so much resource into defeating an external threat that took +-3000 lives but acquiesces to this daily self mutilation.

The problem, I fear, is the vicious circle of gun ownership being enshrined to protect the citizenry from threat and both gun control and uncontrolled guns being threats to the citizenry so, as Obama admits, gun control goes round in circles. Like trying to get two magnets to stick together the polarised positions make it impossible and the status quo is locked and loaded.

Depressingly my conclusion is that America will have to get used to gun deaths. History, myth, law and culture have created a nation addicted to copper jacketed lead propulsion. Even more depressing is the logical conclusion that the last American standing will be a gun owner.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:


I was hanging out with a sheriff from Oregon recently who was saying the price of ammunition in the US has gone through the roof actually. People have been stockpiling. I think the 2nd amendment safeguards the rights of a militia, which isn't much use without ammunition so I doubt we'll see a ban on that any time soon.

Said sheriff was as disturbed as we are about the gun ownership in the US. Felt it was a national religion that isn't going to change, at least not until there is some kind of social revolution. We of course have said that about gays and pot, both of which are now more or less cool in the US. But guns seems to hold a special place in the national psyche, a sort of beaten wife syndrome, and the amount of corporate lobbying power behind them (not to mention the defence industry itself) packs a punch that gays and stoners only recently achieved.


America is already used to gun deaths. Convincing them that the situation is nuts is like trying to convince a Tea Partier that Trump isn't that smart. And those that already get it are scared of the ones who have the guns so err on the side of getting them themselves.

In reply to Falung:

It's not the guns, it's the mentality. Removing the guns doesn't change a society where a larger fraction than normal grow up thinking it's okay to kill people when you're upset.

They have 100 times the gun deaths and 10 times the gun ownership. Crudely that's 10 times the number of nut jobs.

In reply to Falung:

To be honest, if Americans are happy to go around shooting each other and have negligible collective will to change it, there's no real point us debating it on here. It's more of issue what they get up to around the world with their cowboy foreign policies.

In reply to Philip:



True, if you removed the guns I'm sure they'd use another weapon.maybe there wouldn't be as many deaths though,but still just as many attacks.

In reply to Falung:

>I think the 2nd amendment safeguards the rights of a militia, which isn't much use without ammunition

A peoples militia is supposed to protect the people from 'tyrannical government'.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the black community were to have formed a militia, in order to protect their members from the extra judicial killings by police and others?

Whilst the right to form a militia might have been useful once, history has moved on. It is no more relevant than the obligation that every Englishman practice archery every Sunday, just in case the French should attack. I expect that logic and common sense are not high on the agenda of the gun lobby.

In reply to ByEek:

I hear that this shooting used hollow points.

Banning hollow point ammunition would be an easy start surely? Can anyone think of a reason why this should be available for sale? I mean does it have any legal purpose?

In reply to dread-i:


Do you refer to some archaic obligation or the UKIP manifesto of 2015?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


As far as I'm aware it is illegal (in the UK) to use anything other than hollowpoint ammunition to shoot deer (on animal welfare grounds). Not sure what the rules are in the US.

In reply to dread-i:


Actually, that was not the original idea, it is merely the "spin" now put on the original idea.

If you look at the history of the second amendment, it was asked for by the Southern slave-owing states. The "well regulated militia" that was "necessary to the security" of the people was there to suppress the slaves. The only way the whites could keep the slaves from rebelling is if the whites had guns while the blacks didn't. Thus the whites would regularly patrol as a militia to round up any stray slaves and purely as a show of force.

The second amendment was there because the Southern states feared that, if only Congress had control over armed forces, and that was dominated by the Northern non-slave states, then the ability of the South to suppress the slaves would be in doubt.

In reply to MarkJH:


No they can use anything.

but deer hunting, especially in the poor areas is a big source of food. Guns just will not go away.

There's just no way we'll see a change in the hunting culture, it's a massive part of rural US life.

TBH I doubt anything gun wise could have been done to prevent this tragedy. I know hand guns aren't or hunting but the Americans are a scared group.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No, it spans back to independence.

They were used to suppress slave revolts but also have entirely different roots in trying to force out the British, it lies in british law if anything.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


technically they are jacketed, semi jacketed etc.. military and target use fully jacketed rounds. Better flight and often only wound, which suits the military as a casualty is often more costly to the enemy than a dead person.

Semi jacketed etc. fragment, more internal damage and so forth. If you want to stop a bear, elk, moose, big deer, wild boar... they are next to essential. A bear could do a hundred metres quicker than Bolt, even after you put a standard round into one!

Doesn't really matter what the killer shot the news crew with, at that range and no one firing back it, it's irrelevant. They stood zero chance. I should add I am anti the USA's current stance and they need to get a grip on it. But won't.

In reply to dread-i:

Indeed. The militia aspect was ironically a central point of challenge to the 2nd amendment and has now faded from being an issue. These seems odd to me. Your government has main battle tanks, stealth bombers and artillery, not to mention nuclear weapons. Cleetus and Hank can fight all they want to keep hold of their weapons, but its not going to save them if the government decides to wage war on them. Militias will be a nuisance but are somewhat outgunned.

In reply to Falung:

Its a historical thing really..

But they just quote it as a reason why they have a constitutional right..

In the deep south you will still hear talk of the south rising again..

However the US people are very afraid, very scared, for all their bluster. Guns, guys being built like brick shit houses. No idea why. There's a huge pressure on young boys to get jacked up, get big.. big is good. That way you can protect your family.. somehow.. even though you're a fat guy...

Guns will never disappear and the fight needs to be about suitability to hold a gun license, gun access, control, types of guns, size of magazines etc.. not actual availability of guns in general. That's a battle that will never be won and just sets gun reform back as it is blocked from the off.

In reply to summo:


The military arent allowed to use expanding/flattening bullets under one of the international conventions.
One of those oddities, like CS gas, where items are banned for use on foreign soldiers but go right ahead on your own civilians.

In reply to KevinD:


No, no laws, only what some nations call ethics. Many countries military use them, including the usa and many police dept.

The points aren't really hollow, just not fully encased in harder metal.

In reply to summo:


Technically it's nothing to do with the jacket, jacketed expanding rounds are used in hunting, it's about how the tip deforms on impact and the jacket is pre-stressed to peel apart. But we digress.

In reply to Ridge:


Nope, I have fully jacketed target rounds for my 308, and semi jacket hunting rounds, when the first 5 or 6mm is exposed. There is no peeling apart required.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


No. With the exception of pest control, there is no reason to own a gun... other than because you like guns:

youtube.com/watch?v=-g_NgNbM828&

In reply to summo:


What about these:

http://www.m87.com/HANDGUNS/AMMUNITION/COMBAT_AMMUNITION/FRANGIBLE_BULLET_E...

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Well ok

Every rule has a few exceptions! I was more referring to hunting ammo that is expected to have some performance over distance. Not something clearly designed for the gun ho usa nut jobs, defending their backyard from government takeover bids.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Frangible rounds are, among others things, used in situations where there is a risk of penetration through the target to other people. I believe this is what US Air Marshals carry.

In reply to summo:


Nope, leaving the tip unjacketed is one of many ways to produce a frangible round, but it is the cheapest. If the jacket doesn't deform you won't get much of an effect.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJaCIElaIY1Uj412G5RdkJu8qwXtrAV5YP...

In the case of handguns, as used in this case, full metal jacket with powdered lead core are popular in the US.

In reply to summo:



Like this?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvBn7UFwTgWl4fn_g8SziMu7BqydyfoTq3...

In reply to Philip:

Just because someone is a gun owner doesnt make them a nutjob. Would the same be said about someone who is into Archery? A bow and arrow was made purely to kill, why would anyone get enjoyment from target shooting or archery?
"Theres no place for guns?" Then surely theres no place for a super charged sports car that can do 140mph. But people can still buy them.

The biggest cause of fear is a lack of knowledge, people dont know much about firearms and so they fear them.

Some interesting Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[94] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06."

http://www.dvc.org.uk/dunblane/lech1.pdf
"As can be seen, in 1988 the US had a violent crime rate approximately 50% higher
than England. Over the next decade, the US rate rose slightly and then fell, and has
continued to fall to the present day in spite (or, as we will see, probably because) of
more and more states liberalising their firearms laws. The English violent crime rate
started to rise in 1997 (a paradoxical result since all pistols were banned and
confiscated in that year) and this rise has escalated dramatically to the present day."

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

" The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states."

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

"In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license 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.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime."


Guns dont kill people, People kill people. A gun is an inanimate object.

Is there a link between mental health and violent crime? Is there a link between lack of training and education?

A knee-jerk reaction to ban all guns will just drive weapons into the hands of the criminals that will not care about laws and regulations. Thus stripping the innocent people of the ability to defend themselves.

The UK is an absolute joke with regards to offensive weapons/self defence. Everyone has the inherent right to self defence. The right to defend themselves, their families and others incapable of defending themselves. And I lack a lot of faith in my justice system and police force.

At the end of the day, its better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.

In reply to Bootrock:


Rappers do,
Sound of the Police
Woo woo woo!

Erm...where was I...

Guns do, however, make it much, much easier for people to kill people. As for self defence, do you really think you're going to need to brass up the neighbours with .45 ACP, (cyanide coated with mercury core), in the near future?

In reply to Ridge:

So do sports cars that people cant control at 140mph. Lets ban them.

So do knives.

Baseballs bats.

Hammers.

Screwdrivers.

Homemade cross bows.





If someone wants to kill people, they will do so. Regardless of laws and regulations.

In reply to Bootrock:








So why are you so bothered about being able to get a handgun? Just batter any assailant to death with your concealed carry Ferrari F50.

In reply to Bootrock:
My last job was with an American owned company but based here in the UK. Obviously there were several Americans semi-permanently posted here. After a round of redundancies I asked one of them if he was going to return to the States (he was from Colorado) and he said no, as he felt safe here.

The chances of being killed or injured by firearms in the UK is tiny, even the risk of being threatened by someone with a firearm is tiny (both levels of risk assume that you aren't a member of a gang or drug dealing).


Oh and it's better to be tried by 12 than be carried by 6.

In reply to Bob:


But we'd be so much safer if every numptie that wanted to could buy a Glock at Tesco. What could possibly go wrong?

In reply to Ridge:

Can I have an M134 Chain gun please?

In reply to Bootrock:


True. But in society, we have to play to the idiots. The reason we have speed limits on roads is because of the idiot that lost control and killed a load of people. The reason we have health and safety at work is because one or two muppets couldn't figure out how to use a ladder and fell off.

Guns are no different. Most gun owners are sensible and responsible, but they are outlawed in the UK because of the occasional idiot that likes to walk into a school, or down a high street and kill everything in sight.

In reply to ByEek:

Not quite right - further restrictions were placed on gun ownership following Hungerford and Dunblane but the general premise that you need "good reason" (a woolly term if ever there was one) to own a firearm has been in place for nearly a century. For the UK "self defence" is not a good reason.

In reply to Bootrock:
Your wikipedia quote (Gun politics in the UK) misses out an important part, here it is in full, my emphasis on the last sentence and I have removed the footnote link:

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%, from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e., did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. By 2011/12 the total number of injuries had fallen to 1,668 of which 1,434 (86%) were "slight.

In reply to Ridge:


This I think is the major difference I think between situations like, say, Finland, and the US. It comes down to the first reason most people would think to own any type of firearm. In the US they have often have a fantasy about how capable they would be of defending themselves with a handgun and owners will keep one loaded in the house (and if that is your motivation for having it then I guess there is little point in keeping it otherwise). In Finland conversely, I remember a friend telling me of a health information leaflet that did the rounds some years back, the gist of which was Winter,Depression,keep alcohol, firearms and ammunition in three separate locations! He described the cartoon but I never got to see it. I cannot ever imagine such a leaflet being distributed in the US despite their being similar problems in some areas.

In reply to Lusk:


Of course you can son, it's your democratic right in a free society! (But only if I can have a Goalkeeper CIWS for home defence).

In reply to Bootrock:


WTF?
Thats up there with lunatics in the NRA proclaiming that the answer to schoolroom massacres is to arm the teachers.

So the criminals are not already tooled up?

In reply to Bootrock:

Three points.

If you make it illegal to own a gun. Then the person with a gun can be arrested and removed from society BEFORE they have had a chance to use it.

Yes there is a link between mental health and gun crime. People kill other people with guns, unless you're doing regular screening on gun owners then you don't know who the next 'nutjob' will be. So gun control could be as simple as regular mental health screening - however in a country where you pay for your healthcare this would be interesting to implement.

Training? That is fine to train the gun owners but they need to understand that a lot of the accidental injuries are where trained people have been injured when untrained people (minors) have gained access to the weapons by accident.

In reply to Bootrock:


No it's not. It has practical laws that make violence legal only when absolutely needed. It also has largely effective bans on weapons, which reduce injuries and death when violence does occur and prevent accidents occurring when weapons are mishandled. The fantasy held by many in the US , and it would seem you, that the widespread possession of weapons makes people safer is just that, a rather paranoid, childish, macho figment. Comparisons with e.g Switzerland are largely false because gun ownership and the thinking behind it there is not for the most part about self-defence

In reply to Bootrock:

Sorry but your post is full of incorrect/biased assertions.

Bob has already highlighted the full quote in relation to your gun politics link.

The dvc.org.uk (now there's an "interesting" website) article you link to appears to demonstrate similar bias.
The comparison of violent crimes between UK and US is, to be frank, nonsense.

FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses.

A slightly more objective view on the stats is here :- http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-...


As for :-
The UK is an absolute joke with regards to offensive weapons/self defence. Everyone has the inherent right to self defence. The right to defend themselves, their families and others incapable of defending themselves. And I lack a lot of faith in my justice system and police force.


I'm not sure what your proposal is? We currently have the right to defend oneself, others and indeed one's property. Do you want it removed?
Personally I'm not too happy with people walking around with concealed weapons - knives and/or handguns - "to protect myself, innit".

Since you lack faith in the UK justice system and police force - whose do you intend to emulate? I'm guessing America since you clearly believe it's gun control policy is also fully functional....

In reply to ByEek:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/walmart-halts-sale-of-assault-weap...

Well, small steps and all that, but you can't pick up an assault weapon with your weekly shop at wall art anymore.
Walmart, the nation's largest selling of guns and ammo, announced that they would stop the sale of assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and other firearms commonly used in mass shootings when their stores restock with fall merchandise. The decision to halt the sale of the weapons was not made in response to Wednesday's deadly shooting during a live news report in Virginia or public outcry from gun violence groups. Instead, the company will pull the firearms off the shelves for business reasons.

In reply to MG:

The title of this thread is "...Guns are bad." Guns arent bad. People are bad. Guns dont kill people. People kill people.

Noone blames the Camera instead of the Paedophile.
Noone blames the car not the driver.
Noone blames the plane instead of the Pilot.

No, the UK is too far the other way. We have a justice system that protects the criminal more than the innocent tax payer. You can't even have weapons next to your bed in case an intruder comes in without the risk of being on a Murder trial. And I very much doubt they are popping in for a cup of tea. How dare we think about protecting our families and everything we have worked hard for. Its just pure cheek.

Its not paranoid, childish or macho. Bad people want to do bad things regardless of law. Could the outcome of recent events involving firearms in europe have had a different outcome if Gun laws were different?

If I was a criminal in the states, I would just sit and wait outside a "no gun zone" with my illegally held firearm, and just walk in unchallenged. Safe in the knowledge that the people inside are unable to defend themselves.

There are numerous examples, situations and videos showing the use of Concealed and Open carry legally held fire arms preventing a loss of life or further loss of life.

A firearm is just an inanimate object. And cannot be good or bad.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


https://youtu.be/HTyQ4Q8z-D8?t=14m11s

In reply to Bootrock:

There are plenty of things that are banned or restricted, such as drugs, explosives, and, of course, guns. Generally this is because the downsides and dangers of allowing unlimited possession and use outweigh the positives. Cameras, as it happens are not one in the UK, because the upsides are far greater than any downsides.

>You can't even have weapons next to your bed in case an intruder

No even that. My god!! How terrible.


It's exactly that. The idea that macho heros will shoot down "bad" people and ensure a safe non-violent society is pure fantasy.

In reply to Bootrock:

Crikey! Just how many misconceptions, errors and ill considered statements can you cram in to one post?

In reply to Bootrock:

ok.

You may be getting confused.

Gun control is not about controlling guns. It's about controlling the use of guns by people.

In reply to Bootrock:

youtube.com/watch?v=UVFf7rOKG34&

In reply to Bootrock:



And do what? Take the stereo? Fine, so what? Much preferable to the alternative being a gunfight with who knows what injuries and death, and, as a result of widespread gun-ownership, numerous accidents and deaths unrelated to crime. And in any case, as demonstrated in most countries, this isn't what happens - even criminals would rather not be armed in general.

In reply to Bootrock:

I see you have moved away from attempting to prove a point using stats that are fairly swiftly debunked.


Yep. People kill people a lot easier with guns though. And even easier with easily concealed handguns.




All items which have entirely innocent and quite genuine reasons for existence.
All items which provide great benefits for the vast majority of people.
Not quite the same as assault rifles, automatic weapons and easily concealed handguns.


No. We have a justice system that is designed to protect the rights of the accused. Innocent until proven guilty and all that,
If you want to sleep with a knife next to your bed to defend yourself from a burglar - go right ahead. If a burglar comes in and you do decide to defend yourself - again - carry on.

Be bloody careful though. Although the vast majority of burglars will make off if disturbed, they still may pose a dange to you. If you are blocking their exit - they will (often but not always) want to escape, through you if necessary. If you do get in a fight with one, they DO NOT want to get caught - so are you sure you will win the fight?

Regardless, as reiterated countless times whenever appalling badly reported media sotries come out about homeowners getting prosecuted for attacking burglars - you do have a right to reasonable self defence. And you always have done. If you want to chase a burglar outside and repeatedly stab them, you are probably going to struggle a b it with that though.

The main advantage that I can see with a handgun by your bed is that it avoids that necessary confrontation and struggle. Slightly less good when you shoot your children coming in from a night out, drunk people mistakenly knocking on your door, or even your partner sitting on the toilet "by mistake".


Who knows. They certainly could have had a worse outcome.



And far more numerous examples of legally held firearms being used to kill people illegally, mistakenly or accidentally.


Absolutely. however it is an inanimate object whose possession in the home is quite clearly linked to an increased chance of dying as a result of being shot.

In reply to Bootrock:

Where do we start?


The plural of anecdote it not data. Equally, there are numerous cases where legally held firearms have been used in horrific crimes leading to many deaths.


Nope but they are very good at killing people.

But really, these discussions never go anywhere, just like legislation in the US isn't going anywhere. So probably just best to keep looking out for the monkeys! youtube.com/watch?v=vkPIJq0-gwM&

In reply to Bootrock:

For the record, I am not anti gun, in the right situation they are useful. Somewhere like Svarlbard for example where polar bears have a habit of wandering around. I've also used guns for vermin control on the farm, I've not a problem with that.

Just how many times has an intruder come in to your bedroom, let alone an armed one? Listen to most burglars when discussing their activities and they are scared s**tless that they might meet someone. Most burglaries occur when the house is unoccupied for that reason, fat lot of good any weapon will do you then. I only know of one person amongst my friends and colleagues who's even been burgled and that was while they were on holiday, what do you propose everyone have an ICBM to take the nasty crim out as he leaves your property?

As others have stated, the law allows you to protect yourself and your property, the term used is "reasonable force" which is generally taken to mean less than the criminal, i.e. if the criminal has a knife then you could hit him with a bat.

In reply to Bootrock:


And similarly, there are numerous examples of kids who have found the household gun and shot their friend, or themselves or their parents. Then there are the adults who have done the same and then there are those who use them with intent. Sure, it isn't guns that kill, but if you don't have a gun, you can't kill someone with it. So why do you need a gun.

As for security - don't make me laugh? Just cut the crap and bullshit and admit that you just like guns. I am getting fed up of the lie that is guns are for defence but at the same time "responsible" gun owners keep their guns locked in safe! FFS!

In reply to Bootrock:

Certain UKC'rs can't be trusted with the Dislike button, imagine what they'd be like if they had access to firearms!

In reply to Bob:

My understanding of reasonable force was that you can pretty much have at it to the point you ensure your own and others' safety and it doesn't really involve a lower bar. e.g. If I were in a situation where I had both a "good chance" of restraining someone posing a threat to me or my family, or alternatively, "an almost certain chance" of incapacitating them with a higher chance of them receiving a more serious injury I am fairly certain that the latter is considered reasonable. It gets muddy when it could be argued that both options were equally likely to ensure your safety with no additional risk, though I think for them to prove you had consciously gone too far you would need to be putting the boot in on the floor etc. or clearly have made preparations for going OTT and have been waiting for an opportunity. Any lawyers care to comment?

In reply to ByEek:

Firstly I think we need to not feed the trolls here!

However having worked with a number of Americans I do find the gun debate interesting. As far as I can work out it boils down to an assessment of the risk to your personal safety and who you believe is responsible for insuring that safety. The US also seem to have this concept of bad guys who will do bad things (apparently with no motivation) that you just hear of in the UK where we seem to assume that even criminals are driven my understandable motivations (like taking assets that in the majority case are insured).

In the UK most people would accept that the likely hood of being the victim of a gun related crime is small to non existent and so owning a gun (even if it was legal) is fairly unnecessary in terms of self defense.

In the US I accept that the risk is higher but I think the perceived risk is much greater still and because people know guns are so freely available the feel they also need to be tooled up and so the arms race continues.

Unfortunately with this debate the real elephant in the room that no one ever deals with is that crime in general is liked to social deprivation. So holding Switzland up as a country where wide spread gun ownership doesn't result in lots of murders is fine but I think the fact that most swiss are well educated, relatively rich, have access to good health care and are hence relatively happy is probably the reason they don't murder each other.

In reply to ultrabumbly:

Guidance for householders here:-
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

In reply to Andy DB:

This conversation from the film "Paul"

State Trooper: Where are you boys from?

Clive Gollings: ...England.

State Trooper: I heard about that place: no guns.

Graeme Willy: Not many...

Clive Gollings: No, not really, just... farmers.

State Trooper: Well how are police supposed to shoot anybody?

In reply to ByEek:

I think deep down the US knows "guns are baaad, umm K".

But it's interpreted to be a constitutional right. So long as a large fraction of the population are in favour of guns then the laws will simply never change. Pretty sad.

In reply to Bob:

Exactly and if you can't shoot the poor who can you shoot. Some of our well adjusted politicians are all for it!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-candidate-jokes-about-sh...

In the UK we just prefer our police to hit people with a big stick and squirt them with pepper spray!

In reply to Andy DB:

The other issue is how many Americans go hunting. It's unreal especially in the mid west and Texas.

In reply to neilh:

At the risk of being drawn in to further debate. Last time I checked (I am no gun expert) hunting is best with a hunting rifle or shot gun. There is no requirement for a pistol or an assault riffle.

In reply to TobyA:


Very good. I may well use that somewhere.

In reply to neilh:

It's crazy how polarised they are.

When I was working there I was 'told off' by a factory supervisor for the amount of alcohol I was consuming. He was t-total. My couple of pints in the hotel
Bar were tantamount to alcoholism.

He saw nothing wrong with bow hunting.

I saw countless other examples of how what one person did was either good or bad according to another person.

Is the word puritanical? I'm not sure.

In reply to Bootrock:

youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914&

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Remember, the US is in part populated by the gene pool of the fringes of the societies from which they came. Upon finding they couldn't get along with each other they kept moving west until they hit the sea all, dug in and decided that each and every little pocket of righteousness they had made for themselves was the one true one.

I'm only half joking

In reply to Andy DB:

It helps explain the gun culture. Most hunters also own a surprising number of non hunting weapons as well . I do find the hunting fraternity over there have a greater respect for weapons though.

In reply to FactorXXX:
I pressed dislike on this just for fun. Kind of proving your point.
Jeez, I'm a menace to society.

In reply to DancingOnRock:







Judgemental & black & white?

In reply to Bootrock:

You can improvise in the UK though, in having DIY tools near to your bed for 'a planned project' such as hammers if you really want to, or a collection of ice climbing equipment for some reason such as 'planning for a trip', mean while the gun laws in the UK mean there's very little in the way of vigilantes killing innocent youths in hoods and that kind of thing, or people being killed for startling somebody before turning out to be harmless, and the other kinds of tragic things which happen in the US.

In reply to Andy DB:

Not a troll, Long time lurker. Just decided to make an appearance on this thread.


http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Interestingly Vermont has no Gun Control and comes in Last with Gun Related Crime.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381136/vermont-safe-and-happy-and-arme...

"This I think is the major difference I think between situations like, say, Finland, and the US. It comes down to the first reason most people would think to own any type of firearm. In the US they have often have a fantasy about how capable they would be of defending themselves with a handgun and owners will keep one loaded in the house (and if that is your motivation for having it then I guess there is little point in keeping it otherwise). In Finland conversely, I remember a friend telling me of a health information leaflet that did the rounds some years back, the gist of which was Winter,Depression,keep alcohol, firearms and ammunition in three separate locations! He described the cartoon but I never got to see it. I cannot ever imagine such a leaflet being distributed in the US despite their being similar problems in some areas."

And the answer for this, is correct education and training.

"The chances of being killed or injured by firearms in the UK is tiny, even the risk of being threatened by someone with a firearm is tiny (both levels of risk assume that you aren't a member of a gang or drug dealing)."

We obviously live in very different places.

"But we'd be so much safer if every numptie that wanted to could buy a Glock at Tesco"

Noone is saying that. All I am saying is that guns arent bad, and have been used to prevent the loss of life. Of course regulations and laws are needed. But a blanket ban is ridiculous.

"Thats up there with lunatics in the NRA proclaiming that the answer to schoolroom massacres is to arm the teachers.

So the criminals are not already tooled up?"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/170254/how-assistant-principal-gun-stoppe...

"> Just because someone is a gun owner doesnt make them a nutjob.

True. But in society, we have to play to the idiots. The reason we have speed limits on roads is because of the idiot that lost control and killed a load of people. The reason we have health and safety at work is because one or two muppets couldn't figure out how to use a ladder and fell off.

Guns are no different. Most gun owners are sensible and responsible, but they are outlawed in the UK because of the occasional idiot that likes to walk into a school, or down a high street and kill everything in sight."

I agree. Doesnt mean an outright ban will solve the problem.

"Three points.

If you make it illegal to own a gun. Then the person with a gun can be arrested and removed from society BEFORE they have had a chance to use it.

Yes there is a link between mental health and gun crime. People kill other people with guns, unless you're doing regular screening on gun owners then you don't know who the next 'nutjob' will be. So gun control could be as simple as regular mental health screening - however in a country where you pay for your healthcare this would be interesting to implement.

Training? That is fine to train the gun owners but they need to understand that a lot of the accidental injuries are where trained people have been injured when untrained people (minors) have gained access to the weapons by accident."

First point, I disagree, I have no faith in our justice sytsem. The other points, I quite agree with. Again an outright ban on guns wouldnt solve the problem.

"No it's not. It has practical laws that make violence legal only when absolutely needed. It also has largely effective bans on weapons, which reduce injuries and death when violence does occur and prevent accidents occurring when weapons are mishandled. The fantasy held by many in the US , and it would seem you, that the widespread possession of weapons makes people safer is just that, a rather paranoid, childish, macho figment. Comparisons with e.g Switzerland are largely false because gun ownership and the thinking behind it there is not for the most part about self-defence"

I disagree.

"There are plenty of things that are banned or restricted, such as drugs, explosives, and, of course, guns. Generally this is because the downsides and dangers of allowing unlimited possession and use outweigh the positives. Cameras, as it happens are not one in the UK, because the upsides are far greater than any downsides."

Welcome to the UK where guns are banned but people can throw potential IEDs at each other without a license.

"I see you have moved away from attempting to prove a point using stats that are fairly swiftly debunked."

No jsut dont have time to go deeper into it, I would like to see the figures though. And will look a little more indepth.

"Nope but they are very good at killing people."

So are steak knifes and cheese wire. Shall we ban them too?

"safe non-violent society..."
Thats never going to happen. Sometimes violence and aggression is very much needed.

"As others have stated, the law allows you to protect yourself and your property, the term used is "reasonable force" which is generally taken to mean less than the criminal, i.e. if the criminal has a knife then you could hit him with a bat"
But by the logic here, a ban on all knives will stop this happening.... A knife is just as deadly as a Firearm the outcome is still death with either. And if I had a firearm I could safely take out that threat without any risk to my life or anyone else. If you want to go toe to toe and start japslapping a knife weilding criminal, you be my guest. I would rather drop that target from a safe distance with no chance of getting opened up.


Simply put, if your life, or the life of others is in danger. You have the inherent right to self defence. If that means the criminal dies. So be it. They chose to arm themselves, they should have thought of the consequences. Its them or me, and it sure as hell isn't going to be me ending up as a statistic.

In reply to Bootrock:

Most armed (either firearms or knives) burglaries are targeted usually because the targets have lots of valuables at home or have the keys to somewhere that does. For the average person, i.e. you and me it just doesn't happen.

Do you think Tony Martin had the right to shoot that unarmed burgler in the back?

Quite how you manage to come up with even more errors and falsehoods (gun owners are outlawed) is amazing.

In reply to Bootrock:

They are banned as weapons, as indeed is everything. Guns aren't banned for legitimate uses, such as hunting, or farming. Basically carrying a weapon is outlawed in the UK, for the very good reason that it results in a (much) lower violent death rate and violence generally.

In reply to Bootrock:

A warm welcome to our newly-registered NRA representative...

In reply to MG:

Exactly. Given the number of people going to A+E as a result of alcohol fuelled violence at the end of each week, heaven knows what the impact of (more) people carrying weapons and guns on the streets would be if it were legal to do so.

In reply to Andy DB:


I thought the Swiss did murder each other (and commit suicide by gun) at quite high rates? Much higher than the UK at least. That's definitely the case in Finland where guns are common, even after two mass shootings in educational establishments.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Most welcome. It's not mine! In fact I thought I was being rather cliched using it.

In reply to ByEek:

I have lived in America for a year now. Where I live, I don't fear being shot. There are areas of cities in the state (Connecticut) that I do feel uncomfortable, not specifically because of guns though.

I actually agree with the principle of the second amendment. It's to protect yourself, not against the individual, but against the state and other groups that would seek to oppress you. Practically though, it probably causes more problems than it solves, and are you really going to stand a chance the US police and armed forces?

I have no desire to get a gun hear. However the US is very big and I can see the benefits of having one if you live in very remote areas (not just food, but for protection too - you're unlikely to be a victim but if something does happen, nobody is going to come and help you).

In the future, when everything comes crashing down and we have a mad max/the road type scenario, it would probably be good to know how to use one.

Also it's really not as simple as saying people just like guns and feel macho. That is true in a lot of cases, but by no means a blanket scenario.

In reply to Bootrock:
>> "Nope but they are very good at killing people."

Are you seriously suggesting you would be no more scared trying to disarm a deranged person with a cheese wire than one with a glock? And if steak knifes are so good at killing people, why don't the army use them rather than SA80s.

Perhaps you should consider the differences between the attack on the primary school in Dunblane in 1996 and the attack on the Wolverhampton nursery in the same year before you continue with that ridiculous argument.


Do you mean shoot someone? Lets say what we actually mean rather than fanny about with euphemism.

In reply to Bootrock:

So you get your wish and have a gun by your bedside to "protect yourself".

One night whilst you are fast asleep after a hard day's work, a burglar enters your house and has a wander round. He comes in to your bedroom, sees the gun and takes it without waking you. Congratulations! You've just armed someone who was previously unarmed.

In reply to TobyA:

Yeah, but 'take out the threat' and 'drop that target' sound sooo much cooler... Like being in a real-life version of 'Ghost Recon'

In reply to captain paranoia:

Now then, seeing as though you mention it, and I am not a gamer by the way. But could the portrayal of violence in action films and violent video games also have a lot to answer for in the way of manipulating and desensitising young impressionable minds? Is this a factor in the attitudes young people/Americans have towards guns?

And having DIY tools or other such equipment near by could still be seen as premeditated in the eyes of the law, which means a murder charge. so your damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sadly we live in a society that tries to see aggression and violence as wrong. When unfortunately sometimes it is very much the answer, and if you decide on that course of action, ,you must strike hard, and not stop until there is no longer a threat. There's no Hollywood jap slapping, or shooting people in hands and legs.

And as for the gun being taken while asleep, i go back to my point about proper training and education. leaving your firearm around unsecured is bad practise. Home invasion/self defence is just one situation i used.


What about people that enjoy target shooting? People enjoy archery, shall we ban that to? Antique collectors? Enthusiasts?


"When the mosquito lands upon your testicles you realise that violence isn't always the answer"


Sometimes it is though.

In reply to ByEek:

When will the US learn that guns are bad?

They already know that *people with* guns *can be* bad, and that's why they want one.



*Please imagine your own version of bold and italic script. I've forgotten how to do it.

In reply to Bootrock:

A nice volte face compared to your posts at 13:43 & 15:53.

If your firearm is correctly secured then it will be of no use in confronting a burglar so there is no point in even owning it for that purpose. Just how many "home invasions" occur in the UK each year? It is a phrase I have heard exactly once prior to your post: in Canada about 20 years ago.

Contrary to what you seem to believe there is no blanket ban on the ownership or use of firearms in the UK, there are restrictions that attempt to ensure that gun owners are unlikely to use those weapons on others. In the cases of Michael Ryan (Hungerford) and Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) it failed but using exceptions/failures/outliers is no reason to blame the legislation. An unfortunate side effect of any regulation is that it often has a disproportionate effect on those who wouldn't break that regulation in the first place, that doesn't mean that it is unnecessary or poor.

Asking Americans if they would countenance possession of firearms by those with criminal records or with mental psychoses and they will say no. But those are two of the restrictions in place in the UK, the very same restrictions that the gun lobby say they don't want!

In reply to Bob:

Pretty sure that being convicted of a felony removes the right to posses a gun unless they apply for a dispensation or they are in an area (usually rural) where it is mostly ignored.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/27/a-rare-... )

In reply to Bootrock:


NRA lobby in Hollywood? Better ask your fellow members. Although high gun crime in America is not new, and long predates violent video games.


Pretty hard to conceal carry a longbow and quiver...

You sound like a very good example of why gun restrictions are a good thing.

In reply to summo:


Any signatures to the Hague convention cant use them (although as with many conventions sanctions are somewhat limited).
So the UK military cant use them in war (I aint exactly sure what counts as though eg if it needs the declaration of war) whereas our police can and do.

In reply to Bootrock:


I havent used a firearm for many years whereas I have practiced archery recently. However I can pretty much guarantee I will be rather more dangerous to others with a L85A2 than my recurve even if I went all walt and got some broadpoints for it.
There are options between open ownership and banning as well eg take the rifles home but leave the bolts in a secure location and so on. Wouldnt eliminate the risk entirely but would limit it

In reply to Bootrock

Well, I suppose if you reallywant to stretch things it could, but if you wanted to actually reply to posts that argue that that suggestion is nonsense we could actually discuss the detail.

Sadly we live in a society that tries to see aggression and violence as wrong. When unfortunately sometimes it is very much the answer, and if you decide on that course of action, ,you must strike hard, and not stop until there is no longer a threat. There's no Hollywood jap slapping, or shooting people in hands and legs.

Ha Ha ha. Please tell me you actually have some professional experience in the use of coercive force its subsequent legal justification.



I think that statement stands for itself.

In reply to Bootrock:

"Interestingly Vermont has no Gun Control and comes in Last with Gun Related Crime. "

Where are you from?

Vermont? one of the most rural states in the US, one of the most least violent states.

High gun ownership? Very rural, lots if hunters, lots of wild animals = guns...

You cant just pull out one state.. if you look at a map of the US violent crime is higher in the south, where gun ownership is.. but thats the old chicken and the egg argument.

In reply to ultrabumbly:


This is what gets me.. I've a friend who is very very pro gun but very safe, generally...

However as he has many kids about his house, he keeps his liquor locked up in his gun cabinet....

Literally when I pointed it out everyone thought I was crazy that maybe that wasnt the best idea... like what can go wrong...

In reply to Bootrock:


Kids in all countries play games, but they don't all have access to guns.

Several case of people in the past decade has seen people not being sentenced. If you shot a person in the back as they run off your land, you will see jail time though.

Perhaps guns should not be sold unless people to have proper cabinet to a set standard etc.. Only one person has access and so forth. Which is the case in many countries. Car boots don't count either.

In some countries you have to be an active club member, with a reference off the club, before you'll get issued with a licence. Many clubs, have gun in their own armoury, so members have no requirement to own or store their own weapon at all. Or prove you have access to appropriate land to go target shooting etc..

If your justification is defence against criminals, it isn't working. In the USA lots more folk get shot, the prisons are full and you remove a few more via death row... yet you still live in fear and need a gun.. after a 100 plus years of open gun ownership, does that not tell you the policy isn't working? Logic would suggest that all the bad guys must be in jail by now or dead, but it simply isn't the case.

Or are people from the USA just much more likely to be armed criminals or come into contact with one, because of the gun policy in the first place? Cause and effect.

In reply to KevinD:

USA is also a signature of the convention and parts of it's force use them. Perhaps the devil is in the detail of the wording. War, conflict, peace keeping... thin lines.

In reply to summo:

Slight sidetrack. I watched "The Last Leg" last night and Adam Hill had a pertinent comment: The second amendment is just that: an amendment or change to the constitution. Like the constitution itself it can be changed, the eighteenth amendment forbid the sale of alcohol (prohibition) but was then repealed by the 21st amendment.

For any amendment to become part of the constitution it must be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures usually within seven years of it being submitted.

According to Wikipedia there are only three clauses in the US constitution that cannot be changed, the right to bear arms is not one of them.

In reply to summo:


Where there are lawyers there is a way. Plus most conventions seem rather thin on the enforcement side of things I guess because even fewer countries would sign up to them. Which, getting rather off topic, seems the major flaw with these sort of agreements since anyone willing to sign up is, pretty much by default, someone unlikely to use them anyway.

Getting back sort of on topic. Looking back at the wild west its interesting to see their gun laws. Many of the twosn banned firearms within the town limits. For example Tombstone required guns and serious knives to be stored whilst in town. It was the official justification for the gunfight at OK corral.