UKC

The latest shooting in America has done nothing to convince me that Americans do not have an unhealthy, weird obsession with guns.

I can understand ownership of guns for (genuine) sport target shooting or for hunting(for the pot) purposes but can seen no logical reason for Joe Public being able to buy assault rifles and the like.

People say that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is to give the good ones guns. Do they want a re-run of Gun Fight at the OK Coraal?

Also, why do so many of these shootings take place at schools?

Words fail me.

Its because the schools are not armed.  That is what the NRA will say.

Yes; and Trump has the temerity to talk about violence in the UK. First class knobhead

The second amendment is no more than an archaic covenant with death, and the cognitive dissonance between the belief in the need for civillians to be armed against a potential tyrannical government and the real life cost and consequences of that level of gun ownership, is, to this observer, staggering and depressing.

A solution? I don't believe there is one.

This helped explain to me what, who and why the NRA will always win. Its not work safe because of a bit of swearing. The occasional  F word

youtube.com/watch?v=_ECYMvjU52E&

My brother who lives in Michigan sometimes sends me long emails puzzling about Americans, guns, anxiety and therapy. His wife and all of her friends go for weekly counselling sessions; he believes the American way of life deliberately creates anxiety by exploiting a deep-seated folk memory from only a few generations back when white Americans were fighting for land and spreading west. The more he learns about the methods they used to dispossess native Americans of their territories the more angry he becomes. The medical profession and the gun manufacturers do nothing to discourage the national paranoia. 

Since America will (indeed probably can) never seriously address it's gun violence epidemic from the gun ownership end the 'why schools?' question is interesting and if addressed, understood and the findings acted upon over a generation or two could be key to significantly reducing harm. I doubt family annihilation will be as solvable a problem.

It's interesting given the hysteria around 'terrorism' and the obvious ease with which one could commit a terrible atrocity in the US that there is basically no Islamist mass shooting. To me this suggests the numbers motivated to commit atrocity for their cause must either be minuscule, out of all proportion to the fear whipped up in their name or incredibly well managed. Personally I suspect the former is the dominant factor but if I'm wrong and it's the latter then perhaps the same approach could be extended to those people and groups who do actually commit mass killings on a near daily basis with some effect.

jk

I had no idea Australia had the same problem but solved it. Guess how long it took after a masacer in 1996?

youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA&

Might have a swear word.

Schools are always the best places for shootouts as there are lots of people and they are not armed. I read the news about the latest shooting in Florida and someone from the public rightly said "This country is going nowhere and its only going bananas."

I was only reading a few nights ago about how white settlers treated the indiginous population of America. Terrible. Ethnic cleansing is nothing new.

Looking back to when people of my generation  were kids we regularly watched the Hollywood versions of North American history - cowboys(good) and Indians(bad).

Thankfully I can honestly say I have a different view nowadays.

I don't know the details of this particular shooting, but some of the school shootings are carried out by pupils.  School is not a happy place for a lot of young people.

Teenagers have a lot going on as they change from child to adult and their brains are "rewiring" in a similar way to toddlers going through the tantrum stage.  

Its not a good idea for people who are not entirely in control of their emotions to be able to get guns.  

The whole gun rights thing is like a cult.  

Interesting that most NRA supporters would be the first to complain about the government hiding information and yet seem quite hape not that have any information in the first place.

interesting point

America does seem to have very few major terrorist incidents (that i am aware of) in the past few years compared to Europe, i can only assume this is to do with their border security (which is very strict). 

apparently this is the 18th school shooting this year, people shooting up schools for their own personal issues is seemingly accepted by american society as a regrettably unavoidable incident and does not warrant a look at current gun laws. 

it is a shocking waste of life that is sadly repeated over and over with the same government go to line "now is not the time to discuss gun law".

America's land and sea borders are porous to people, product and even more so to ideas. I'm not sure fortress America safe behind its fence stands much scrutiny.

jk

Please can anyone confirm, since 9/11;

How many deaths there has been in the USA from Islamic related terror attacks 

Vs

How many deaths there has been in the USA caused by mass shootings not related to Islamic terror 

The morons are fighting the wrong war.

I'm not sure we know the skin colour of the shooter, that will determine if "Thoughts and Prayers" are sufficient and "now is not the time" or we need an immediate travel ban on Venezuelans.

It’s a waste of everyone’s time and energy having an “America and guns” debate. 

Pale, loner, alleged to have been abusive to ex girlfriend.  Ex student of the school.  

Still, now is not the time, thoughts and prayers *sarcasm*

Agreed. It's also not worth making comparisons with how countries like Australia dealt with mass shootings. Plenty of other countries  have high rates of gun ownership without high rates of gun deaths.

America is F***ed as far as gun ownership and crime goes, for a whole mess of complex political, sociological and psychological reasons, this has now become impossible to rectify.

The only "thoughts and prayers" are thinking what group of people other than gun owners they can blame, and praying that they wont have to give up the weapons.

I don’t know if it’s possible to rectify or not, but it’s clear there is not one iota of political will to try. 

I think that if schools could find a way to address the macho culture and nurture the loners they might be on to something.  

This was a 19 year old who had lost his birth family, been adopted, his adopted father died a few years ago and his mum died 3 months ago. I’d want an ex pupil who that happened to, to feel able to pop into school for a cup of tea and a chat, not to come back to school with a gun.  Schools over here are sometimes the only place where kids feel cared about.  

On a more practical note, given the prevalence of guns in the US then why aren’t there fences and metal detectors?  

I see what you are saying, but I also think that in this global world it’s easier than ever to make it clear to people that their norm isn’t normal in other countries.  Waste of time or not, change takes time.  

I'd assume it's more to do with strategic reasons. What's the purpose of a terrorist attack? I imagine, broadly speaking, one of three goals: draw an opponent in to escalate violence, scare them off to take back control of an area, or as an advertising campaign for the people you're trying to recruit to your cause.

The US is generally at the forefront and so doesn't require much drawing in, and unlikely to ever be scared off - and since they're in there, it's probably more effective marketing to hit them more locally. So it likely makes sense to direct their external attacks mainly towards the countries that are slightly less active players.

i think doing something that would be admitting that there is a major problem which they don't seem to want to do. Not only that but there are Campus carry laws, so in some states it is 100% legal to carry a gun on say collage or university grounds so blocking people with guns would infringe on the whole second amendment thing. 

They are more likely to arm teachers and senior students than stop people walking into campus with a gun. scary stuff.

Some do have fences and metal detectors but these tend to be in the black areas....

I believe it's not uncommon in inner-city schools in high crime areas - I watched a documentary a while ago, where they were talking to kids who had to go through metal detectors and security guard pat downs on the way in every day. Was quite heartbreaking.

Metal detectors and full-time security staff must be pretty costly though - imagine how much infrastructure would be required for getting 1000 kids through the doors of a large high school in a short space of time to start the day.

And if you're not in an inner-city school a lot of kids will be bussed in - so while stopping knives at the gate might cut down on serious escalation of violence resulting from a disagreement during the school day, when it comes to mass shooters there's probably not much point in putting the security at the gates if someone can just shoot up the bus

Now's not the time... there has just been a school shooting, don't talk about such matters trying to make political points FFS...

Wait at least a few more days..

And then there will have been another mass shooting, so wait a few more days, then there will have been another... 18 mass shootings in 45 days. Prayers and thoughts..

Armed teachers will do nothing, this guy set up a killing field, student's rushed out due to a fire alarm into his killing field.

I taught in a school like that. Fire doors were padlocked shut. It was like entering an airport terminal.

As you say terrorists now attack airports at check ins, they can just shoot up bus lines. They need to sort out mental health and gun regulations.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/in...

Not exactly your question but general idea. Note this includes attacks elsewhere on Americans too, so greatly over estimates that side.

The whole country is sodden with undocumented firearms. The prevalence of gun fairs means that acquiring unlicensed firearms is hassle free. Huge swathes of the American public equate gun ownership with "Freedom".

In all other first world countries the possession of firearms, for the most part, falls neatly into two categories: military or sport. In the US huge swathes of the gun owning public have acquired guns for the purpose of "self defence". As far as I'm aware the US is unique in this. Psychologically speaking this sets many US gun owners apart from, for instance, the vast majority of UK gun owners.

I can't see any solution to the US's gun problem beyond some sort of vast multi-generational re-education programme and frankly, I just can't see that ever happening.

I think that's partly true.

I think we can start now limiting cartridge sizes, buy back programs, reeducation, mental health programs, licensing issues. It will take time but I don't think its a unwinnable battle. There will always be gun deaths but they can be much less.

I know it just moves the problem, but it might make the numbers lower.  School buses could drop off and pick up in a fenced off area.  Many uk schools have a gated car park these days.  

Chris Rock had the best idea, make bullets a $1000 each. There's no way they can control the amount of guns now, but they can control the ammo.

Indeed. I can kind of understand why someone might be reluctant to give up the right to carry a handgun for personal protection in a violent society (putting the issue of the prevalence of guns escalating the levels of violence in society aside). 

But I can't, for the life of me, understand why anyone wants assault rifles to be freely available to the public. 

Because Obama or Bernie Sanders or someone is going to impose communism on them!  

yes, hand guns and hunting rifles are part of US culture and I can see why people want them, but there is just no argument for assault rifles. They say its to prevent the Government over powering them.. which is crazy.

TBH as a non gun person I've considered getting one. I work in a private conservative schools so we probably have guns on the campus, I know students who have AR 15's and a number of students with mental health problems, massive anger issues and have guns. 

I take the student's to a firing range as part of my physics class and we shoot at targets with various types of rifles. Guns are everywhere here so I at least want the kids to know how to make a rifle safe and carry them safely.

But, yet the likelihood of being killed with a gun in the US is massively higher than anywhere in Europe, its more comparable with developing world countries.

In fact, the rate of suicide by gun (6.3 per 100K population) is actually far higher than murder by gun ( 3.6). So, while the mass shooting might get all the media attention, most 'gun death' is as a result of suicide.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ra...

Agreed. Its not about to change anytime soon. Maybe in few generations when the gun control advocates actually get organised and the culture changes.

Apparently more Americans have died as a result of home grown gun crime and suicides than the total number of American War Dead from WW1, WW2 , Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and other world conflicts since 1914.

Yeah, the idea of the citizens of the US using assault rifles to defeat a government that's armed with the world's most expensive military, and reaper drones, seems like the most depressingly ludicrous fantasy of the lot

Pakistan and guns

Yemen and guns

Afghanistan and guns.

Etc.

What’s special about America?

A .22 long is a lethal cartridge, how small do you want to go and how successful do you think effectively outlawing hunting in the US is going to be?

Mental health programmes and re-education: you work in the American eduction system? how's your funding at the moment and would you expect the vast additional sums required to become available anytime soon?

Licensing is a more viable route to tackle gun control, but the huge numbers of unlicensed guns already in circulation would hamper its effectiveness .

Buyback schemes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countr...

300,000,000 in US circulation and if the scheme reduced that number appreciably, the blackmarket value would go through the roof. A Sisyphean task.

Someone else suggested increasing the cost of ammunition to $1000 a round. Making a bullet is relatively straightforward, costs pence and requires a couple of hundred quid in equipment (if that). Thousands of UK shooters produce their own ammo. Any huge price hike would just produce a correspondingly huge cottage industry to supply the black market.

I really wish there was a simple answer to all this, but there just isn't.

Well if that ever came to pass, you'd end up with an unending gorilla warfare situation, like all recent conflicts involving asymmetric forces. Not pretty.

America does seem to be unique in its paranoia distrust of authority.

I think I know a way to start the rehab of American Gun Control.

Disband the NRA.  Obviously something will take their place but by then hopefully legislation will curb their enthusiasm.

I meant the australian approach, 5 bullets max or something. There's just no need for more in a non military setting.

You mean magazine capacity? Most countries, UK included, have no such restrictions. I don't think this is where the problem lies.

It’s all very sad, but it’s not my problem - Americans killing other Americans with guns - it’s what they want, and it’s what they’ve got. They don’t care what we think, indeed it’s because of their history with us they feel the need to have unrestricted ownership of small arms. If they are content to allow the slaughter of gun crime then I’m not going to try and pointlessly convince them to control small arms sales - they could change the law anytime, but they chose not to, so it’s clear they consider the occasional/ regular slaughter at schools, concerts, clubs, or wherever an acceptable consequence of their right to bear arms. Apocryphal factoid more Americans have been killed by legally owned small arms since JFK was assassinated than have been killed in all the wars America has ever been involved in including the civil war. Let them get on with it - the solution is obvious and it’s in their hands, stupid arseholes.

It's a supposedly developed nation with unusual levels of gun violence; especially and uniquely high levels of gun violence perpetrated against school children, something it seems unwilling or unable to recognise and address. It's also English speaking, a culture exporter and we have strong historical ties so is rather more relatable than say Yemen, a war torn and underdeveloped nation with a very different culture.

jk

Yes to all of that, though your key word is ‘supposedly.’ I’m afraid I find the concept of America as culturally ‘foreign’ and alien as anywhere else in the world you care to name. Unfortunately a shared history plus their cunning disguise of language and dress makes them appear like they belong to what we like to think of as the civilised west.

If we can shrug our shoulders at random slaughter in other countries why not with the USA? It would be callous but not untrue to say “Ah it’s just what they do.”

"Mental health programmes and re-education: you work in the American eduction system? how's your funding at the moment and would you expect the vast additional sums required to become available anytime soon?"

I work in a private school so we are totally outside the education system. 

We tried to bring in a mental health awareness campaign and it led to a screaming match in the staff room with one 75 year old member of staff demanding we do not do it as we'll have kids walking around saying they are mentally ill because it's the trendy thing to do...

Australia did. The UK does in terms that guns are essentially illegal.

Other countries have wide gun ownership without this issue so it is far from the only step but the answer will be many small changes.

But we couldnt even ban bumpstocks after Vegas

We still allow those on the terror watch list to buy semi autoamatic assault rifles..

I can't help but feel the school thing is linked to the supposedly ludicrously high-pressure social environment plus the apparent strong focus on competition (winners and losers) across sports and academic achievement in American high school. Of course I've no direct experience, but if the documentaries and dramas I'm sure most of us have seen go half way to providing a real picture, you could see how a mentally-fragile young person could become despairing and angry, before cracking, in such a place.

Or maybe it's just America's "frontier spirit" and one of those things.

You misunderstand the situation in the UK. Guns aren't illegal, they're just strictly licensed. Obtaining a firearms certificate is relatively straightforward, as long as you don't have a serious criminal record and your GP isn't aware of you having any mental health issues. Anything from a semi-automatic shotgun to military grade sniper rifles are legally owned. Even after Dunblane, handgun ownership was only largely banned on the mainland (the law still allows for legal possession in specific categories or under special circumstances).

Another video helpfully explaining the NRA position

youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U&

So they are banned or high regulated.. I lived in the UK for 33 years.

It's true that you couldn't legally own a rifle like the AR-15 in the UK but most other categories are freely available. Some US states are more severe on aspects of gun ownership than the UK. I wouldn't say Britain was highly regulated in this regard, just sensible.

Don't see what your having lived in the UK has got to do with this, you were still under the impression that "guns are essentially illegal" here. Just not true.

Your local Asda must be very different to mine.

I'm pretty sure Trump is about to announce armed guards or armed teachers or something...

"No child should be in danger in an American school"

You have to ask just what it will take for Americans to admit that their laws on gun ownership are fatally flawed in an all-too-literal sense?

T.

Or announce that "Now is not the time to talk about gun control"

OK smart arse.... freely available, if you can be bothered applying for a license.

Edit: and just to be clear, obtaining a firearms certificate in the UK is a lot less onerous than obtaining a driving license. The factors that have lead to the huge numbers of gun related deaths in the USA run a whole lot deeper than simply the rates of gun ownership.

Yes, a number of factors influence gun deaths but the number of guns in society is a significant factor in gun deaths.

Obviously, rates of gun ownership will have some effect on rates of gun death, especially when considering rates of gun suicide. But, surprisingly perhaps, there is hardly any statistically significant causal link between the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ra...

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

I had this discussion a decade or so ago on this site and a statistician took the available data (better than the sources you linked to) and confirmed the significance of that particular link, or eigenvector as he referred to it.

Fair enough, but without your actual sources it's all just "my Dad's harder than your Dad".

Its just his usual cack. If it had been someone shouting Allahuakhbar he'd be screaming for revenge   Instead he seems sure the shooter is mentally ill. I guess he is promising to abolish mental illness so that there simply won't be any people with psychiatric problems owning assault weapons because psychiatric problems won't exist anymore. When all Americans are sane, that's when gun atrocities will stop. 

Compared to the US, they essentially are banned or highly regulated

i live in a constitutional state so we have no checks or anything. 

There’s very very few guns on the streets in the UK with the rate of fire a typical US gun can throw down.

as a teacher when the alarm goes off I am behind the students walking them out having closed doors and checked classrooms. Armed teachers would have been no use here.

most high schools in the us do have security but kids always let people in the locked doors. Ours do.

The long-held claim that America is the leader of the free world is continually exposed as nothing more than bluff, bullying and money.

No leader of the free world would allow this to go on. But then, the "most powerful man on earth" (another myth), was bankrolled by the NRA to the tune of no less than $31mm in his presidential campaign...

Is that what they call short money?

Im wondering if the idea of a group of average unorganised civilians with guns would stand a cat in hells chance against the American government in a civil war or unrest situation, it sounds ludicrous at worst and staggeringly optimistic at best to me.

The second amendment, i imagine was relevant back in the 18th century post independence, not so much now.

Some figures for you that i have stolen off Quora, from a user that has a lot more time than me to research....

In 2012 the number of gun related crimes per 100000 was 10.2 or one per every 10000 people, which equates to 32000 American gun crime victims.

In the UK, 2012 that figure was 0.25 per 100000 which works out at roughly 147 people.

And according to the Gun violence archive there have been 1624 mass shootings in the USA in the past 1870 days with 1875 dead and 6848 injured, with a mass shooting defined as four or more people shot in one incident.

So according to those stats every 9 out of 10 days a load of folk get shot somewhere in America, which is just f@cking stupid!!

And another thing which irks me is why are these people not referred to as terrorists? If that man was Muslim/Asian it would be "terror attack at high school"? 

The funny thing is, is that the USA is technically the most un-free nation on earth with the highest percentage of prisoners per capita on the planet. 

Because these people are not terrorists - as I understand it, the term "terrorist" is related to motive, not number of people killed.

I think the best solution is to devolve gun control to the states. I really think the US as a whole has failed - there is no 'middle opinion' that suits the whole nation (one way of doing things that suits 330 million people?!). Let the states that want gun control to try it out. Let the states that want free gun access to have it. It's going to be messy, but ultimately I believe it'll be far less messier than whatever the heck the alternative of trying to maintain the status quo will be. It's interesting that this type of solution seems to work pretty well for alcohol (dry counties where you can't buy alcohol) - I don't see why it wouldn't work for guns too. It would mean that people would need to travel far away to buy guns, rather than have easy access.

No, in NH that means no gun control..

The solution is multi-faceted.

Mental health, guns, Antidepressants, computer games, community awareness, background checks.

Everything has to improve. Right now we have the ridiculous situation where everyone points at the other and nothing changes. Every sector should seek to improve their role.

There is not one sector which does enough.

Of course - I 100% agree. But that's the hard way, where people have to admit they're wrong, and I simply see that as never happening in the US. There hasn't been a single "hard" solution implemented in the US for anything, for ages (as far as I'm aware of - please correct me if I'm wrong). The "easy" (as in it's easier to agree on, harder to implement) is to decentralize laws so that people can have more control over their local area.

America clearly feels that mass shootings are a price worth paying for what they see as freedom.

I'm sure many countries have things that other nations look at and say 'why do you put up with that?' It's just that mass shootings receive a bit more attention on the world stage than say an antiquated rail system.

Yes, 'the land of the free' is in some ways enslaved by antiquated ideas*. I rather like Bertrand Russell's summary "America, where law and custom alike are based on the dreams of spinsters." Although I think he was referring mainly to attitudes to sex and marriage at the time he was there.

*We don't have the moral high ground in that regard either.

Is it a gun problem. Why, once a year does a student want to kill all their classmates?

If that was normal you'd have stabbings in developed countries where gun ownership is lower. You don't.

The poor gun control magnifies the tragedy but surely there is some underlying problem that people in the US just have far too much hate.

You are hugely missing the point here.

Reason why, without a shred of doubt it is a gun related problem is;

Anyone in the USA can walk into a shop and purchase an automatic firearm. These weapons are the type the military use for maximum effect in worn zones.

Can you imagine the devastation these type of weapons can cause in say one minute compared to a knife?

Of course, knifes can be devastating too but nowhere near to the same level a gun. When was the last time you heard about a knife attack killing 17 people…?

And we do have lots of knife crime here in the UK. How many people died in separate knife attacks on NYE in London 2017? It’s just; the death count from knife attacks is always small.

100% gun problem.

Did you even read his post?

He said "The gun does not make the person want to kill people, it just makes the person kill more people".

To which you replied in a belittling tone "Don't be stupid, you're missing the point, it's 100% a gun problem because they can kill more people than a knife". I mean - you could have thought about it for one nanosecond and maybe posited "Guns make killing people less personal and easier to do psychologically" - which might be an interesting argument.  Instead you ignored him and treated him like a child.

To this I say: you are part of the problem.

This is why I always struggle with the gun control debate - much like other, emotionally motivated debates at the moment. In fact it's a microcosm of how we now manage politics - idpol is cancerous in every form, and is only likely to produce shoddy public policy.

Treating gun owners or supporters as if they are in support of killing children does literally nothing but virtue signal, make you feel good about yourself, build hatred and develop shitty reactionist policy. Gun owners also hate children dying.  They obivously think that there are important overriding justifications for ownership - like protection, hunting, personal rights e.t.c. and importantly, that it isn't gun ownership that drives these killings but poor social policy, mental health provisions e.t.c.

Sometimes you just have to say people are wrong - climate change deniers, brexit supporters, gun nuts being three examples.  Pretending these people are rational and just hold different opinions is simply being dishonest.

It's also obvious quite a few gun owners don't care less about people dying.  Otherwise there wouldn't be events like this every week.

There are regularly knife incidents in schools, fatalities are rare, but I can give examples. The difference is a) it is probably psychologically and physically harder to stab someone with a knife than pull the trigger of an AR-15 b) it is easier to disarm someone with a knife.

You do realise you are talking out of your arse here?  

Instead of comparing to the number of knife attacks, maybe we should compare to the number of child suicides - most of these shootings do seem to be a form of "suicide by cop"

To be honest i am not surprised that this is hapening, it seems everyone has a gun in US and lots of frustrations. 

The sad thing is that innocent people pay with their lives for the permissive gun laws.

"Don't be stupid

err did I say he was stupid?

Yes, of course easy access to firearms is only one part of the argument, and yes, one has to question the mental and physiological state of anyone carrying out such horrors but, you have to be pretty off the mark if you think more stringent gun control wouldnt curb the issue.

To me its such a black and white issue: stop the guns, you stop the mass shootings.

Why?

I think the word terror is self explanatory, to terrorise people by killing and injuring as many as possible, motive is irrelevant.

From Wiki - "It is the use of violence or threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, idealogical or social objectives"

Wether these things happen because Allah told him too, revenge on bullies at the school you attend or bad upbringing the result is the same. 

You literally cannot just "walk into any shop in the US and purchase an automatic firearm".

For one, fully automatic firearms are illegal in all but one or two states.

Secondly, the purchase of firearms of any kind requires a number of checks and permits in all but one or two states.

So he was right. You were actually just lying - for effect.

Again, you're not thinking about what you're saying.

Your opinions are based upon a wild mix of emotion and knowledge. Everyones are. Don't give yourself too much credit; you're only human. 

Let's turn it on its head. Lets say, for example, that I handed you a widely accepted, peer reviewed meta-study that proved that current climate change rates are in line with the norm and that human contributions had not had a statistically significant impact upon levels of warmth, co2 e.t.c. How would you feel? Would you continue in your cognitive dissonance? Get angry with me? Tell me it came from Russia Today? What if I showed you four more. No, ten more. What if I showed you your favourite pop tv science guy speaking clearly and without pressure and admitting this truth. Would you shout "Fake news"? Only for so long. Eventually you have to begin to reconsider. It's hard, but I have faith that even you aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reconsider your opinion. Remember: don't get angsty, just a thought experiment.

Now, I want you to imagine that a few weeks later, some guy in a pub comes up to you and says "You're just wrong mate. F*cking idiot. No point arguing with you. You're the reason baby polar bears are dying and if you don't change your opinion you support the continued murder of baby polar bears. Moreover, also, you probably support child prostitution. You know, I'm because most people who support child prostitution are a climate change-phobes."

Did you magically change your opinion back?

No?

So stop peddling idpol. All of you.

If you want change, address the arguments of the other side and treat them as human beings with good reasons for their ideas.

You can however buy an AR-15, which appears to be the almost exclusive weapon of choice, technically a semi-automatic assault rifle, in 43 states.

Agreed. They just love their guns more.

I have the legal right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly in every single county of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland.

I haven't killed anyone yet, have I?

Or is it that univariate analysis is garbage? Do you even understand what that means?

I’m not going to “debate” with you.  Doing so makes your view appear debatworthy, giving it credance it doesn’t deserve.

Out of interest, i cant tell from the tone of your post wether you are serious about the climate change example you have used, id be keen to read about it if so.

I'm not really sure what you are saying - that presenting gun supporters with evidence that widespread gun ownership will change their minds?  Clearly it doesn't

Guns in the US is something the US needs to sort out, it's not for us to.  Meanwhile, I'm quite happy living in a  country with very low levels of gun ownership, crime and injuries

Really?  On what basis?

I assume not, but the chances of you doing so accidentally or deliberately are much higher than someone who doesn't carry such a gun.

I take your univariate analysis strawman and raise an n+1. 

I’m not analysing anything, I’m stating stating facts. It’s odd that your natural response appears to be attempts at insult.

I'm saying that I think you're more interested in feeling good about yourself through moral outrage, othering and dehumanising large swathes of a diverse and complex population and virtue signalling than you actually are interested in change to gun laws.

DING DING DING! We got one!

I'm not sure I attempted anything, I was quite direct and open.

Starter for 10: Is context ever important?

OK. Not sure why you think that.  FWIW, I have US relatives who  variously own guns for hunting (take them seriously and use them carefully), and own guns as a sort of fetish, macho image thing (rather scary people, who are not going to be persuaded by gentle argument that guns are dangerous things).

As above, I'm not.  I'm quite happy with our gun laws.

Yes, you were being a dick. It’s my choice if I’m insulted.

Of course, make a contextual case for wisespread ownership of AR-15s and similar weapons and we can debate it.

Odd. You come on to a forum. Make a statment then don't back it up.

Surley you have better things to do with your time.

I'm on a train. What is your excuse ?

How about you back up your statement?  Face it, you were wrong.

Do you not think there is a difference between you who I assume is involved in some Form of law enforcement or security and random members of the public owning firearms?

Not that I am anti firearm, I own shotguns but the only time they come out of the gun safe is to travel to a shoot and back. 

My apologies - you've missed my aim - I was using example to show that the previous poster who had stated "But you can buy an ar-15 in 43 states", was doing so wilfully absent of context.

In my context, you're right; I am and suspect I have more experience with firearms than anyone on the thread.  In his context, he had ignored background checks, types of weapons, ammunition natures, modifications, access to said weapons e.t.c. and so my argument was that unless you're willing to consider all of the aspects of a problem you are just adding to the noise and stupidity.

No you don't. You might have a licence though.

I bit worrying that somebody with such a licence doesn't understand the legal difference between a licence and a right yet complains about noise and stupidity. 

I shall add my 2 pennyworth to this debate which covers the same ground regularly, after every new atrocity.

I don't believe gun ownership itself is the problem or cause, it is a small percentage of people that own (or have access to) some guns. The problem is lack of comprehensive and robust checking of people who hold guns - as in being licenced.

In UK when I was licensing firearms for 12 years I worked throughout north Powys, at the time we had the highest percentage of licensed gun owners per capita in the UK. This did not result in Powys being the centre of firearm related crimes or deaths, occasional suicides usually, especially following foot and mouth. Obviously my area was very much a farming community and they accounted for much of the gun ownership.

I believe that without any robust checks or licensing system it is simply a percentage game regards mass killings in USA, they need to have the means to identify those 1 in 100,000 that are potential killers and ensure they do not have access to firearms. Which is pretty much what we attempt to do in this country, with reasonable success.

There is I think another more important aspect -the culture around guns.  Countries where gun ownership is  commonly seen as needed for defence of people or property have high levels of gun violence. Most of these countries are poor (and there may indeed be a need for defence).  The US is the exception.  Other countries with high gun ownership (e.g. Switzerland) don't have high level of gun violence because guns aren't seen in this way.  They do still have high levels of gun suicide.

I think you may have overlooked a crucial possibility in your rush to discount me as a gun nut.

I'm not going to out myself; but suppose I were a specialist police firearms officer working for CO19?

The gun control in the USA is directly opposite what we have here in the UK in respect of people's attitude to guns. Nobody here mentions the US Constitution and the right to bear arms. It is engrained in US culture and it is something we do not have here.

After Sandy Hook most US commentators felt that if gun control could not be introduced after the killing of young children, then gun control in the US was lost as an issue.

It will never happen. They had the one opportunity and blew it.The parallel is with Hungerford here which led to tighter controls.

Honestly, if that were the case I would be seriously concerned given your need to display your obsession with the minutiae of guns.

Posted by (I think) a friend of mine on facebook (he may have shared it of course):

"Hello, is that the Washington, DC police? I see that the the latest shooting is the fault of the people that didn't report a suspicious and dangerous character, rather than that of politicians who do absolutely nothing about gun control. So I thought I should report someone acting really weirdly. He's got a massive, but fragile ego, he's a compulsive liar and the stuff he puts on social media is truly disturbing. I'm really worried he's mentally disturbed and is going to do something really dangerous any time soon. The address? Yeah, it's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You can't miss him, he's orange. He'll be in an office eating a Big Mac and watching Fox News"

Agreed. I would also add that CO19 don’t use fully automatic weapons.

Or, an Army Barmy Infantry Officer with an attitude problem?
To be honest, if you're either, you're coming across as very unprofessional and I would hope the selection process for SCO19 in particular would weed out such individuals.

and that CO19 no longer exists...

I for one would hope your patchy understanding of some issues (rights vs strictly controlled licences for example) is compensated by your ability - under pressure - to differentiate a Wookie from a Honey Monster...

Trump is irrelevant. If Obama could not do anything then they have well and truly missed the boat.Obama was powerless on the issue.

Well, exactly.  I can see that most of the gun-owners in Powys have a legitimate agricultural reason for owning a firearm.  The problem is that most of the gun-owners in suburban America only believe they do. 

Yes, precisely, so a disgruntled teenager randomly shooting kids is not a terrorist.

Yes, of course, in that lots of people get killed.

However, a disgruntled teenager at a pop concert with a bomb in his bag is. There was some suggestion that Nikalas Cruz had links to white supremicist organisations.

A specialist police officer would understand the difference between a right and a licence so you can't be that.

If I exert my right to walk down my local high street at noon every day for a week nobody would notice and my right would almost certainly be unchallenged.

If a specialist firearms officer claimed that outside of their assigned duty they had the "right to carry a fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpup assault rifle - loaded, ready and openly" every day on the high street for a week they would noticed and they would quickly no longer be a firearms officer. 

That's because they have a licence to carry a gun on duty and but not a right.

...and I don't recall them ever being issued with bull-pups, (or even 'fully automatic, gas operated, magazine fed light bullpups').

Out of interest, where can I get a blowback operated, belt-fed heavy bullpup? That'd be fun to try and use.

You can continue to argue minutae if you'd like.  Twice, I have brought up thought experiments to assist with the explanation of ideas that I found simple, but other people struggled with. Both times I have been taken literally.

I don't know how to explain it in any clearer language.

I AM USING ANALOGY TO EXPLAIN SIMPLE THINGS.

Maybe capitals is helpful? Who knows. I was under the impression that this is a common method of discussion, to explore ideas. I don't actually know if the human impact on climate change is statistically significant. Nor do I plan to carry automatic weapons and run around the countryside frightening young children.

However - the speed at which, instead of responding to my argument (that othering, attacking the man and virtue signalling were unhelpful tools in discussing complex political arguments like should people own weapons) - I was othered, my statements taken out of context (which is funny, as the statements were about people taking things out of context) and painted as a caricature is about as indicative as anything can be.

I genuinely think that if I had prefaced the arguments with "Before I start - I am pro gun control" - I would have been put into a different box and responded to completely differently. Oh well, this is the result of subscribing to group identity politics. You're either in or you're out. No space for graduations of human experience. Or real discussion.

I even threw you all a huge bone with the "But what about the varying psychological complexities of knife vs gun crime". I have no particular interest in gun ownership.  I have an interest in how people talk to eachother.

The reason people are taking the piss isn't because of your (rather convoluted) analogies. It's because of your repeated attempts to come over as some sort macho hard-man know it all.  Claiming you are allowed to walk around with big-tit, mother-f*cker, kill-o-matic machine gun doesn't make you look authoritative.  Just a bit of idiot.

I'm going to assume you're trolling unless you actually read my post.

Thenewnickb stated something 'as a fact', and pretended that context was unimportant.

So I replied, stating something else, pretending that context was unimportant.

Then I concluded that both were equally rubbish - as "univariate analysis is stupid".

Your assumption is that it's all about me. Because it's easier to just write someone off than it is to argue ideas. Attacking the person rather than the idea is what kids do.

SO!

Why is it a good idea to marginalise and demonise gun owners? Does this get you what you want? Does this change public policy? Should the anti-gun lobby engage with the NRA or just call them all hicks? Are you getting this yet?

You haven't actually presented any ideas beyond "Look at me, I know lots of gun-nut bullshit words and fantasize about walking round with machine guns".

Yep - as above, quite happy with gun laws post Hungerford and Dunblane.  The UK is very safe, gun-wise.

Except the NRA would use that as justification to allow the sale of tanks and drones to the public.

I'm confused.

I know that's not true because you replied to my first post, in which I presented an argument for a better way of approaching the gun control debate.

A .22 hunting rifle is lethal but nowhere near as efficient a tool for mass murder as a semi automatic assault rifle. Making weapons like this illegal would clearly help.

You didn't.  You just pointed out that US gun owners  think owning guns is higher priority than preventing children being regularly massacred

Again, a lie. Stop trolling.

Are we talking about your 9.07 post?  I don't see an argument there.

And people who use the term 'virtue signal'

Once a year? 18 times so far this year, and it's only the middle of February

The thing is, let’s call it context, my comment about AR-15s being for sale in 43 States was in response to a comment about only a few states where it is legal to sell fully automatic weapons. The AR-15 isn’t fully automatic, although that line can be a little blurred, but it is widely available, with some variables in controls state to state and it is an extremely effective killing machine, and it definately the favoured weapon of mass target killers. So, really your call for contextualisation looks a bit like whataboutery to me.

Perhaps if you had tried to engage in debate and act like an adult and not come across as a childish fantasist with a gun fetish. I see you haven’t responded to my suggestion that you propose a contextualised argument for the widespread ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons. Let’s assume we are not dealing with the Swiss militia system.

Who also wrote that analogy about global warming above that barely made sense?  Gulp!

Mr Neuromancer, you Certainly have ruffled a few feathers today

I don't think it is possible to fix. In 2009 it was estimated there were 300 million guns in circulation....... Many of those will be owned by nutters who would fight (by 'force of Arms') any change to what they see as their right to bear arms. It would be a near civil war and unmanageable. 

They are sadly stuck in the mess - I don't think there is a way out...

What about if the disgruntled teenager had recently converted to Islam and had been watching ISIS vids? 

These things are far from clear cut either/or that you are hoping for.

Incidentally lots of reporting that the Parkland FL shooter had joined a far right group and done paramilitary training with them.

Edit: NickB made these points above - apologies Nick, I replied to Robert without reading down.

Fair enough, but I was just arguing the general point that it is possible to massacre lots of people without actually being a terrorist. So if he was simply disgruntled because he had been expelled from the school  and had no wider political or social agenda then he would not be a terrorist. I agree that if he had links to white supremacist organisations or was an ISIS supporter then it does become less clear cut.

The latest federal rules allow reciprocal rights.. so if i have the right to open carry in my state I have the rights In other states.. trumping local rules..

They said on the news that the alleged Florida school shooter is now "sad" and "remorseful". Well that is nice to know, is it not, good for him. Words fail me

Is this an analogy and if so what for?

Im going to politely disagree.

That means that virtually all murders are acts of terrorism then!

Sorry just edited my post.

So, if he killed all those people with a bomb, what would he be then?

Im trying to understand the definition....could you say that terrorism is politically motivated? There are varied definitions online

When as we have seen in some recent cases perpetrators self-radicalising in a matter of months, even weeks, (both Jihadi and far-right), I don't think it possible to really separate "terrorist", "mentally disturbed" or "disgruntled teenager". There are lots of attacks round the world that have happened that could probably be all three.

No problem, it happens...  

The method doesn't matter, the method doesn't even have to kill or injure as long as there's some sort of threat.  

This is the UK's one:

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.  

That's pretty good by my reckoning, but how you interpret individual acts of violence is another matter and I'm sure that one mans terrorist is another mans inadequate loser, etc.    

Just found a student with his hunting crossbow on campus.. weapons are just everywhere here.

it was locked up but he has an AR15 and it was quite an argument that his weapons do not come on campus

No argument from me. Most rational people don't want the public to have access to weapons designed specifically to kill other people.

That is just horrendous. The fact that it doesn't surprise me just illustrates my initial point that the problem has become insurmountable. America, as a nation, is essentially insane on the issue of gun ownership.

mhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-shooting-thoughts-pra...

Nothing more to add.

Cheers, thanks for that

Sorted that for you ;o|

I agree, but I think it is perfectly possible, in principle, to imagine an attack which gunned down lots of people that wouldn't be an act of terrorism.

Disturbing that someone should dislike this!

One factor that is different, is that there is already an existing movement for the potential Jihadist to attach themselves to and follow.  Not only that, but that movement fully sanctions extreme violence and sells the idea that suicide whilst conducting those acts is not only justified but honourable according to their religion.  I don't think there is really that equivalent in any far-right movement that might be said to be advocating such extreme measures in retaliation to Jihadism, or for any other cause they might be interested in furthering.  In the example of this latest school shooting, it's entirely possible that the shooter was affiliated with far-right groups, but I can't see those same groups suggesting their members go into schools and kill random people - especially as there doesn't seem to be any racial/religious motivation, etc.
You're probably right that a lot of the Jihadist attacks have been conducted by people with mental health issues and/or disgruntled teenagers, etc. and unfortunately, there are people only too willing to take advantage of them.
As for the latest incident being classed as Terrorism?  Unless his motivation goes beyond taking out an extreme grudge against the school he was expelled at, then no, I personally wouldn't say it was Terrorism.  If it transpires that the attack was co-ordinated and for a motive outside of a personal one, then yes, it would be Terrorism.

Possibly because trying to lay the blame on Trump isn't helpful

What a gross misrepresentation of my post.

Trump is just one of a long line of people who are to blame - on this occasion for deflecting the debate towards mental health.

His deflecting approach is compounded by the $31mm bankroll from the NRA.

Very powerful guns are the problem. Thomas Mair had a gun but it was a homemade one constructed from instructions in a right wing magazine. If he'd been able to walk into B&Q and buy an assault rifle do you think he would have been messing around with a hacksaw. Imagine the trauma if he had not only murdered Jo Cox but half of Birstall village square  as well. How do the Americans tolerate it ? 

So you weren't having a dig at Trump?

Or were you?

Because you failed to mention any other president by name.

I get the sense that many "ordinary" Americans have simply had enough.

Through foreign travel I have a number of American friends.  One has been posting extensively over the last few days as it turns out a babysitter to his girlfriend's grandchildren and two kids of neighbours were murdered in this latest shooting.

A flavour of some of the posts from Americans on the thread:

"I love it when politicians say they are making the "American people safe".  Safe where, not at schools, not at colleges, not at churches, not at night clubs, not at concerts, where exactly are we safe?"

"The spineless politicians who kneel to the NRA are accomplices to this horror!"

"I'm so sorry for the loss of their babysitter. This effects so many lives. I watched the news conference with the police and I think she was the mayor or governor. They keep blaming mental illness. This angers me so much..you know why it hits home to me. This is pure and simple evil. Not all mentally ill people mass kill children. Evil psychotic people do. I couldn't bring myself to watch Trump."

"Just heard the speech from President Dumbo.....Said really nothing  about any controls  but  just sympathy....."

I get a sense of helplessness and frustration.

If course I was.  But not blaming him for the shooting as you claimed.

He's to blame for deflecting while accepting NRA money.  He's the one currently who could do something but won't. That was the crux of my post - THE PERSON WHO COULD DO SOMETHING WILL NOT.

Trump is as helpless as every president who has come before him.

Even suggesting that he can do something just ignores the reality of the situation.

After all who wouldn't want to be the president who sorted out the gun problem? That'd be worth far more than any NRA funding.

Even Obama knew the futility of the situation.

This doesn't excuse Trump's attempt at deflection.

Trump's political campaign receiving money from the NRA has got nothing to do with the horrific slaughter that seems to be a daily part of life in the USA. No other President has managed to control it and I can't see any future ones controlling it unless they pull a miracle and get both Republicans and Democrats to agree to radical gun control. The only way anything will happen is if the ordinary person demands it.  Now it appears from UK media reporting of the typical response to these events is that all US citizens want firmer gun control.  However, I'm a bit sceptical about that reporting - if that was the case, wouldn't the likes of Trump respond accordingly to garner votes? 
My best guess unfortunately, is that the average American agrees with the current gun laws and in particular, they see the Second Amendment as being sacrosanct.

Fancy meeting up for a pint sometime? 

Trump for example, and all other republicans pretty much. They dont think there is a gun problem.

Baron - after Sandy Hook Obama tried to introduce legislation but Mitch McConnell et al shut it down as the republican agenda was to kill any of Obama legislation no matter the subject.  Right now there is a Republican president , senate and house so if they want to do something they can.  But they obviously dont care enough.  Hopefully with a majority population that wants some from of control this will came back to bite them

But even if the president wants to introduce tougher gun controls there's the problem of the constitution.

Trying to change it plays into the hands of many people, gun owners or not, who see the federal state as a threat th their individual states and themselves.

If only there was a way to amend the constitution.

Some parts are easier to amend than others.

Which isn't really the issue because making guns illegal simply leaves 300 million weapons lying around.

Unless you imagine a long line of gun owners waiting to hand in their guns.

That's exactly what happened in Australia in 1996.  The government compensated owners for the 650000 guns handed.  Likewise in the UK after Dunblane.  The problem in the US isn't the legal or practical but the desire to actually change things among the population.

https://www.snopes.com/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people...

It seems timely to link to the best articulated monologue anyone has ever delivered on the subject.

Alert: contains swearing but anyone with the stomach for regular mass murders of children should be able to cope. vimeo.com/219338338

I only know a few ex gun owners in the UK.

None of them wanted to hand in their handguns but, as you said, the will of the people was for a ban and being vastly outnumbered and not prone to violence they had little choice but to comply.

You are 100% correct in that until the people of the US want a ban it just won't happen.

Then you would have a licence to carry a weapon whilst on duty, under strictly controlled circumstances, using a weapon issued to you.

That licence, and weapon could be revoked at any time.

You do not have a legal right to own or carry an automatic assault weapon around the streets of Britain just because you feel like it. Licences and rights are very different.

I'm sure that if you are a member of an ARU, or a member of HM Forces  these things will have been explained to you very clearly.

There was extremely limited handgun and large calibre semi-automatic rifle ownership in the UK pre-Hungerford and pre-Dunblane; and rocking up at a rifle range with the fabled 'gas-operated, magazine fed light bullshit semi- auto' painted in Dulux green and brown would probably have you pegged as a nutcase to be avoided. With the fairly strict accountancy on guns and ammunition it was fairly simple to say "Hand it in or you're nicked, and no, you're not getting any compensation".

Australia seemed a bigger job, but again there was a licensing and logging system so again there would have been a very good idea of who owned what.

The US? I suspect no one has a clue what's legally owned by who, let alone what's in the hands of criminals and nutcases. You'd maybe get law abiding citizens in urban areas with a reasonable amount of policing handing in weapons. Out in Shitsville, Arkansas where every Billy-Bob and Cleetus is off his head on meth and the nearest obese deputy is a couple of hours away? I wouldn't be nipping to the woodshed without a 9mm, gun control or not.

There's going to be no magic bullet and it'll never be as safe as places like the UK but that's no reason to not bring in sensible regulations, improved mental health, removing guns from those on terror watch lists and the like.

But Trump is putting it all on mental health whilst simultaneously cutting mental health funding.. it takes a special kind of stupid to think anything good about that man.

You'd think he'd he quite keen on mental health funding...

Good article in today's i paper by Janet Street-Porter. After Trump had offered "prayers and condolences" one Parkland student responded " I don't want your condolences you f*cking piece of shit. My friends and teachers were shot..do something instead of sending prayers. Prayers won't fix this, but gun control will prevent it happening again"

The message has been shared by thousands, but as JSP writes it will be totally ineffective......

JSP says that Trump lacks the emotional intelligence of Obama. Trump doesn't do suffering. He doesn't cry, doesn't do public displays of emotion. 

So his answer is prayer...........

Isn't he the one who could actually do something or does the NRA run the country? 

Polling indicates a very large majority want some fun control, and a pretty large majority want it a lot stricter than now.  It's down to party politics

There's certainly a lot of guns floating around, but if you don't start you don't finish

All very commendable.
However, isn't there perhaps a case that people are using this as an excuse to demonstrate their anti-Trump views, as opposed to perhaps suggesting realistic solutions to ending these shootings? 

I would feel the same if my friends had been shot in that sick society that doesn't attempt to control guns and my President offered me his "prayers".

What!

You've actually been out climbing instead of engaging with me on the internet!

Hope you had a good time.  

Especially when there's absolutely not the slightest indication that he actually believes in God. 

Spoilsports.

Thought he was all about the prosperity gospel ( rough translation god loves the rich and the more he loves you the richer you get and the richer you are the more he loves you)

No President, including Obama, has really done anything to control guns and all Presidents are apt to use empty words of consolation in such circumstances - it's after all what politicians do.
I'll stand by what I say, there are people who are only too willing to use circumstances like this to demonise Trump and in so doing so are missing a vital point - If you *really* want to change the attitude to gun ownership in the USA, then you *really* have to change the attitude of people in the USA.  Blaming Trump is a total blind alley - All the USA is essentially complicit in the current situation by their acceptance that the Constitution must be withheld.   
In essence, don't attack Trump, but instead attack the laws that allow such free and easy access to the sort of firearms that seem to be used in these shootings.

No, that's not true.

You don't, for example, remember the democrats in the house of representatives holding a sit in on the floor of the house over the refusal of the republicans to do anything after the Sandyhook massacre?

You don't recall the the republicans, who have held majorities in both houses for about six years, refused to legislate against bump stocks after the Las Vegas massacre even though the device was clearly intended to circumvent legislation against fully automatic weapons? Read the link I posted a day or two ago and then read around a bit more. Many people in US do want something done but vested interests and a vocal minority on the republican side of politics are holding that party hostage.

You might also want to read up about strict controls introduced by the democratic administration in Connecticut after Sandyhook which has reduced gun related deaths by 25% to get an idea of the politics behind this lack of action by federal government.

Can you believe that Trump subscribes to any kind of  theology, even the massive confidence trickster scam version you cite? 

Trump jr just retweeted that those students speaking out are actors..

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/374816-florida-house-votes-to-decla...

Whilst it appears to not be there any longer. This whole 'victims are actors' shit makes me sick. It's a disgusting level of low.

I heard Trump trotting out the stock NRA answer yesterday: "if the teachers had been armed, it could have been stopped quickly". Then some random rambling about the armed forces...

also armed teachers would not have stopped this

but trump has a history of this. He said the pulse club shootings would have been stopped by armed drunk clubbers.. what could go wrong..

additionally classrooms can be scary stressful places for all involved, including teachers . You don’t need a gun in them.

The man is bonkers. If I were a shooter I'd simply shoot the teacher first then carry on as I would have done if the teacher wasn't armed.

I'm sure we can all think of plenty of teachers who would either use it as a scare tactic to the kids, or if they were required to defend the class would be more likely to hit another student than the shooter anway through general incompetence and awful aim! 

Thank goodness we live in a civilised country!!

Jim Wright on the subject of arming teachers (kinda sorta), writing on Facebook the other day..
https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1605583792810351

His 'Stonekettle Station' blog is an excellent read on this and other topics: http://www.stonekettle.com/

In reply to:

Maybe we need a load of people to turn up (with hidden guns as appears to be their "right") for the next public meeting Trump is "performing" at and fire their guns off (into the air of course) as a "greeting". The ensuing chaos - not to mention the need for Trump to change his underwear - might make him think twice about these "rights" he goes on about.

That scenario is easily solved if you follow the logic through - give the kids guns too.

This can't be said enough. The parents of the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook have suffered tons of abuse by right wingers who accuse them of being paid actors. They can't even leave the house without crazy people yelling at them and picking fights.

For Trump Jr to support that happening in Florida is pretty unacceptable even by his standards.

Here's the real crazy America:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39194035

And when you think that the main person behind that conspiracy theory is Alex Jones and then you find out that the Alex Jones show is a personal favourite of Trump.....

What turns the stomach is American politicians going on TV to empathise with the bereaved -‘my heart is broken’, and so forth. You wish just one of them would say, look, I’m sorry your kid died, but Americans have decided it’s more important they should be able to own guns than that your kid shouldn’t get shot, so I’m afraid you’ll just have to suck it up.

jcm

In reply :

Has he asked the teachers?

What if they don't want to be armed? To be any use they would have to undergo extensive training not just in the use of fire arms but how to conduct a confrontational combat situation along similar lines to the training given to special forces. My daughter is a UK teacher, she would be appalled if she lived in a society where teachers were expected to carry guns. 

It's just a hideous escalation of the gun culture where the solution is so simple and blindingly obvious to most reasonable thinking people. 

But Trump and the right wing gun culture aren't reasonable thinking people. They are still living in a time warp from the 19th Century Wild West, but with access to even more powerful and accurate weapons.

Well yes, or as has been suggested elsewhere, instead of telling the patents of dead children that "you are in my prayers" they could ban most guns and if people get upset they could pray for them instead.

Thinking back to Trump's inauguration speech where he pledged to improve this hellish society, I can't think of much worse as a parent than dropping my kids off at school and wondering if they're going to get murdered by a social inadequate with an assault rifle. Maybe he should be doing a bit more about this.

Which, sadly, is almost exactly what is starting to happen. Training for teachers so they are prepared to kill their own students:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42804741

http://fastersaveslives.org/

When I read this morning that the Trumpet was advocating that teachers should be armed one of the first thoughts that occurred to me was whether he had considered the (hopefully remote) possibility of an armed teacher going off the rails?

"Spencer! That's the third time you've "forgotten" your French homework..."

But yes, that occurred to me too. Or other teachers leaving the profession because they don't feel up to having a shoot out with a heavily armed maniac. Or a pupil stealing teacher's gun and shooting teacher in a fit of rage..

Yeah, just nuts.

Gunfire starts, source unknown.

Club goers all pull out their pieces.

No-one knows who the 'bad guy' is.

Everyone starts shooting at anyone else armed with a gun, on the grounds that "I'm not the bad guy, therefore anyone else with a gun must be the bad guy".

It would be like the church scene in Kingsman...

Maybe the NRA could send volunteers into schools like grandmas and grandads do now to hear kids reading. Except the NRA guy would just stand there with a gun hoping he was looking the right way when a crazed shooter turned up. 

Well it would seem not even armed guards who's bloody job it is to prevent these kinds of tragedies are willing to take on a shooter... Let alone teachers..

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43164634

As someone who does spend time in a confined space with 30 annoying teenagers, not to mention these days our glorious leaders popping in for a "learning walk" which usually seems to be rather like Harry Enfield's "You don't wanna do it like that, you wanna do it like this" with whatever this weeks educational fashionable idea is, I can assure you that giving teachers guns may not be a good idea.   

What exactly was he going to achieve if he did go in? By he time he got there it would have already been too late.  

Is it better to die a hero or be alive as a coward?  

If he'd been there as it happened it might have been different, but the perpetrator knew the school and presumably avoided him. 

Also, just because you are capable of shooting a target in a range, that doesn't mean that you would it a moving person with a gun and not hit innocent bystanders. It also doesn't mean you could psychologically. Many people's fear response is to freeze!

I find it very sad that this guy is being criticised so heavily. 

His day to day job was to keep the school orderly under normal circumstances.  In parts of America the teachers don't remove a disruptive child, the onsite officers do.  Its unreasonable to expect someone without proper training to run into a school and shoot one kid without injuring any other kid. 

I think he is being thrown to the wolves.  We don't know what his training was.  Generally people are trained not to put themselves in danger and add to the casualty list.  

The hero narrative is not always helpful.  There was a police community officer recently who jumped in after a drowning man even though he can't swim.  The fire service had to pull the pair of them out, but he is a hero according to the local paper.  No reference to even the name of the fire officer who actually solved the problem.  

This was my point, clearly part of the preventative measures already in place just don't work. The fact trump and others seem to think that increasing the number of guns in school is a good idea is beyond belief. How the Nra has been able to maintain any credibility for pushing such a suggestion is staggeringly unbelievable.

The Nra guy even had the cheek to call anyone against the ideas "European style liberals." A bit of a bizarre sentiment when we "European liberals" live in a world where our kids aren't murdered en mass in what should be the safest environment for them, let alone one where teachers are armed and or prepare to shoot one of their students.

 I agree with you. I was commenting on the way he has been treated by his boss and the media.  

It is also not true to say you can't buy a rifle like an AR-15. They are legal in the UK - http://www.lannertactical.com/tactical1/landing-page/CMMGMK4S.html

Now admittedly that is not technically a Colt AR-15 its essentially the same.

There has been a lot of talk about the use of assault rifles in the US, the AR15 is not, strictly speaking an assault rifle, it is simply a semi-automatic rifle which happens to look like the military version. An assault rifle, among other things, has the ability to fire more than one round per trigger pull. 

He is probably going to be hung out to dry for the rest of his life and probably had nothing but a pistol on him to take on a guy with an AR. Probably also poorly trained about what to do in response to that situation.

Another tragedy from the event.

It's not about being a hero, it's about doing the job he was paid to do.  He was armed for a reason.

that appears to be a .22, is that what the school shooter was using? It's probably a little more tricky to get your hands on a section 1 firearm in the UK.

this is sheer speculation but if I were placed in that position I'd be pretty worried about hitting the wrong person as well as generally scared - an assault rifle hits harder and from multiples of a handgun range, perticularly if it's burping rounds with a bump stock.

The idea of armed teacher is an escalation of circumstances that could have extremely grave consequences in many ways

It is not essentially the same. It's chambered for .22 LR, not 5.56mm.

You can get semi auto .22 rifles in the UK, mainly for pest control (shooting lots of rats for example). Anything more powerful will be bolt or lever action.

The 5.56mm version of the AR is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the .22 version.

Completely agree.

Not thought of that, and a fair point on hitting the wrong person.Another needless victim.

It reminds me of the Las Vegas shooting where the rock band apparently had weapons to fire back, but decided the police swat teams would have just killed them in mstake for the shooter. . So they realised it was a waste of time having guns.

He was armed as a deterrent.  It didn’t work.  Realistically he couldn’t have safely shot the perpetrator without risking shooting innocent bystanders.  It’s real life, not the movies.  

Not sure what you're basing that on, why do you think he was solely armed as a deterrent?  In the US guards and police use their guns fairly often.

As far as I can see he was a paid armed guard.  He failed to respond to an attack (presumably he was scared, fair enough of course) and that's a failure to do his job.  He shouldn't have taken the job in the first place if he's not capable.  I wouldn't have taken it, because I'm not.

The way people are talking about the bloke, is "he shot have killed the perpetrator" more than likely he's got a piston against someone with a sub-machine gun, whose more likely to win?

How likely would it have been that there'd be 18 dead instead of 17?

It's pretty easy being sat here, or even behind a desk, say what this bloke should and shouldn't have done.

Interesting fact for anyone saying teachers should be armed, only 18% of trained police shots, out in the wild- not the firing range but real life) hit the target, that's 82% of bullets flying around elsewhere. This sounds like a great idea in a heavily populated area like a school.

Maybe, just maybe, he didn't like the idea of missing shooting the gun man and killing a few more kids instead.

As for not doing his job, I'm not sure the job description would have included, "must fight off armed attacks from people with assault rifles".

Well let's have a think, he's an armed guard in a US high school.  Is there something which is known to be a risk to US high schools that you might want to employ an armed guard for?  I think I know of something...

Probably better to think of the poor guy as a janitor with a gun strapped to his belt. He'll have to spend the rest of his life with this on his conscience.

Pure curiosity here, what's the actual difference, .22 is ~5.5mm if I remember my old air rifle pellets correctly. Is it cartridge length/propellant volume?

jk

If you look at a 5.56 mm round you'll see a very large cartridge compared with the projectile.   I can remember how tiny our .22 rifle rounds were in comparison, though no doubt there are specialist rounds available.

He has his life to think about it.  His family still have him.  

much more propellant than the little 9mm rounds from the sterling and browning as well.

.22 is the diameter of the round in imperial (.22 of an inch)

5.56mm is the same idea in metric. 

5.56 is designed as a round to kill or mame at considerable distance but not be to heavy to carry in large numbers by the military on foot. It’s a very fast round which makes it dangerous and accurate in that it doesn’t drop much on battlefield type distances. 

Isn’t .22 and 5.56 the same?

Exactly. 

Is it an exact match in size?  doesn't surprise me as the dimensions of antennas seems to have made an exact transition to metric - 2.4m = 8ft, 5.4m = 18feet, all of which preexisted.

I was I suppose referring to the type of ammunition rather than the dimension.

interestingly I think I remember the initiative to move to reduced size ammunition came from German WWII research analysing the ranges at which firepower most often had to be effective which led to their developing the first generation of assault rifles from which sprang the post war models

The diameter is the same but a 5.56mm NATO round, as used in the majority of these shootings, is a completely different cartridge to a .22 long rimless round. The 5.56 carries a much larger charge, has a much higher velocity and a much heavier bullet.

The calibre of a .17HMR, .22LR, .223 and 5.56mm (the metric equivalent of .223) round are, as you say, about the same.

The construction of the round and, more importantly, the size of the cartridge vary hugely. The UK spec AR  (.22LR) is great for dealing will small furry targets without body armour at close range. The one used in the USA (.223/5.56mm NATO) will put holes in steel plate at a couple of hundred metres.

The point is they are not the same weapon.

Beat me to it

There is talk of  boycotting of certain sporting manufacturers cycling is mentioning Giro and camelback as two owned by Vista outdoors a major contributor to NRA (owns Remington )also the owner of Black Diamond.

Many orders of magnitude? Do you really mean this? It has a specific meaning in science: each 'order of magnitude' being 10. Many orders of magnitude is thus a factor of at least 100. This is clearly nonsense.

I'd also point out that 5.56mm is, essentially, 0.22.

The NATO round is 5.56x45mm (0.223 Remington). Most 'AR-15' rifles will fire the NATO 5.56 round, e.g.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/products/saint/

They do not fire 0.22 starter pistol rounds...

A janitor that according to that article gets paid $75,673 a year, by the local police.  If that's a janitor's pay I think I'm gonna move to the states and be a cleaner...

I think the point is that a teacher with a handgun is not a solution to a mentally-deranged person with an assault rifle. 

Indeed. Whilst the calibre is similar (same width round) the forces and cartridges are vastly different  

A .22 round will have a case about 15mm long by 5.5mm wide (smaller than a pen lid) and fires a 2.6g bullet at about 330m/s - subsonic. It is a very small round used for target shooting and small vermin shooting. 

A 5.56 round will have a case about 45mm (about as long as an AA battery) long by 9mm wide (necked to 5.6mm at end to fit 5.5mm bullet) and fires 3.56g bullet at 990m/s - supersonic. It is a military sized round used for effectively stopping the enemy and in its civvy .223 version for stopping game like deer  

That .22 semi auto rifle whilst looking like an ar15 is nothing like as deadly. And even if you did manage to bastardise it to fire a 5.56 round (quite difficult given the different chamber sizes) the barrel would blow up in your face as it wouldn’t be proofed to take the greater forces. 

So yes 5.56mm is about the same size as .22inches but the bullet weight and forces behind them are vastly different. Like a golf ball and a ping pong ball are similar sizes but a ping pong ball thrown at you is much less painful than a golf ball launched at you by a BFO driver. 

Fair point. Though the size of the round doesn't necessarily mean that it is/isn't an assault rifle.

The point I was trying to make is that the weapon used wasn't an assault rifle. One thing I've noticed is that those who are very much in favour of the second amendment (hereafter "Gun Nuts") essentially dismiss any argument from someone they perceive to not understand guns. When people start using the term "assault rifle" to talk about something that isn't they lose any credibility with Gun Nuts and so their point, regardless of how valid, is lost. Given how polarised politics has become (both here but even more so in America) there is no way that consensus will be reached unless both sides are willing to talk, something that will not happen as long as Gun Nuts think that the anti-gun lobby don't understand guns and the anti-gun lot see Gun Nuts as backward hillbillies.

If people start talking the same language it's one step in the right direction.

Going back to the original subject matter; Americans and guns, I think they are years away from any sensible resolution of the problem they have created.

This being vast numbers of guns and a ridiculous premise that somehow they solve problems not cause them. The solution must be rigorous laws to control them like any other civilized Country in the world has in place. 

Unfortunately gun massacres will continue until, after sufficient time what is bleeding obvious to most sane people may be forced onto physique the American public. That time has not yet come and discussion in the present form of tampering around the edges is futile. The NRA should be banned as an organisation for their belief that more guns is a solution. 

I think the reaction of the children at the school involved is interesting; what might work would be a nationwide refusal by the young to be educated under the present circumstances to force proper reform. That would be a prize worth having.

Slight aside, and it may have already been posted, but did you see the school that said they would suspend any pupils who protested during school hours?!

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_penny_223-... 0.22lr round vs a NATO round.

Difference in energy appears to be approx an order of magnitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle

Somehow I suspect his job description doesn't include taking suicidal risks against maniacs armed with powerful rifles.

You're right. I made a guess based on 5.56mm bullet being double the mass and, more crucially, travelling at double the velocity (~1000m/s as opposed to 500m/s) of the most powerful .22 round. As Alms cliffe pointed out, it's about an order of magnitude difference. 

I never said it wasn't. The barrel is the same diameter but the round (bullet & cartridge) is a completely different size and shape, (as well as one being a lot more hurty than the other)

I know, where did I ever say anything different???

(Not my dislike on your post BTW)

KE = 1/2Mv2

.22 round = 0.5 * 2.6 * (330*330)= 141,570 = 141.57joules

5.56 round = 0.5* 3.56 *(990*990) = 1,744,578 = 1744.58joules, 12 times the energy of a .22 round.

My point was that an 'AR-15' won't be firing some piddling 0.22 round. As the link I posted shows, it will fire the real, more hurty, NATO standard military 5.56mm round.

Again, read the link I posted; the Springfield Saint AR-15 - 5.56 takes the standard NATO 5.56mmx45 round. As will many commercially available 'AR-15' weapons.

To you, sir, a mere $899.

No doubt about this. The guy in Vegas killed 58 people and injured almost 900 people and the response was almost nothing. These kids are applying pressure and getting results from Trump like nothing I have ever seen.  Count on teenagers to eat politicians alive on social media.

I think most people talking about 5.56 vs .22 were replying to this ‘you can get an AR15 in the UK post’ https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/america_and_guns-679329?v=1#x87...

and highlighting that whilst called an AR15 and having a similar look it is not the same as a 5.56 AR15. 

And technically as the post says neither of them are assault rifles (assault rifles are defined as being selective fire so they can change between semi auto -1trigger pull=1shot and auto reload for next shot, and full auto/burst 1 trigger pull/hold=repeated shots)

I think we should recognise that somebody's job description is exactly that, I guess it would be the first  cop on the scene. I think the current police response is for anyone who can to run in there and try to kill the shooter ASAP. I've got a lot of respect for that person. 

Agreed; How do we action this? Anyone know any Highly motivated American Teenagers who want a career in politics?

As John Cornish said above, if you looked at what people were replying to, it was the supposition you could buy a similar gun in the UK.

Exactly. Can we leave it at that?

Please, for the love of god, please

Hope the link works but have you all seen this, sums up their problems with gun control in an interesting way.

https://www.facebook.com/michael.m.fahy/videos/10156340033558714/

Cheers

Toby

Okay. I missed that. In which case, I'll agree; you can't buy a Saint AR-15 in the UK, and there will be a significant difference in the rounds that can be used.

That is part of the problem of the now rather generic use of 'AR-15'...

Are you saying that armed guards are to stop people rampaging with automatic weapons? And that they should all know it's their duty to KILL anyone who has a gun?

Indeed the AR15 term is used as a catch all for anything with that style of build (built around the standard AR15 triggermechanism and magazine housing) , and as such is not a great term of reference (but a good media sound bite and also used as a selling term by manufacturers) 

for example that UK .22 AR15 would be viewed by the uninformed as far more deadly than this rifle:

https://goo.gl/images/AJFQC5

Whereas in reality they are both semi auto rifles firing the same calibre round (and in all likelihood the wooden stocked longer barreled rifle is more deadly as it is likely more accurate)  

I think you're being a little hard on the guy, he hesitated for four minutes.  I don't know what experience you have but as we're all climbers so have some climbing training I say we've all stood sweating on a move that's caught us by surprise or been a little harder than we expected and some may have eventually made the move, others will have backed off and on a different day we'd get a different outcome.  Then imagine doing that move completely blind, it's a well trained or rare man or woman who could react perfectly in that situation.

Cheers

Toby

Here's what NPR is reporting about the response to the shooting :

Parkland Students Bring Gun Debate Front And Center http://one.npr.org/i/588140326:588140443

Sounds like Rubio got his throat ripped out live on TV. 

Another alarming scenario which I fear could arise as a result of arming teachers or whoever is that a potential gunman could be so far gone that he or she, having already decided to shoot up a school could be thinking to themselves "Well I'm going to do it; if they've got armed staff they might take me down so I'll take as many of them with me as I can".

The possibilities are horrifying.

 They might get shot by the shooter

They might shoot the wrong people

When the police turn up and see someone with a gun they shoot first, ask later.

It's a stupid idea.  In the Last Vegas shooting citizens with guns went to help, but then didn't enter as they realised the most likely think to happen would be they got shot by the police

Not sure he was too bothered about accuracy to be honest, when you can seemingly have as much ammo as you can carry I think whatever size it is, it's still pretty dangerous in the quantity it can be fired.

Yes. An active shooter with a semi auto rifle and lots of ammo will be dangerous if they decide to just shoot away into a crowd. But the calibre makes a massive difference to the level of danger. 

.22lr would need good shot placement to kill. It doesn’t create anywhere near as much damage as 5.56. Do some googling for .22 and 5.56 shots into ballistics gel and you’ll see that the .22 drills in and the damage barely spreads beyond bullet path, where’s the 5.56 properly messes up the gel. 

Also the .22 is more easily slowed by objects it may hit (it would be stopped by a phone  youtube.com/watch?v=6AyPca5XOC0&) whereas the 5.56 won’t  (movies showing people taking cover beyond car doors are bollocks a 5.56 will go straight through that)  

Wow, didn't know this. Thought BD was privately owned!

Re: the debate over whether the shooter used an 'assault weapon'. Let's be clear. It's not really about auto vs semi-auto. This is a red herring.

The AR-15 type rifle is a personal weapon system of military-spec design and construction. Weapons of this type differ markedly from hunting rifles in some key areas. They have:

- gas-operated reloading using a diverted portion of muzzle gases to operate a piston, chambering the next load automatically with no action required on the part of the user.

- the ability to use high-velocity rounds. Because kinetic energy is 0.5 x mass x velocity squared, the effect of increasing muzzle velocity is disproportionately large in terms of energy transferred to the target. (The real-life effects of such ammunition really do have to be seen to be believed, they are utterly devastating.)

- the ability to manage heat, providing the capability for high rates of sustained fire.

Military personal weapon systems are also engineered (in general, anyone who's operated an L85A1 would disagree) to be less susceptible to stoppage, and provide simple reloading via robust magazine systems. Speed-loaders (a simple bit of plastic) can also be used to decrease magazine recharging times. Many such weapons although not all provide selective fire capability, ranging from single shot to (usually) three round burst, and on to fully automatic. 

Anyone who thinks they require such a piece of kit for hunting, is utterly, completely delusional. Likewise for home defence. I would suggest that never in history has anyone needed to bang in a fresh mag while getting rounds down at a deer, or to shoot at a burglar.

Quite how such weapons came to be available to the public - anywhere - is a travesty. 

Agreed. How many on here would be prepared to go blindly into a building armed with just a hand gun where there is someone inside blazing away with a machine gun?

Pretty much agree apart from the high velocity bit. Hunting rounds tend to be every bit as energetic as military rounds. American hunters consider .223/5.56 as a 'varmint' round and not really suitable for larger game.

Other than that I agree completely. ARs etc are just pressed steel and plastic, they're not particularly well made or nice to shoot.

No one needs to give a deer 30 rounds rapid fire, and I'd question why anyone would want to own one other than disturbed people who live in the woods and dress up as SWAT teams.

You're absolutely correct, use of such ammunition does not distinguish a military-specification weapon from a hunting weapon. But all long-barreled military small arms use high-velocity rounds. And the real-life effects of such ammunition on people (or animals) is really quite obscene. 

While 5.56 may be unsuited to hunting larger game (for whatever reason, I wouldn't care), my personal experiences in different theaters of conflict lead me to believe it should be banned. I found that 5.56 produced truly horrifying injuries; the science seems to back up this opinion. The combination of extreme muzzle velocities and light bullet weight is responsible: the path is unpredictable, and the cavitation in the bullet's wake produces widespread devastation along this path for a surprising distance. 

Any animals hit by such may survive the initial shot. But would likely have an exceptionally unpleasant death. 

Edit to add: the wouldn't care bit is not being snotty at your post, just at the entitled attitude many American hunters seem to encapsulate.