Gunman shoots 18 people.

[Rolfe]

How many similar incidents have there been in the USA over the past 20 years? The population of Britain is one-sixth of the population of the USA, so on a simplistic population-based score, we would have expected six times as many incidents. I don't know how many there have been but it seems to me to be more than that.

And at the same time, is the cruelly disarmed British population shaking in its collective boots because of all those criminals who (of course) will be able to get guns anyway, and will have a field day attacking the helpless population?

Not last time I looked.

Rolfe.

?

Rolfe.

 

[Drudgewire]

?

Rolfe.

I guess you're just all around better people than us.

Then again, young punks don't run up to us on the street and slap us in the face because they know we're unarmed and outnumbered. So there's that.

ETA: And yes, I know you're not British Rolfe.

 

[SpitfireIX]

[derail]Sorry to barge in on this thread. Rolfe, please clean out your in-box. I've got some pictures of Bootsie and Kim's kids for you.[/derail]

And as long as I'm here, here are a few lies, damn lies, and statistics for everyone to ponder.

Murder rates, per 100,000 population (source):

• Mexico (gun laws similar to Great Britain, but stiffer penalties): 13.0
• United States: 4.2
• France 1.7
• Australia: 1.5
• Canada: 1.5
• United Kingdom 1.4
• Germany 1.2
• Switzerland (almost every male of military age has a military weapon and ammunition in his home): 0.9
• Japan (undoubtedly the strictest gun control of any democracy): 0.5

Suicide rates, again per 100,000 population (source):

• Japan: 24.0
• France: 18.0
• Switzerland: 17.4
• Germany: 13.5
• Australia: 12.7
• Canada: 11.9
• United States: 11.0
• United Kingdom: 7.0
• Mexico: 4.0*

*more recent source

 

[Drudgewire]

And as long as I'm here, here are a few lies, damn lies, and statistics for everyone to ponder.

Murder rates, per 100,000 population

*United States: 4.2
*France 1.7

So... if someone was to board a plane from America and fly to Paris and kill a bunch of French people, would that count towards their stats or ours?

Y'know, just pondering. vv

 

[Rolfe]

[derail]Sorry to barge in on this thread. Rolfe, please clean out your in-box. I've got some pictures of Bootsie and Kim's kids for you.[/derail]

Sorry, sorry, I hadn't realised it was full.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I guess you're just all around better people than us.

Then again, young punks don't run up to us on the street and slap us in the face because they know we're unarmed and outnumbered. So there's that.

ETA: And yes, I know you're not British Rolfe.

I don't know that being "unarmed and outnumbered" has anything to do with why teenagers are obnoxious. Different countries, different problems. Nobody's perfect.

I'd just rather the punk doing the slapping didn't have access to a gun, doncha know....

Rolfe.

 

[Drudgewire]

I'd just rather the punk doing the slapping didn't have access to a gun, doncha know....

And you're a good man for it.

Me? I prefer the inherent politeness that comes with never knowing for sure who's going to find said hooliganism a shooting offense.

 

[Architect]

ETA: And yes, I know you're not British Rolfe.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I don't know that being "unarmed and outnumbered" has anything to do with why teenagers are obnoxious. Different countries, different problems. Nobody's perfect.

True that.

I'd just rather the punk doing the slapping didn't have access to a gun, doncha know....

Rolfe.

Ah, but they do.

Just not legal access.

Happy-slappers (that's what they call it, right? Happy-slapping?) probably don't worry much about using guns. As jackassulation goes, it's pretty low-end, and I doubt that the reason it's not very popular over here has anything to do with who's packing.

 

[Ranb]

Good site for information like this is : http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/

Nice link. I noticed that they had a link in there about maintenance for moderators (silencers). Does the general gun owning public in England think moderators are normal? Or do they think that they are somehow immoral or illegal like most of the gun owning public in the USA does?

Ranb

 

[Architect]

Nice link. I noticed that they had a link in there about maintenance for moderators (silencers). Does the general gun owning public in England think moderators are normal? Or do they think that they are somehow immoral or illegal like most of the gun owning public in the USA does?

(cough)

 

[Rolfe]

And you're a good man for it.

Er, who are you calling a man? (In the same tone as "who are you calling English...?")

Me? I prefer the inherent politeness that comes with never knowing for sure who's going to find said hooliganism a shooting offense. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

Me, I don't fancy the insincere, forced politeness that comes with the realisation that anyone you might offend, even inadvertently, might decide that such offence is a capital crime.

Carrying a gun means nothing unless there is the perception that it might be used. Otherwise, it's just one more reason to thumb the nose and go "nyah nyah, you can't touch me".

I don't see that having a society where people are really prepared to shoot obnoxious teenagers for the crime of being obnoxious is anything to boast about.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Ah, but they do.

Just not legal access.

This is a point I've been making again and again, though not so much in this context. Indeed, guns are available to the determinedly criminal. But not one single ordinary lawabiding citizen is walking the streets with a gun, or is sleeping with a gun on his bedside table.

So, why are we not all being overwhelmed by "home invasions" and being robbed at gunpoint in the streets and so on? I mean, that's what you believe would happen in the US if gun availability to the lawabiding was similarly restricted.

Rolfe.

 

[Drudgewire]

Er, who are you calling a man? (In the same tone as "who are you calling English...?")

My sincerest apologies. I sometimes forget we're a civilized board here so it's not a filthy sausage fest. I go to so few of those.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The original comment:

I'd just rather the punk doing the slapping didn't have access to a gun, doncha know....

Rolfe.

This is a point I've been making again and again, though not so much in this context. Indeed, guns are available to the determinedly criminal. But not one single ordinary lawabiding citizen is walking the streets with a gun, or is sleeping with a gun on his bedside table.

Well then! Thank God and the Government that you're infinitesimally and statistically insignificantly safer from armed attacks, robberies and home invasions by law abiding people!

That is absolutely true, though, since any former law abider that did keep a handgun by his bed would now be, ipso facto, a criminal. Exactly in the same way that, when someone decides to actually go through with a crime, they cease to be law abiding.

Do you seriously think that anyone who has abstracted themselves from humanity sufficiently to consider the mass-murder of children a desirable goal will stop and say, "oh, but handguns are illegal, so I can't do it?" Some of these guys take days... weeks to assemble their gear. A few posts ago, I threw you a link from BBC news about some kid off the street that had asked for a submachine gun and it was provided for him in 24 hours.

Anyone thinking about blood on the local elementary school floor read that article, too.

This has been the point I've been making again and again: Passing laws that take firearms from law abiding people, who are not inclined to break the law in the first place, doesn't really do you any good.

If I said that the real reason you haven't had another horrible massacre was because I had been praying for you and your nation (which, by the way, I do) would you accept that as causative? Why would you reject something that has just as much statistical evidence behind it as the 1997 law?

So, why are we not all being overwhelmed by "home invasions" and being robbed at gunpoint in the streets and so on? I mean, that's what you believe would happen in the US if gun availability to the lawabiding was similarly restricted.

Rolfe.

Mmm... Ok.... at what point in this whole, "break into elderly peoples houses to rob and beat them senseless, sometimes to death," do you become, "overwhelmed?" The one picture of the poor old woman in the hospital, having been beaten nearly to death in her own home, pretty much overwhelmed me.

Did you check those links I posted? 10 home invasions since January of this year, all of brutal outcome, and the only reason I stopped linking was because three per month of a crime that didn't even exist before seemed enough.

In this one particular crime I do believe that it's rarer over here because housebreakers don't know which of the little old men and women living alone have shotguns by the bed or handguns on the nightstand, and are thus inclined more to stealing the checks out of their mailboxes.

...and over here, "The Defenseless," often DO have shotguns and pistols available, and they know how to use them. My first introduction to concealed carry was a frail, elderly woman, a friend of my godfather, who carried a snub nosed .38 Special in her shoulder bag.

Anecdotally: The first ten people in line at the police station in Dallas (I think it was) the day that Texas started issuing concealed carry licenses were all female, all over 70 years old, and all from the same high-crime neighborhood. No proof. Just a story.

Home invasions, rare anyhow, dropped to ZERO in communities in the south where local ordnances required property owners to own a firearm. Other nearby communities did have a corresponding rise in their rate, though, indicating to me that the kind of people who do this sort of thing cherry-pick their targets.

Robbery at gunpoint tends to drop in communities implementing concealed carry licenses, too, for what it's worth. They just turn to an easier, safer kind of robbing.

So, yes - in any crime where the perpetrator has to come face to face with the victim in private, I DO believe that even the possibility of running into armed prey helps to modify the bad guys' thinking.

It doesn't change their mind about the crime. It just changes their mind about the who and where part.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

This just in from the Associated Press, through Google News:

Okla. House Passes Campus Gun Bill

By TIM TALLEY

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The state House agreed Thursday to allow people with specialized firearms training, such as military personnel, to carry concealed weapons on the state's college campuses, despite opponents who said it made no sense following shootings at schools across the country.

The measure was approved 65-36, and now heads to the state Senate for a vote.

Introduced by Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, the law would authorize active-duty military and National Guard and reserve personnel, honorably discharged veterans and others with firearms training certified by the Council on Law Enforcement Education who hold a state concealed weapons license to carry guns on college and university campuses.

The legislation is more narrow than Murphey's original proposal, which would have allowed anyone at least 21 years old with concealed handgun carrying rights to carry weapons on campus. That version was similar to a Utah law.

"This has to be the craziest thing I have ever seen," said Rep. Ray McCarter, D-Marlow, one of several lawmakers who said the measure is opposed by college administrators.

Supporters argued that the measure would make college campuses safer by putting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Hmmm... on a vote of 65 to 36. I don't think I have to add any emphasis to that last sentence, do you?

"The concealed carry law is about 12 years old. It's worked out very well," Murphey said. He said more than 60,000 Oklahomans are licensed to carry concealed weapons and there has been no widespread gun violence in the state, which opponents had warned of.

100,000 in Indiana, and no widespread gun violence here, either. Funny that it always seems to work like that.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes in the state Senate.

 

[Drudgewire]

Well, I'm officially pulling for the Sooners to win the Big 12 tourney this weekend now.

BOOMER SOONER!!!

 

[Drudgewire]

Oklahoma 54
Colorado 49

 

[jimbob]

Hi

Originally Posted by articulett
The other countries don't have near the number of massacres we do... or homicides... or even suicides of young people.

Better check your facts. Britain and the US have nearly IDENTICAL suicide rates. The suicide rate spiked the reporting period AFTER 1997, too, when all of their guns were heavily controlled or confiscated. In 2005, the US had a slightly LOWER suicide rate than Britain.

I don't know about ALL other countries, but Britain ALWAYS had lower overall crime rates, but even there, the crime rates are on the rise. If guns cause crimes, and fewer guns mean LESS crime, why is the british rate going up?

As for massacres: We invented it. We're better at it.

Again, why do you think that the death of 10 people in a clump more tragic than 10 people killed, spread all over the country?

I think the death of a clump of ten people, and the death of ten people spread out more tragic than either on their own.

How does one prevent the other?

Originally Posted by articulett
You can't seriously believe that all gun victims would have died via chemical bombs or something.... Certainly not the kids mentioned in the OP... or the family killed by the son who got the gun his dad kept to protect his family (which wouldn't have worked to protect anyone in a chemical bomb attack, I might add.)

Then what's killing the Brits?

There was NO decline in homicide rates or suicide rates after they went all... as everyone in this country says, "draconian," only the anti-gun people say it like it's a GOOD thing.

Shouldn't there have been SOME effect?

Not really, because the guns weren't there. Before Hungerford, I knew one rifle-shooter, who also made and fired black-powder weapons (he had special dispensation to do this). My school CCF had an armoury. Several people had shotguns. Hardly a pervasive gun-culture.

This might seem like an anecdote, but I believe it also reflects the real situation before and after the Dunblane gun-laws.

The kid in the OP was almost an Eagle scout. That means that he had an axe and knew how to use it. Would it have been less tragic if he'd killed them with it?

I doubt he would have managed to kill 18 people, at the very least many more would have been able to run away, secondly it would be hard work, and thirdly, there would be far more chance of overpowering the person. In the Wolverhampton machette attack, the nursery nurse managed to protect the children, and two men chased the perpetrator away.

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by articulett
I strongly suspect many of these guns are used because they're available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilization_behavior

I suspect so, too, but other things are available as well. Well- they apparently are in Britain, anyhow.
[/QUOTE]
But the homicide rate is less than half the US homicide rate

Originally Posted by articulett
You don't see chemicals and think "gee, it would be so easy to make a chemical bomb..." People do see triggers and think, I wonder what would happen if I just pulled this. I can change everything... in an instant. I can kill myself and make a whole lot of other people suffer as well. And some do. Quit pretending that this kid would have used or done something else... that is really a stretch... but one that "gun enthusiasts" often seem to make.

Well - actually, I do. Your tax dollars at work.

I used to take bombs apart for the Army, and the training I received to that end have left me thinking a little differently than most people. Everywhere I go, I'm doing a risk analysis and escape plan. <<shrug>> Chemicals in the grocery store, culvert under the street, oncoming cars in traffic all get tallied up as I go along.

I doubt that chemical bombs would cause as many fatalities as guns,

Hi


...or drop in at the grocery store and buy a few bottles of liquid chlorine laundry bleach and household ammonia.

It's a dangerous world.

Think that'd make the papers?

I think it would make the papers as the Tokyo Underground gas attack is still remembered. Ii had 12 fatalities, and sarin is more effective than chlorine. ( I have recently read Robert Graves' autobiography "Goodby to all that" and he described one allied chlorine gas attack during WWI. It wasn't outstandingly successfull. Fiasco might be a better word.)

ANYHOW: Just because YOU see triggers and think, "I wonder what would happen if I just pulled this", doesn't mean everyone does. I see a trigger and immediately check which way the muzzle is pointed. I was trained with THOSE, too.

It isn't most gun owners, it is the wierdos that are going to commit massacares.

There is a qualitiative difference to killing with a gun and a knife. For certain disturbed individuals, the gun would give them an ability to "play god" that a knife wouldn't. The minimal effort required to quickly kill at a distance could be quite attractive, "oh look, I can point at that person and they are dead". Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are also far more effective at killing than knives. They also require less planning to commit a massacare than bombs.

A stretch to think that an Eagle scout could have used an axe? I almost guarantee there was one around the house, garage or tool shed, and he knew how to use it. A gun being around is an excuse too. Available is available, as the homicide rates form Britain have shown pretty well.

Less than half the US rate, and little change in gun ownership in my lifetime.

 

[jimbob]

On the self-protection aspect.

Would allowing access to flintlock pistols privide this, but make it hard for mass killings?