I suspect that following the kids shooting that the news is focusing more on gun crime in the states.
But the shear numbers are sickening, how did the states get to the point where killing people is almost normal. I can see why some get guns to protect themselves, but doesn't really explain they why it got to this point in the first place.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10585365 ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10585365[/url]
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10585357 ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10585357[/url]
Which is why I posted the '500 shot since the massacre' post, to really show it just happens every day...
I'm not sure it got that way, I think other countries got better and they didn't.
by the twisted logic of the gun lobby, every one should be armed from an early age-- say kindergunclubs....
They have a whole different way of looking at things
[img] 
[/img]
[img] [/img]
/p>
No guns next door that I can grab and turn on the owners*? OK then, your house it is!
*which is often what happens.
There's a report of on the news today of 2 firemen being shot in New York. By the NRA's logic they obviously need to arm firemen as well so that they can defend themselves....
They're all crazy-ape, bat shit mental! It's that simple. Just thank The Lord you don't live amongst the wilfully ignorant, morbidly obese, ordinance toting, god bothering, foetus worshiping half wits! It's much safer here 😀
How is it sickening? The number pales into significance compared to places like Brazil where there are 100 gun deaths per day, in a country that is going to hold the Olympics soon.
TBH I don't see what gun deaths in the US are to do with the U.K? It's not as if they (yanks) are interested in the alcohol related deaths in Scotland or the smoking deaths in Spain? I'm more concerned with left turning lorry deaths in London or NHS cuts and the impact on healthcare.
Ive just rewatched Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moores answer 'why' is very interesting.
How is it sickening?
for a country that spends billions enforcing its ideas of democracy on the world hardly setting a good role model.
TBH I don't see what gun deaths in the US are to do with the U.K? It's not as if they (yanks) are interested in the alcohol related deaths in Scotland
considering the amount of money the US ploughed into northern ireland during the troubles i guess that is a good thing!
Well as an outward looking nation we can take interest in other countries without invading them. It's also worth knowing that behind the headline and moral outrage is a very unhealthy stat on gun use.
How can intelligent people cling to a "right" ratified in 1788 to bear arms?
The firepower readily available to an individual today would have been the equivilant to a regiment of fighting men then.
If you research the NRA and how they disseminate mis information against any advocates of gun control is truly staggering. They have run several advertising campaigns against law inforcement officers who have called for gun control. The NRA has an annual budget of $200 million and feeds people's fears to drive their profits and ideology.
For the avoidance of doubt the NRA are calling for armed guards in schools. The reluctance of a professional police officer to draw their weapon, let alone discharge that weapon is immense. The chances of innocent casualties are high as proved in the Empire shooting earlier this year. The police killed a murderer but NINE bystanders were injured by police gun fire. So armed guards in schools? Maybe flak jackets and helmets for children next.
The issues raised exceed the culpability of the NRA and illuminate wider ranging and more intangible issues rather than one organisation selling fear and death to their own countrymen.
It's the logic of a mad man. The assassin who shot the wrong Beatle justified his actions by the following statement. " the Beatles changed the world and I changed the Beatles".
No point in raising an intelligent argument on that basis then
How is it sickening?
Gun deaths per 100,000 2011
Brazil: 19.01
USA: 10.2
So Brazil might have double the rate, but then:
UK: 0.25
Chilie: 0.06
Ireland: 1
and
Mexico: 11.14
Still think the USA's rate isn't sickening?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Also I think the USA has a higher rate of Alcohol related deaths than the UK too, not sure how much Scotland would be on it's own though…
Also alcohol/smoking/bad eating deaths tend to hit those doing it (not exclusively but most) where as gun crime tends to hit other people. It's a point where the US should feel shame from the rest of the world, just as it tries to impose on other countries.
In the end of the day massive pick up trucks country music and high gun deaths are not a great legacy
The majority look to be suicide ! Jamaica dont look too safe !
The majority of homicides will be carried out by criminals, who just like all criminals dont care about the legality of their weapons, did our gun control have any effect on dale cregan.
I hadn't realised gun crime and gun related death was quite so high in Brazil. So, I had a quick read of the [url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil ]Wiki Article[/url] on gun politics in Brazil.
I was quite saddened by this quote though when reading about the 2005 gun control referendum held there:
The referendum was the first time the US-based NRA involved itself prominently in pushing its pro-gun agenda in a major country and was successful in influencing the outcome of a national referendum.
Still think the USA's rate isn't sickening?
It's as sickening as any other needless loss of life, which is kind of my point. 🙄
All sorts of things can cause that be they fiscal policy, wilful intent, act of god or orchestrated genocide with political/religious blessing. Just not all of them elicit such a response on social media or the mainstream press.
TBH I don't see what gun deaths in the US are to do with the U.K? It's not as if they (yanks) are interested in the alcohol related deaths in Scotland
Scottish culture doesn't exactly have a massive worldwide influence on what is portrayed as "normal" or even "cool" in worldwide media though does it?
The majority look to be suicide
Look at the gun homicide rates then (same table):
USA: 3.7 per 100,000
UK: 0.04
did our gun control have any effect on dale cregan
How many Dale Cregans has it prevented? Looking at one incident doesn't help see the bigger picture.
Some people die even though they wear seatbelts. Some people do heroin and live to 100.
Doesn't mean controls on seatbelts or drugs are misguided.
Flip side I've a cousin who got laid off his job in the Gulf of Mexico and kept a roof above his and his family's heads and kept them fed for just over a year until things improved by hunting with his rifle. For them it was a tool rather than some macho/crime preventing implement.
I am not disregarding the validity of gun control, the point I am making is that the majority of gun crime is carried out by criminals/recidivist criminals, gun control will have no bearing on the criminal, they will always be able to get hold of firearms, dale cregan is an evil criminal gun control does not apply to his kind.
But I doubt he uses an assault weapon to go hunting?
Point taken. It's a stark contrast as to what's culturally acceptable or not.
And people were bumping their gums about Dubai earlier today...
Russell96 - Member
Flip side I've a cousin who got laid off his job in the Gulf of Mexico and kept a roof above his and his family's heads and kept them fed for just over a year until things improved by hunting with his rifle. For them it was a tool rather than some macho/crime preventing implement.
I'm assuming it wasn't an automatic assault rifle or the like? Control doesn't mean a ban it means removing some of the military grade hardware from the everyday situation.
the point I am making is that the majority of gun crime is carried out by criminals/recidivist criminals, gun control will have no bearing on the criminal, they will always be able to get hold of firearms
In the UK etc where the number of weapons is smaller thats probably true but where there are so many guns out there it's much easier to move some from the legit to the non legit side. As above nobody needs an assault rifle or handgun for everyday life.
where there are so many guns out there it's much easier to move some from the legit to the non legit side.
So surely introducing gun control now would be completely ineffective anyway?
Guess it depends on the definition of assault weapon if semi automatic with a magazine counts then yes he uses one (well did at the time I was last over) We had a discussion about the legality of it due to the size of the magazine and as it was an existing firearm it didn't come under the ban in place for assault rifles.
Fair enough them rabbits mush have been big 🙂
Having grown up around guns, shooting and hunting I can see the need for weapons to do this and be legally held but most people here seem to manage with shotguns and non automatic weapons.
It ends up like trying to justify buying the 6l V8 pick up truck etc. just to say you have it and having it just because you can.
Back to the main thread though arming everyone isn't a solution. More guns will not make america safer.
Scottish culture doesn't exactly have a massive worldwide influence on what is portrayed as "normal" or even "cool" in worldwide media though does it?
Try telling a jock that. 🙄
Personally i find this quite saddening
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/india-rail-track-deaths_n_1290965.html
Why do we get so hung up about them across the pond ?
Why do we get so hung up about them across the pond ?
when was the last time the indian government waged a war costing 100s upon 1000s of civilian lives to introduce their ideals of railway management?
They're all crazy-ape, bat shit mental! It's that simple. Just thank The Lord you don't live amongst the wilfully ignorant, morbidly obese, ordinance toting, god bothering, foetus worshiping half wits! It's much safer here
Thanks for that sophisticated analysis. You might want to look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance before you start calling others ignorant, though. Same for Melvyn Bragg with the pickups, country and gun death comment.
The reason why it gets so much press is because it has lots of cheap footage and because it allows foreigners to have a sanctimonious rant about Americans. The Chinese school stabbings don't get nearly as much coverage.
Why do we get so hung up about them across the pond ?
As above they seem ever so keen on implementing American on the world so they are ripe for a little spotlight back at them.
Death Penalty
Stupidly Lax Gun Laws
Shocking Environmental Record
Appalling Healthcare system for the poor
Abysmal Employee Rights
George W Bush & Lance Armstrong
Excessive use of Z
As Above Country and Western Music
Whats not to like about everyones favourite democracy and self proclaimed leaders of the free world
The number of guns in the US went up today as a lot are given as Christmas gifts! 😀
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/20/newtown-business-usual-gun-sellers ]Guardian[/url]
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8987359/Americans-buy-record-numbers-of-guns-for-Christmas.html ]Telegraph[/url]
I was in Wal-Mart last week. As I walked by the sporting goods depeartmet, I heard the guy there say that he was all sold out of .223 ammo. Also, you can't find magazines for sale anywhere...
it allows foreigners to have a sanctimonious rant about Americans
That's not a reason. That's a consequence.
I did a little LOL for you though.
About 20-100yrs time the US will implode as a whole/nation due to their debt. Theyll end up in civil war. The irony.
Why do they always have to intervene in EVERYONES business? Not as a peacemaker but excessively violently?
A group of men are fighting in the street- step forward the Yank who shoots two of the men whilst a colleague simutaneously blows up the family homes of the men elsewhere.
The only nation on earth who actively kills people in the name of peace.
Thick ****s.
hora - MemberAbout 20-100yrs time the US will implode as a whole/nation due to their debt. Theyll end up in civil war. The irony.
Why do they always have to intervene in EVERYONES business? Not as a peacemaker but excessively violently?
A group of men are fighting in the street- step forward the Yank who shoots two of the men whilst a colleague simutaneously blows up the family homes of the men elsewhere.
The only nation on earth who actively kills people in the name of peace.
Thick ****.
But they can send a man to the moon and back !
Why do they always have to intervene in EVERYONES business? Not as a peacemaker but excessively violently?
Yeah, the Bastards: (sorry, are we talking WW1 or WW2?)
[img] 
[/img]
More straw man points. Sheesh...
In the meantime, here's a pic (not from the bible Zulu, there were no guns back then, but hey, it's got Jesus in it for you).
[img] 
[/img]
Straw man? Where?
Perhaps you could look further than the Guardian editorial and try to consider why the US has a different mindset?
Twice in the last century, they have sat and watched civilised and developed Europe riven apart by warfare and invasion, millions murdered, and then drawn into defending the freedom of other people.
A [b]huge[/b] proportion of the united states are within living memory of themselves or their parents fleeing from their home countries to escape oppressive and totalitarian governments, often with their extended families staying trapped behind, and hearing the tales of [b]why[/b] they fled, Hell, a fair old proportion of americans were denied the same things by their own government on the basis of the colour of their skin - are you really surprised they are paranoid of government, and cling to the constitutional measure which guarantees them freedom from the thing they fled from?
Zulu-Eleven - MemberTwice in the last century, they have sat and watched civilised and developed Europe riven apart by warfare and invasion, millions murdered, and then drawn into defending the freedom of other people.
This is a good point and one us pious europeans would do well to remember, we seem to forget the atrocities 'we' commit on this side of the pond (ireland, balkans, chechnya, WW1 and WW2 etc).....from our lofty perches its easy to comment on the fat, dumb yanks but our recent history isnt great if we're honest.
None of which have any bearing on the need for an individual to posses and carry assault weapons or handguns especially with high capacity magazines. The only purpose of these is to kill quickly and in large numbers.
Its a different debate but its comical seeing us in supposedly superior europe frothing at the mouth over gun deaths in the US when our own continent has been such a shambles in the recent past....its their country, i struggle to get worked up over this, we have tight controls on privately kept firearms and thats not likely to change....if the US wants to shoot itself up then let them get on with it.
We come across as preachy and most people hate that kind of approach.
.if the US wants to shoot itself up then let them get on with it.
ah yes , the douglas hurd school of diplomacy, give them the kit and let them get on with it.
Hell, a fair old proportion of americans were denied the same things by their own government on the basis of the colour of their skin
It's interesting that you should use the example of the Civil Rights Movement to further your argument of the necessity of US citizens to arm themselves - if they are to be guaranteed their basic democratic rights.
The single most glaring characteristic of the Civil Rights Movement was it's total opposition to violence. This was despite the fact that great violence was used against them, by both civilians and the state.
.
sorry, are we talking WW1 or WW2?
It's also interesting that you should use historical events which are outside most people's lifetime to make your point. Specially when you consider how the US is unsurpassed when it comes to providing an endless list of examples of military conflicts.
And of course in your two examples the US very reluctantly got involved long after the conflicts had started, and against its wishes, as a result of being attacked.
If this is the best you can offer then it would appear that hora does indeed have a point.
very reluctantly got involved
Pretty much sums up what I was going to say next.
Amazing how enthusiastically they've taken the democracy and freedom baton since though, given how reluctantly they're received these days.
Oh and...
Perhaps you could look further than the Guardian editorial and try to consider why the US has a different mindset?
😆 this from the guy who cries into his nappy about ad hominems ad infinitum.
You're losing it a lot these days Zulu. Perhaps a wee break from the forum for a while might be in order?
Who mentioned the civil rights movement? however, since you brought it up Ernie:
[img] 
[/img]
historical events which are outside most people's lifetime to make your point.
But you chose to ignore the reason why so many of their families fled their home countries and came to the USA - many of them are only first or second generation immigrants, and I made the point that it was the tales of their parents and grandparents and extended families that affected them, not their direct experience.
Zulu straight answer please.
Why do people need assault rifles?
Who said anything about need?
You don't need a 150mph car or a 6" travel full susser to ride round swinley - but the point of being free is that you're allowed to own one if you want one.
Imagine if our society was built around only being allowed to own something if you could demonstrate 'need' for it?
'Can i have a new pair of shoes please?'
'Only if you can prove the old ones are worn out!'
Yep as I thought unable to give a straight answer. Generally new shoes don't kill people
That's the problem with freedom, too much is bad for you. Some people have the same problem with food to complete the circle. Some restrictions are necessary for the good of us all, the needs of the many outweigh the requirements of the few. (This also needs balance to avoid tyranny).
Lol at Zulu!
are you really surprised they are paranoid of government
Z-11.. there's a hell of difference between a flintlock circa the American Revolution & some of the hardware now in circulation. Now, there's nothing wrong with the Americans' age-old suspicion of the Government (although I'll take my cue from [url= http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html ]here[/url], rather than Tea Party nutters), but - frankly - the manner inwhich many of 'em dress up their gun fetish is [i]pathetic[/i]. The near-sexual excitement with which some people talk about resisting The State ("perhaps sir would care to try this RPG... excellent for taking out traffic wardens & low-level admin staff") leads me to suspect that they should get a fugging life.
i see a parallel between gun-deaths in America and road-deaths in Britain.
America could save 30,000 lives a year if they banned guns, and enforced the ban.
Britain could save upto 2000 lives a year if we cut all speed limits by at least 10mph, and enforced the new lower limits.
imagine the (British) lunatics that would crawl out the woodwork to whine louldly about their freedom if we introduced a strict, blanket 40mph limit on all rural roads + a strict, blanket 20mph limit in all residential areas.
The thing that doesn't work (for me) about the car:gun comparison is the 'intent' - I've [b]no[/b] problem with owning a gun for shooting game etc. But, whatever Z-11 says, nobody in civilian life [i]needs[/i] a rapid-fire assault rifle.
hell of difference between a flintlock circa the American Revolution & some of the hardware now in circulation
Well, surely in the 1780's the 'enemy' had essentially the same weapons as well?
Seriously, think about the effect on the American East-European emigree population of watching from the sidelines as their families and friends were murdered in Prague in '68 and Gdansk in '70, and the plastic paddies watching what happened on bloody sunday. The only result was going to be a psychology of 'I'm going to make damn sure that can never happen here'
Then you sit back and look at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and you see their own government confirming their worst fears
Once you get behind that psychology, then you can understand a little more why they are, as a nation, where they are now.
noteeth - MemberThe thing that doesn't work (for me) about the car:gun comparison is the 'intent' - I've no problem with owning a gun for shooting game etc. But, whatever Z-11 says, nobody in civilian life needs a rapid-fire assault rifle.
I cannot agree more with you mate !
However as most magazine fed, self loading rifles can be easily converted to full automatic this would be impossible to control.
America could save 30,000 lives a year if they banned guns, and enforced the ban.
And would the majority of gun-deaths perpetrators i.e recidivist violent criminals submit their weapons to the ban ?
I don't think many people are paranoid of government in quite that sense. Only a few nutjobs seem to bring out that line, and I bet most of them are not descendents of recently oppressed Europeans.
Personal safety is by far the most common argument I've heard - i.e. the criminals all have guns, so how does it make sense for me to give mine up?
There is SOME merit to that point. Not enough to make me pro gun though of course.
Once you get behind that psychology, then you can understand a little more why they are, as a nation, where they are now
I'm (basically) an anglo-irish mongrel with very few US family connections, but it's a source of considerable distress to me that what I think of as the 'other' America (the, y'know, enlightened place that give us so much great literature, music and, uuhh, bike stuff) should also spawn such utter swivel-eyed lunatics. I do agree, though, it's their show - to run as they please. If the consequences include the easy availability of heavy-duty weaponry with which to slaughter children, then so it goes. And on their oh-so-freedom lovin' heads be it.
That said, I want to go back there soon. 😀
Personal safety is by far the most common argument I've heard - i.e. the criminals all have guns, so how does it make sense for me to give mine up?
Agreed - it probably is key for most people, but that's not always how the rhetoric of the gun debate plays out.
Personal safety is by far the most common argument I've heard - i.e. the criminals all have guns, so how does it make sense for me to give mine up?There is SOME merit to that point.
however the flip side is that if you reduce the number of guns overall, then there are less legitimate weapons that become available for 'inappropriate' use.
hold amnesties and prosecute severely for unauthorised possession and eventually you reach a point similar to our situation.
to bring the car analogy in to play again, reduce the number of cars and it will very likely follow that you'll reduce the number of casualties resulting from car use.
Wow big hitters don't even have a break for christmas 😯 Merry Christmas to you all guys-perhaps whack some crap TV on and get drunk. It's cliched but it's got to be better than arguing on here on boxing day!
The car analogy is not really valid as you put it. If you reduce the number of cars, would you reduce the numbers of cars used in crimes? Probably not, as criminals intending to commit a robbery say woudl go out of their way to procure a getaway car.
Simply outlawing certain guns wouldn't solve much, because most people who care about them would simply flout the law.
[i]however the flip side is that if you reduce the number of guns overall, then there are less legitimate weapons that become available for 'inappropriate' use.[/i]
and more importantly, ammunition
Make it $5,000 a bullet.
Hora is Chris Rock and I claim £5 towards a new frame.
True though. The bullets used in Columbine cost 17c each.
This is the first thing I have written about this subject after reading the same argument all over the internet. I have deliberately taken my time.
Far as I can see, the most dangerous thing right now is mis-information in the media. Social media being the largest perpetrator. I have lived in the US for a little over two years now, and constantly hear stories about the "Muslim President" wanting to "take our guns away", and "give citizenship and benefits to the illegals". I've heard about "Somalian terrorist cells", "Russian soldiers in Colorado" (WTF), "they're gonna make us all drive hybrids", "taxation is going to take all our money", "we're going to run out of drinking water" (that one looks like it may be true in many places)...
Anyway, my point being, I don't know how rumors like those start, but they are on the internet and tv (Fox news usually) and are spreading like wildfire. News storied are all turned into propaganda, and even TV shows about apocalyptic scenarios, conspiracies and national security are rife (Walking Dead, Doomsday Preppers, Americans, Homeland, 24). The election was just months of two candidates and their parties slandering each-other and shouting how untrustworthy they are. People are being mislead and are scared. I think that moves some people to do irrational and unpredictable things... Vicious circle...
IF guns of any type were suddenly to be made illegal (which i doubt will happen) it would take decades for even a dent to be made... Few people will surrender any weapons voluntarily, and even if armed soldiers went door-to-door with a list they would get slightly more. Civil war is a term getting thrown around a lot too, but I really don't see U.S. soldiers being given the order to turn on civilians nation-wide, and I doubt many would follow such an order.
In the last week there have been over 3,000,000 AR rifles sold nation-wide due to the RUMOUR that they will be banned. These people aren't buying them so they can be surrendered again. Guns were gifted in this household for Christmas and they probably will be next year too. We aren't praying for a revolution or for zombies, we're not praying for someone to break in some night so we can shoot 'em... We hunt, we go to the range as a family and we just don't want to ever be in the situation that we wish we had them.
Don't know what's going to happen, but we're just going to have to ride it out one way or another...
PS. I don't plan to reply to this, just wanted to add a perspective from this side of the water
The car analogy is not really valid as you put it. If you reduce the number of cars, would you reduce the numbers of cars used in crimes? Probably not, as criminals intending to commit a robbery say would go out of their way to procure a getaway car
but if obtaining a car and possessing one is in itself an offence for which there is serious punishment, it's another hurdle to overcome in the perpetration of your crime. i could take my pick from any number of cars littering the streets right now and ram-raid a jewellers, it would be a relatively straight forward thing to do ( though getting away with it might be more tricky! ) but the prospect of obtaining a gun and holding the jewellers up at gun-point is much more difficult for me.
having a gun available makes shooting people easier. reduce the number of guns and it becomes more difficult, if only because of supply and demand. no?
however the flip side is that if you reduce the number of guns overall, then there are less legitimate weapons that become available for 'inappropriate' use.hold amnesties and prosecute severely for unauthorised possession and eventually you reach a point similar to our situation.
But it only takes a loony with one legally held gun and 10 rounds of ammunition to kill 10 small children in a school.
But it only takes a loony with one legally held gun and 10 rounds of ammunition to kill 10 small children in a school.
But it generally seems to keep happening in the US
So it's not related to the easy supply of guns?
[quote=MrSmith ]
But it only takes a loony with one legally held gun and 10 rounds of ammunition to kill 10 small children in a school.
That's true. But if just one loony fails to find a gun and ammo because it's been made a tiny bit more difficut, that's ten lives saved.
But it generally seems to keep happening in the US
So it's not related to the easy supply of guns?
It happens everywhere, It happens in places with reasonably strict gun control(U.K.) and in places where you can get a gun in 15min with a flash of your I.D/drivers licence.
It will happen again in the next few years but the odds of it happening to your son/daughter are fairly slim so I would rather worry about road safety or health service cuts if I was a rational thinking concerned parent
As I said "seems to [b]keep[/b] happening in the US"
That's true. But if just one loony fails to find a gun and ammo because it's been made a tiny bit more difficut, that's ten lives saved.
If they fail to find a gun they aren't looking hard enough.
Remember the gun death stats are comprised of very different things.
Most of it is gangland shootings. Nutter shooting sprees aren't as common.
having a gun available makes shooting people easier. reduce the number of guns and it becomes more difficult, if only because of supply and demand. no?
How many crimes are NOT committed because the potential perps know that other people are probably armed?
How many crimes are NOT committed because the potential perps know that other people are probably armed?
[img] 
[/img]
back to the arm everyone argument again
in all seriousness why do you need one of these?
[url= http://www.floridaarmory.com/Colt-LE-6920-M4-5.56-Carbine.html ]Colt LE6920 M4 5.56 Law Enforcement Carbine[/url]
Those ducks must be scary....
In other countries a collection of armed people is a militia, in other places under control or direction of a Warlord.
As long as the US wants to shove it's **** down the throat of the rest of the world then we get to point back.