26killed in america. sky news now.

do you think that the residents of the US feel safer now than they did in 1990?

I think that the residents of most of the big cities do, but its also worth remembering what we saw happening in some of those big city pressurecookers in the early nineties, so the fear of an imminent widespread breakdown into chaos and crime was fairly realistic

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of crime in the US to see whether crime and fear of crime has changed in smalltown USA rather than just the cities. I’d be willing to vet that ‘fear’ in smalltown USA is higher now than then

There’s some interesting number crunching here to show that the vast majority of ‘mass killings’ in the US are ended by citizens rather than the police, and with much lower loss of life

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

Wow, a bit of a bonkers link.

It says that civilians stop lots of shootings. It neglects to highlight that civilians also start pretty much all of them.

It wouldn’t surprise me if gun sales increased after each of these school/college/mall shootings, although handling a handgun in an emergency situation – whipping it out quickly and accurately, then shooting the armed assailant(s) without harming bystanders is easier said than done.

Certainly was the case after the cinema shootings earlier this year. The standard argument trotted out by the pro-gun lobby is that if everyone else was armed, if there were MORE guns, then “the public” could have returned fire and taken out the assailant.

Not sure which terrifies me more, the thought of one random killer firing away in a dark, crowded cinema or the thought that everyone else in there would pull out weapons and return fire. 😯

Some total pillock said the same about these school shootings – all teachers should be armed and trained to take out any assailants if necessary. Dear **** Christ, the stupidity to utter that kind of statement shows what the country is up against in dealing with this kind of thing.

Oh I know, let’s have a shedload MORE guns knocking around, that’ll really help. 🙄

Hence the need for a militia…

…well that yankee guvmint ain’t goin protect our asses so we better get usselves tooled up.

Freakin’ ridiculous.

I would aggree that the fear of crime is quite possibly the problem, not the actual likelihood of being a victim.

And so the arms race continues. Parents have guns, disgruntled boys get hold of them and shoot people. Every few months somebody really goes for it and shoots multiple people in a public building.

Everybody shakes their heads and either quietly thinks that guns are not a good ideas or calls for more weapons for all.

crazy-legs – Member

It wouldn’t surprise me if gun sales increased after each of these school/college/mall shootings, although handling a handgun in an emergency situation – whipping it out quickly and accurately, then shooting the armed assailant(s) without harming bystanders is easier said than done.

Certainly was the case after the cinema shootings earlier this year. The standard argument trotted out by the pro-gun lobby is that if everyone else was armed, if there were MORE guns, then “the public” could have returned fire and taken out the assailant.

Not sure which terrifies me more, the thought of one random killer firing away in a dark, crowded cinema or the thought that everyone else in there would pull out weapons and return fire.

Some total pillock said the same about these school shootings – all teachers should be armed and trained to take out any assailants if necessary. Dear **** Christ, the stupidity to utter that kind of statement shows what the country is up against in dealing with this kind of thing.

Oh I know, let’s have a shedload MORE guns knocking around, that’ll really help.

What sort of of rational talk is that??

Dear Lord, I bet you’re also in favour of abortion and state healthcare, don’t fear God and believe in equal opportunities.

God damn communists….

molgrips – Member

Wow, a bit of a bonkers link.

It says that civilians stop lots of shootings. It neglects to highlight that civilians also start pretty much all of them.

A country that has frequent mass shootings that are required to be stopped by members of the public might need to ask itself some serious questions.

Yeah, but with something like 300 million guns in circulation, what good do you think a ban would do anyway Aristotle?

Ban them, and the only people the law would effect would be law abiding ones – the genie is more than out of the bottle.

tell you what – why do you think that all the mass killings happen in gun free zones?

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Yeah, but with something like 300 million guns in circulation, what good do you think a ban would do anyway Aristotle?

Ban them, and the only people the law would effect would be law abiding ones – the genie is more than out of the bottle.

tell you what – why do you think that all the mass citizen killings happen in gun free zones?

We covered this earlier on ^^ .

The historical availability and glorification of personal firearms has resulted in large numbers in circulation, legally and otherwise (many of the mass murderers seem to be otherwise law-abiding individuals, using legally-held weapons. This may not always be the case though)

I’d suggest that something needs to be done to begin changing the culture. It may take decades, but probably not. It would, however, require a large enough portion of the population to be convinced…

Speaking as somebody who lives in a country that does not routinely arm Police officers, I’d suggest that the ultimate answer to the problem is not to arm primary school teachers or every other member of the population.

I’d suggest that the ultimate answer to the problem is not to arm primary school teachers or every other member of the population.

Indeed.

While Americans only represent about 5 percent of the world’s population, nearly one-quarter of the entire world’s inmates have been incarcerated in the United States in recent years.

One reason why USA has more inmates per capita than any other country in the world is because someone makes money out them, it’s a business.
USA also has the highest amount of lawyers per capita too

Do they still have the ‘three strikes’ rule for convictions over there?….i like that one.

I think at the very least the Federal Govt has to ban semi and fully automatic weapons: There is no need for them in civilian life, and therefore would be the easiest option for legislation change.

I understand that Connecticut has already banned them, but the lack of Federal legislation on them (the last statute expired a few years ago) makes it incredibly hard to control.

Curious that you want to ban fully automatic weapons. There have been 2 homicides using legally held machine guns since 1934. Banning cricket bats might have more impact.

Curious that you want to ban fully automatic weapons. There have been 2 homicides using legally held machine guns since 1934. Banning cricket bats might have more impact.

So care to explain what practical use they have in civilian society? Why band semi-automatics and leave fullys legal?

Explain what practical use a cricket bat has?

Explain what practical use a cricket bat has?

Erm, playing Cricket? The last time I checked, cricket bats aren’t very well suited to carrying out a mass slaying, unless the zombie apocalypse has already happened.

Are you seriously comparing a cricket bat to a fully-automatic gun? Seriously? Get a grip.