Question about American gun laws.

[Tank]

And now you deal with a free...well...so-called free....American society that has provisions in it's constitution to allow firearms to its people. Some of the toughest gun control laws in the world and it still doesn't stop the idiot that that whacked 12 people in Cumbria a week or so ago.

Yes. But this happens about once a decade so it really isn't indicative of the normal state of affairs.

But it happens. And yes, massacring a bunch of people isn't normal at all...not even here  *grinnin*. But if just one person where this guy was had a legal pistol and could carry it legally, I reckon there wouldn't be much of a massacre.

But it couldn't be just one person carrying a gun would it, as lots of people would have been having to carry guns for any one of them to have been in the proximity of the killer? But you do have massacres in the USA where people are allowed to carry guns, you have more massacres (don't know if it's proportional give the two countries relative population?) and you have lots of incidental murders, accidents and suicides on top of the massacres so I think that rather puts the lie to that argument.

There's two problems here as I see it. There's us with legal gun ownership and there the rest of the world where guns are outlawed.

Guns are not outlawed in many, many places, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia spring to mind.

We deal with it in a particular way and the rest of the world pretends that if guns are outlawed there won't be any crime whatsoever...because that's the civilised way to do things.

I don't think you really think that the worlds population is that naive do you? It definitely not like that in the UK. Outlawing guns will not stop crime but it has reduced the use of guns by criminals in the UK.

Pretty much like New York and Chicago feel. "Nope, we've outlawed guns here and there's no crime now until the outlaws decide they want to rape or rob someone at gunpoint." The argument is just plain 'ol stupid.

Don't understand this bit.

If you're gonna have a society that allows swords, then everyone has that right to have a sword.

Having the 'right' to do something does not make it the correct thing to do. Just because Whites had the 'right' to sit in the front of a bus at the expense of Blacks didn't make racial discrimination the correct thing to do, did it?

Remember, this is an American 'right'. Not a privilege.

As people created the 'right' they can un-create it if they wish to. Am I correct in saying the the constitution and the 'rights' enshrined in it get amended every now and then? You appear to be arguing that the constitution is some sort of sacred document ie God given and unalterable, which is patently not the case. People at one time had a 'right' to own slaves. They do not now. Why? Because after due consideration it was agreed to be wrong by enough people that the 'right' was withdrawn.

So when that drunk hooligan decides they want to ravish your wife in the middle of the night, you better hope you're there with a sword or she can handle one as well.

You can't stop people breaking the law, there are criminals and they carry out crimes. Giving law abiding citizens the right to carry guns won't stop criminals as they can carry guns too. So all you get is a gunfight. If somebody chose to rape my wife, I'd rather have her alive after the event than dead, which would be very likely if she tried to pull a gun on a thug.

If you're gonna outlaw swords, when the same situation comes along, you better hope that you can swing that bat faster and more accurate than that drunk hooligan with a sword can. And if you don't have a bat, maybe a golf club....maybe have a bucket of rocks sitting next to your bed...
Or you can run and yell for the police.

I think I covered this above.

To me, gun control is being able to hit your target. I'm for making every person that buys a gun to have instructional courses in using and maintaining it, even if they have to pay for the course themselves. I'm for the most strictest punishment for crimes involving firearms.

If one is going to allow private gun ownership then I would agree that there are strict controls and training. I would say that would be absolutly necessary.

And...one last thing...if the state is only allowed to have firearms, you have a police state...regardless how fraking polite everyone is.

Well that simply isn't true in the UK. Police in the UK do not carry guns except at airports and places of likely terrorist attack or when hunting somebody with a gun. The police in the UK protect my right to free speech by upholding the laws regarding the right to assembly and peaceful protest.  

This is absolutly fascinating. It's great to be able to discuss this sort of thing in a reasoned and reasonable manner

[Big Mac]

Man, Tank you would fit in with some of my liberal friends so well.

The massacres you refer to in the US happen in "gun-free zones". It's obvious why the killers choose these places. They know that there is little chance someone will be able to fight back against them. Outlawing weapons has little impact on violent criminals. They're criminals, they will commit crimes no matter what. They will also obtain weapons given the determination to do so.

Most incidents where people use weapons to defend themselves do not even involve the person shooting the perpetrator. Just the mere sight a weapon tends to make the problem go away. Criminals are lazy cowards who are not going to stick around for a firefight. Not to mention they suck at shooting and have that stupid sideways aiming thing that is fucking stupid. I wouldn't be scared of that, since I can actually line up my sights and shoot.

If you don't fight back, you embolden them. You give them the idea it's okay to be little anti-social shits. So I'm all for using lethal force to put down a violent offender. Save the tax-payers some money and get rid of a two-legged rat while we're at it. And the rest of his buddies may rethink what a shitty existence they're leading. Or not, frankly I have no issue putting a hollow-point in their cranium as well. Criminals get no sympathy from me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The recent events in China show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

[Big Mac]

The recent events in China show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

It happened on a campus that didn't allow concealed carry so it was like being in Boston or LA where you have nearly no real gun rights. It was supposed to be a gun-free zone.

Name one massacre where the shooter went to a shooting range or to place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate. I bet you can't find one.

So far every major mass shooting seems to be in places that are "gun free" zones. Guess the killers should have thought about where they choose to commit their violent crimes. They were breaking a gun law!

[Gawen]

This is where I bow out of the discussion, matter of fact I won't even read the thread any longer. No hard feelings towards anyone, though.

[pinkocommie]

The recent events in China show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

It happened on a campus that didn't allow concealed carry so it was like being in Boston or LA where you have nearly no real gun rights. It was supposed to be a gun-free zone.

Name one massacre where the shooter went to a shooting range or to place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate. I bet you can't find one.

So far every major mass shooting seems to be in places that are "gun free" zones. Guess the killers should have thought about where they choose to commit their violent crimes. They were breaking a gun law!

The first thing that sprung to my mind was the shooting at that military base not too long ago.  But I'm not a gun person, so I don't know the specifics of gun free zones and whatnot, I'm just assuming an army base would fall into your category of 'place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate'.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

[Tank]

Man, Tank you would fit in with some of my liberal friends so well.

I'm not sure if that's an insult or a compliment    I'll assume compliment.

The massacres you refer to in the US happen in "gun-free zones". It's obvious why the killers choose these places. They know that there is little chance someone will be able to fight back against them. Outlawing weapons has little impact on violent criminals. They're criminals, they will commit crimes no matter what. They will also obtain weapons given the determination to do so.

Most incidents where people use weapons to defend themselves do not even involve the person shooting the perpetrator. Just the mere sight a weapon tends to make the problem go away. Criminals are lazy cowards who are not going to stick around for a firefight. Not to mention they suck at shooting and have that stupid sideways aiming thing that is fucking stupid. I wouldn't be scared of that, since I can actually line up my sights and shoot.

If you don't fight back, you embolden them. You give them the idea it's okay to be little anti-social shits. So I'm all for using lethal force to put down a violent offender. Save the tax-payers some money and get rid of a two-legged rat while we're at it. And the rest of his buddies may rethink what a shitty existence they're leading. Or not, frankly I have no issue putting a hollow-point in their cranium as well. Criminals get no sympathy from me.

Well what gets done in Texas and the USA in general for its citizens to decide. I think one of the issues for the US in general is IF some sort of more stringent control on gun ownership were proposed would be the fact that it would have to be federal in nature, no point in banning guns in any of the continental states as guns could be shipped from state to state. In addition there are so many firearms already in circulation that it would take decades of prohibition to get them out of circulation. So gun control on the continental USA is a moot point anyway.

[Tank]

This is where I bow out of the discussion, matter of fact I won't even read the thread any longer. No hard feelings towards anyone, though.

Thanks for your contribution, much appreciated as usual

[Tank]

Had a look on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

The death rate due to firearms per 100,000 of the population in the UK is 0.12 in the USA it's 2.97 or 25 times higher. Only Singapore has a lower rate than the UK (0.03). However the non-firearm homicide rate is much closer at 1.58 (US) and 1.33 (UK). So in the UK the overall homicide rate is 1.45 while in the US it's 4.55, 3 time higher and virtual all of that difference is accounted for by gun related homicide. Now these numbers, in and of themselves, don't prove anything as this is a complex picture. However I would say figures this different in any area of investigation (particularly the 25:1 ratio) would lead me to consider further detailed investigation.

It is also worth noting the overall numbers that died. In the US 65 (year 2000) people died in firearm related incidents while in the same year 37,526 people died in road traffic accidents (577 times more). This relates to 14.87 deaths per 100,000 which means that a car is 5 times more likely to kill you than a gun in the USA. In fact 2,897 motorcyclists died in 2000 in the USA. So you'd best ban motor bikes!

Motor vehicle stats from here http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Put into context of violent deaths those related to firearms don't really show on the radar.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The recent events in China show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

It happened on a campus that didn't allow concealed carry so it was like being in Boston or LA where you have nearly no real gun rights. It was supposed to be a gun-free zone.

Good point.  He, however, had no problem obtaining, legally, the firearms in his rampage; that was my point.

[quot]Name one massacre where the shooter went to a shooting range or to place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate. I bet you can't find one.[/quote]

I'm sure you're right.

So far every major mass shooting seems to be in places that are "gun free" zones. Guess the killers should have thought about where they choose to commit their violent crimes. They were breaking a gun law!

Aside from Pinkocommie's cogent point above, did Texas have concealed-carry when Luby's happened?

[Big Mac]

Aside from Pinkocommie's cogent point above, did Texas have concealed-carry when Luby's happened?

It did, in fact one of the Statesmen (or woman) was there with her parents eating. Texas law prohibited her from carrying her gun into the restaurant. It was a decision she says she regrets. Basically if she had broken the law and taken her weapon into the store she had several clear shots at this guy while he was gunning people down like fish in a barrel.

I imagine if people carried more frequently these little incidents of violence would be much lower and often much shorter.

Gun laws simply don't stop crime. It just controls people who actually obey the law. The ones who don't commit violent/property crime against others.

[Big Mac]

Had a look on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

The death rate due to firearms per 100,000 of the population in the UK is 0.12 in the USA it's 2.97 or 25 times higher. Only Singapore has a lower rate than the UK (0.03). However the non-firearm homicide rate is much closer at 1.58 (US) and 1.33 (UK). So in the UK the overall homicide rate is 1.45 while in the US it's 4.55, 3 time higher and virtual all of that difference is accounted for by gun related homicide. Now these numbers, in and of themselves, don't prove anything as this is a complex picture. However I would say figures this different in any area of investigation (particularly the 25:1 ratio) would lead me to consider further detailed investigation.

It is also worth noting the overall numbers that died. In the US 65 (year 2000) people died in firearm related incidents while in the same year 37,526 people died in road traffic accidents (577 times more). This relates to 14.87 deaths per 100,000 which means that a car is 5 times more likely to kill you than a gun in the USA. In fact 2,897 motorcyclists died in 2000 in the USA. So you'd best ban motor bikes!

Motor vehicle stats from here http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Put into context of violent deaths those related to firearms don't really show on the radar.

Usually when one uses a gun to defend one's self, the mere threat of lethal force makes most threats go away. Case in point.

I was about 9 months old when this happened.

We had a collie (Lassie's breed) that was barking to high heaven in the backyard. This was unusual because she hardly barked at anything. Turns out a guy was climbing our fence. My dad slams the storm door open, racks a shell into the 12 gauge he was holding and tells the guy that if he takes one more step towards our home he'd have a giant pink mist instead of a head.

The guy disappeared so fast and never returned. Turns out he tried it again at another neighborhood and was gunned down by the home-owner. Problem solved. Tax-payers were saved money and this punk was hopefully a clear message to his buddies that Texans don't tolerate that shit.

But for the most part, the biggest killer of Americans isn't guns. It's accidents, heart disease, and other things that are often preventable. The media doesn't touch on these because guns are a scary boogey man for news people. They act like they are death rays that one person can wield and kill thousands of people with. In reality it's a very advance skill to engage targets with a weapon. Movies make it seem like you can just pick one up and blast away. But they don't show how hard it is to nail a target, especially a moving target.

[Big Mac]

The recent events in China show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

It happened on a campus that didn't allow concealed carry so it was like being in Boston or LA where you have nearly no real gun rights. It was supposed to be a gun-free zone.

Name one massacre where the shooter went to a shooting range or to place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate. I bet you can't find one.

So far every major mass shooting seems to be in places that are "gun free" zones. Guess the killers should have thought about where they choose to commit their violent crimes. They were breaking a gun law!

The first thing that sprung to my mind was the shooting at that military base not too long ago.  But I'm not a gun person, so I don't know the specifics of gun free zones and whatnot, I'm just assuming an army base would fall into your category of 'place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate'.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Soldiers don't carry guns on them all the time when they are on base, you know. Also, he had the element of surprise. Not to mention that this was a very rare and isolated case. Most deaths by guns on base are often suicides. That's more of a mental health issue with PTSD and such.

[karadan]

Aside from Pinkocommie's cogent point above, did Texas have concealed-carry when Luby's happened?

It did, in fact one of the Statesmen (or woman) was there with her parents eating. Texas law prohibited her from carrying her gun into the restaurant. It was a decision she says she regrets. Basically if she had broken the law and taken her weapon into the store she had several clear shots at this guy while he was gunning people down like fish in a barrel.

I imagine if people carried more frequently these little incidents of violence would be much lower and often much shorter.

Gun laws simply don't stop crime. It just controls people who actually obey the law. The ones who don't commit violent/property crime against others.

I saw her being interviewed. It was very sad. She had to see her parents get gunned down in the full knowledge her hand gun was in her car in the parking lot.

In my opinion the damage was done a long time ago when it was considered necessary to carry a gun to stay safe. There's no way you can de-weaponize the US now. It would cause more harm than good to try to do this. It only works in European countries because we've had a long history of gun control, so, everyone is already used to a gunless society.

The day the problem is solved is the day they are able to stop people dying from gunshot wounds with 100% efficiency.

[Big Mac]

In my opinion the damage was done a long time ago when it was considered necessary to carry a gun to stay safe. There's no way you can de-weaponize the US now. It would cause more harm than good to try to do this. It only works in European countries because we've had a long history of gun control, so, everyone is already used to a gunless society.

The day the problem is solved is the day they are able to stop people dying from gunshot wounds with 100% efficiency.

I think the damage was done when gun control was entered into the equation. The most violent places in the US have STRICT gun control laws yet that doesn't stop criminals from getting their guns.

The problem can be solved by letting law-abiding folks carry the tools that can and will deter criminals.