Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

[2ndRateMind]

I can't believe that Americans don't see the link between easily available firearms and the occasional, but regular, massacre. It's a statistical thing; the more guns you have around, the more likely some psychopath will get hold of some. Or, maybe they can see that link, but think the free market and the constitutional 'right to bear arms', take precedence over the lives of the victims and the grief of their loved-ones. I'm uncertain; which is it - ignorance or cynicism? Or, maybe, as I suspect, it is just that America is a geographically located collection of dog-eat-dog individuals, rather than a cohesive society of compatriots.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Mustardseedmama]

Wow. That's quite a summation. Thank you for sharing your opinion so freely.

Best Wishes to you also.

[oldjerry]

I'm uncertain; which is it - ignorance or cynicism?.

Neither. It's just a culture that isn't Englsh.

Something the English have traditionally found incomprehensible.

[Green Aura]

I think that citizens of most countries would rail at giving up any of their rights. Those of us who have never had the right to bear arms really don't have any idea of what it means and seems terrifying, especially when things like this latest shooting happens.

To those on the outside it seems fairly obvious that removing this right would stop events like Columbine and Colorado. But is that true? We've had similar events here, as I'm sure other countries have. Yet you rarely hear of such things from Switzerland who have a duty to bear arms (although that's probably because you never hear anything much of Switzerland except Federer or CERN )

I'm no apologist for guns, I loathe them, but common sense must prevail on both sides. In a country the size and population of the US there are bound to be a proportionately higher number of people with "problems" that will end up in some sort of disaster. And the gun laws need desperately revising - why would anyone need semi-automatic weapons? Or handguns? A rifle, maybe.

But giving up rights scares me nearly as much as bearing arms - just look at the Patriot Act.

[frozenthunderbolt]

making firearms illegal is a GREAT idea. Criminals everywhere will love you. Law abiding folks (like those stupid enough to hand in arms if such a law was passed) are then powerless against those that ignore such laws.
Check out the crime stats on somewhere like Detroit and the lists of crime that cops in many parts of the US no longer investigate or even respond to and you will understand better.
Sadly making something illegal doesn't make it disappear - it just guarantees that only mal hombres will own/use/do it

[Mustardseedmama]

Violent people/angry people/CRAZY PEOPLE,...they will always find a way to harm others... In any society, in any country, regardless of any law. It doesn't have to be with guns.

Maggie and Jed, you make excellent points.

2rm, It's sad to me that you feel compelled to broadbrush the citizens of an entire country with tacky, inflammitory insults. Believe it or not, good things DO happen here too. They're made to happen by those same "dog-eat-dog", un-cohesive, non-"compatriots", millions of times a day. The thing is-----They never make the news.

[Odsox]

Violent people/angry people/CRAZY PEOPLE,...they will always find a way to harm others... In any society, in any country, regardless of any law. It doesn't have to be with guns.

Of course you're right, in fact population pro rata, the UK is probably at least on par with the US. Then there's Norway, France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Russia, Australia, Nepal ......

[2ndRateMind]

I apologise. I was out of order.

Thing is though, small arms cause more damage world-wide than any other category of armament. So restricting the supply just seems sensible on a global basis; not just in America, but anywhere. And it does seem to work. We've had Hungerford, and Dunblane, and that idiot more recently with a shotgun who went on the rampage in Yorkshire (I think) and blinded a policeman, as well as killing members of his family and unlucky bystanders. But each time, we've put in place restrictions designed to prevent a repeat performance. To be sure, bad guys still have guns. But the moment the police here hear about a gun incident, they come down on the offender like a ton of bricks. Just the presence of a gun is enough to trigger a serious police response. And the net result; people feel safer, and (I truly believe this) society is just a little kinder. I guess you have to trust the state, though, and I've noticed that many Americans would prefer a more limited role for the state than we think is appropriate over here.

Best wishes. 2RM.

Edit: Just by way of comparison; the US had 4.8 intentional homicides per hundred thousand population in 2010; the UK, 1.2. By my back of an envelope calculations, assuming homicides perpetrated with guns for the sake of relevancy, that's 2016 people alive in the UK, who would be dead in the US. Or put it another way, it's 9000 people who are dead in the US, who would be alive in the UK. Annually.

[MKG]

It may be worth bearing in mind that the UK is not a gunless society. It is perfectly legal to own a gun in the UK, as long as you have a licence. The difference between here and the US is that the Brits aren't allowed to carry them for the purposes of protection. But then (apart, maybe, from the Trayvon case which is still ongoing) using guns for personal protection usually causes no damage except to people who are carrying guns for other purposes entirely.

Sometimes legal gun owners go loopy (ask the Norwegians about that). But by far the largest section of gun crime is that perpetrated by weapon owners (mainly illegal weapons) in the commission of crimes. It isn't possible to legislate either illegal weapons or criminals out of existence.

And, to be frank, if someone was pointing a gun at me and about to pull the trigger, the last thing I would be thinking about is whether that gun was a legally-owned 12-bore or an illegal semi-automatic. They're both lethal.

Mike

[oldjerry]

[quote="2ndRat I guess you have to trust the state, though, and I've noticed that many Americans would prefer a more limited role for the state than we think is appropriate over here.




WE?...Speak for yourself........and for what it's worth the State needs US,not the other way round.

[Mustardseedmama]

I apologise. I was out of order.

For myself personally, apology accepted. You have opinions, and are very much entitled to them.

[Green Aura]

And, to be frank, if someone was pointing a gun at me and about to pull the trigger, the last thing I would be thinking about is whether that gun was a legally-owned 12-bore or an illegal semi-automatic. They're both lethal.

Except with the former you might kill one or two, the latter a couple of dozen. Not much consolation if you're the victim or their family but to the survivors?

[oldjerry]

Average number of deaths per annum in UK as a result of gun crime approximately 50.
'' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' road traffic accidents aproximately 2000.

But that would make for boring headlines, sell less papers,andscrew things up for many vested interests.

[trinder]

I MAY have misheard this .. But I think at the EBF (Equine Behaviour Forum) one of the speakers made reference to the number of people killed (worldwide) by horses exceeds the number killed by domestic gun-crime.
I promise I will track down my "facts"
It's just that horses "accountable" would include competition horses falling ... i.e generally accepted to be a tragedy rather than murder. Maybe it doesn't make good headlines.

[gregorach]

Of course you're right, in fact population pro rata, the UK is probably at least on par with the US.

Not even close - the Uk intentional homicide rate in 2010 was 1.23 per 100,000, whereas for the US it was 4.8. International data for comparison available here. However, when looking at such data, you have to bear in mind that the effectiveness and availability of medical care makes a big difference - I seem to recall seeing some data which showed that the main cause of the reduction in gun fatalities in the US over the last decade was improvements in trauma care, rather than a reduction in shootings.

Why there should be such a difference, and what should be done about it, I have no idea. It always seems that everybody's pet solutions are always things they already wanted to do anyway... Personally I find the way so many people seem so eager to use a tragedy to advance their political goals somewhat distasteful.