britain proves that gun laws prevent gun-related massacres

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 4:00pm

thank goodness the uk has such laws preventing guns, otherwise this thing could been really bad.

no guns here!

Updated On: 6/2/10 at 04:00 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 5:07pm

I've already heard this from other conservatives and I'm just flummoxed by the reaction- What possible response is it calculated to provoke? Oh good, those repressive Limeys got theirs? Gun crimes happen where there are few guns (Today in England). They happen where there are a lot of guns (Fort Hood November 9, 2009). What's the point?

[Hulmeman]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 6:48pm

We do have quite stringent gun laws here, but that does not stop illegal guns getting into the hands of people who should not have them. I live in Manchester which apparently has a very vibrant (illegal) gun culture, only this weekend a man was shot as he was gardening about 1/2 mile from where I live.

Apparently this man in Cumbria held his guns legally, i.e with a licence and look what happened. You can licence the gun, but you can't licence the hand that pulls the trigger. You can't second guess the future state of mind of someone who legally owns a gun, so please somebody tell me the answer. People all over the world own guns for hunting and, in your country self defence purposes. The latter is not an option in UK so you
tell me?

There are other ways to commit mass murder, hell, drive your car into a queue of people, much the same effect!

The fact that we have stong gun powers at the end of the day makes not one jot of difference as 12 families in a peaceful area will testify.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 9:49pm

it's our reaction to the many, many calls such an event in america would bring for stricter gun laws. and our pointing to the reality that laws are not going to stop someone bent on killing or even someone bent on getting a gun. all they will do is keep firearms out of the hands of people like me who would only use them to kill commies, lefties and other boils on the left butt-cheek of humanity!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 9:52pm

Don't they still have a really low gun crime rate per capita? It's still nothing compared to ours, right?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 9:55pm

Well I couldn't find much on gun control laws changing in response to US massacres- There seems to have been a move in Colorado to keep mental patients from owning guns but I'm not sure if that was Columbine or just good sense. I heard on NPR today that the previous Scottish school massacre inspired some restrictions in Britain's gun laws and one Brit Pol went so far as to say the laws have actually STOPPED several massacres like this one today. I honestly don't know how you'd prove that however.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 10:00pm

that just makes me want to shoot you both.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 10:03pm

That's what makes America great!

[chinto1984]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 10:18pm

Guns kill people. They were invented to kill things faster. Its a weapon. WEAPON.

Then you'll say people use guns to protect themselves.

Then Ill say they use it as weapon to harm the other person most likely seriously hurting them or killing them.

Then you'll say they person had it coming and I had the right to protect myself.

Then I'll look at you an wonder if somewhere back in your family tree. Cousins got married.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 10:36pm

So you're saying you don't have the right to protect yourself? If you think that, maybe you should be looking into your own family tree, chinto. In any case, the situation is too tragic to make political hay from.

[madbrian]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 10:47pm

The per capita murder rate by firearms in the US is TWENTY FIVE TIMES that of the UK. There are only seven countries with higher rates than ours, countries like South Africa, Colombia, Thailand, and Zimbabwe. So, while no laws will ever completely prevent gun violence, there is huge room for improvement here.
Info

[chinto1984]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 11:08pm

You are right. It is tragic. And that stupid conversation illustrated has been going on before Columbine. So obviously there is a political divide that continues to get nothing done.

What both sides need to realize is this. Right to own a gun, and the right to protect oneself are two different things. One is not dependent on the other. But Gun ownership is not going away in this country. It is very much a part of our history and society. But the idea that guns are simply tools and people kill people rhetoric is irresponsible.
Updated On: 6/2/10 at 11:08 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/2/10 at 11:34pm

Well...guns are tools. Without a person handling it, they do not kill.

"Right to own a gun, and the right to protect oneself are two different things. One is not dependent on the other."

Explain that, please. How does one protect oneself without a gun? Ju-Jitso? That won't do you a damn bit of good when you're out by yourself in the country, someone's breaking into your house, and the police, or any assistance, is a good half hour away.

[chinto1984]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 12:03am

Yeah why not. People use bats, knives, frying pans, and even swords. Seriously. They list can go on and on. And who says every fight is going to involve a gun. Don't use the country excuse with police miles away. I know what your saying, but you are also implying if that person doesn't have a gun, they are screwed. I'm pretty sure, being from a rural area myself, gun or no gun is not going to stop anyone from defending themselves.

The point is that the right to defend yourself has been a belief a lot longer than the gun has been around or even widely accessible. A gun is one of many ways in which a person can protect themselves. And a highly dangerous one which is why police are told to use caution, and responsible gun owners keep there guns safe and know how to use them responsibly. The legal right to gun ownership is granted by our government on the acceptance that it pertains to the right of self-defense. But one still has that right to defend themselves even if they did not have the legal right to gun ownership.




Updated On: 6/3/10 at 12:03 AM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 12:48am

"Don't use the country excuse with police miles away. "

All due respect, why the hell not? If someone is breaking into my remote rural house in the middle of the night, miles away from any assistance, hell yes I'm screwed if the person breaking in has a gun - and btw, I am trained in martial arts, but in the situation I've described, I'll take a gun for my defense over my martial arts skills every single time. A frying pan? Seriously? Please. Also, bear in mind that swords are illegal in many states, god knows why. You're being very naive.

"I'm pretty sure, being from a rural area myself, gun or no gun is not going to stop anyone from defending themselves."

Question is, will you be able to defend yourself successfully?

As a responsible gun owner, I do keep my guns safe and know how to use them responsibly, having been taught as a kid to have respect for them and their power.

"The legal right to gun ownership is granted by our government on the acceptance that it pertains to the right of self-defense."

Also to hunt, which I almost never do anymore, but was absolutely critical to supplement my family's food supply when I was a child. We also had vegetable gardens and raised animals for food.

Of what possible good is the right to defend yourself - and seriously, has anyone argued that you don't? - if the person you're defending yourself against has a gun and you don't?

Last but not least, I am not a republican and my politics skew very far left, so the idea that there's a sharp divide between parties on this issue doesn't hold water for me.

Frying pans, indeed....




Updated On: 6/3/10 at 12:48 AM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 9:07am

Statistically, guns bought "for protection" have been more likely to accidentally injure or kill a family member than an actual intruder.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 10:21am

Well...guns are tools. Without a person handling it, they do not kill.

I beg to differ.
Hunter shot by his own dog.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 10:23am

First - link, please?

Second - the link probably won't matter since statistics are often twisted for their own purposes by those who use them. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Still, I'd like that link.

Third - I understand and agree that it isn't wise to just go out and buy a gun for protection. The entire household needs to undergo safety training regarding the weapon. Anyone that might be using it needs to work with it regularly so that they're familiar enough with it that "cleaning" accidents and the like don't happen. It's pointless and dangerous to own a gun that you aren't accustomed to using, whether you acquire that practice through hunting or a shooting range.

I grew up in a poor rural area. Every family I knew had guns, more for hunting than protection. There were never any accidents, fatal or otherwise, or incidents of domestic murders or suicides, which for me is a more important and far more likely scenario regarding people owning guns who ought not have them. Children were taught from a very young age what a gun was and how dangerous they could be. I only recall once where an intruder was shot. In other cases, it was a situation of warning shots fired, or miscreants held at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

Yes, responsible gun ownership is critical. No, I don't think anyone needs an AK-47 or anything like it, but to paint gun owners as ignorant gun-totin', cousin-marryin' republicans is ridiculous.

That last bit wasn't directed at you, 'skittles.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 10:27am

To call them "Cousin-Marryin'" is clearly inaccurate; it's illegal to marry your cousin and marriage vows mean nothing to Republicans, anyway. The phrase you're looking for is "cousin-f***in'."

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 10:31am

I was referring to chinto's accusation, JoeKv, and dammit, I don't even have to look at that link. I just knew someone was going to bring that one up.

I also am a huge soccer fan, JoeKv, though I'm not as clever and cute as yours are.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 11:39am

Stupid thread

The thing is something like what has happened here in cumbria is very rare. After Dunblane our laws changed straight away and gun crime dropped right down and still is, but you are always gonna get ilegal guns, just like drugs etc. The difference is that the UK changed the laws for guns in a huge way, the states did not, no after Columbine, not after Virginia Tech etc and the never will. It's far to much of a big business there.

Also the arguments about 'the right protect your home blah blah blah" does not fly. So many other countries like the UK dont rely on that, we rely on alarms, the police etc as well as not having guns on the streets to the mass the US does.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 12:53pm

I take from your post that you're from Cumbria and English is your first language, or do you originally speak the Gaelic, S&Dman2? I ask because some of your post is difficult to follow.

It's also difficult to have a discussion with someone who simply deems someone else's thoughts as "stupid" and represents their point of view as "blah blah blah". It's like a child sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La la la, can't hear you".

The US does not equal the UK. For good or ill, things are different here. The very geography is different. With few exceptions, you don't have the concentrated groups of people that we have, and crime that can easily travel to quiet adjacent rural areas. You cannot always "rely on alarms, the police, etc" (whatever "etc" means) here.

Also, the US does not have "guns on the streets to the mass" (again, whatever that means).

I agree that the original post was offensive, but why fight fire with fire - and so poorly at that?



Updated On: 6/3/10 at 12:53 PM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 1:25pm

I don't rely on guns or alarms to keep me safe.

I rely on the sort of statistics that Madbrian points to. I rely on my own commonsense. But most of all I rely (naively you might argue) on living in a society that functions well, even taking into account aberations such as yesterday's.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 1:39pm

The occasional one?

No, I don't think you're naive, Scripps. I think your position is laudable, but I don't live in the UK, I live in the US, and as I opined upthread, the two are not comparable. I wish I could have the faith that you do, but circumstances have taught me otherwise.

[Weez]

Posted: 6/3/10 at 1:49pm

In the UK, you're allowed to use reasonable force against an intruder. If you use anything weapon-like - rifle, bread knife, ornamental sword - then that's deemed unreasonable. But you can get one heckuva head wound from a frying pan, and it's much easier to tell that you're acting defensively and not offensively against said intruder with a tool like that. You can defend yourself without going to the silly extreme of martial arts or the terrifying extreme of guns.

I love a great many things about you, America, but your love affair with guns is NOT one of 'em. :/

Updated On: 6/3/10 at 01:49 PM