Guns Everywhere

[Gandahar]

By the way

Do a google of

Man shot by dog

And give me the stats for USA v UK on number of reported incidents.

Either our dogs are more intelligent and know how to pack heat properly and safely, or else a a large number of guns in circulation leads to more pain.

You tell me which.

[Dr Jekyll]

Gandahar said:

Besides, total gun homicide deaths in the UK, per 100 000, is less than the number of children killed in the USA each year by fire arms.

But how many of the 'children' killed in the USA are the victims of Dunblane style massacres and how many 16 year old gang members shooting each other?

[Gandahar]

Dr Jekyll said:

Gandahar said:

Besides, total gun homicide deaths in the UK, per 100 000, is less than the number of children killed in the USA each year by fire arms.

But how many of the 'children' killed in the USA are the victims of Dunblane style massacres and how many 16 year old gang members shooting each other?

I am arguing that the UK total is less. No point trying to split the US total into gangs v non gangs to try and win the toss. The point stands. More guns etc etc etc

The US has had more school shootings than we have since Dunblane.
They will continue to have them, at school and college level.

Also number of children killed by guns in the USA is far higher per head of population than the UK

As is police men shooting themselves accidentally.

As is wives shooting their husbands.

As is neighbours shooting neighbours.

As is employee shooting boss he has a grudge against.

Do I need to go on to show the bleeding obvious?

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 25th April 21:05

[Dr Jekyll]

Gandahar said:

I am arguing that the UK total is less. No point trying to split the US total into gangs v non gangs to try and win the toss. The point stands. More guns etc etc etc

So do you demand that police firearms units should be disbanded? After all fewer guns must be good, irrespective of who has them.

[Pommygranite]

Dr Jekyll said:

Gandahar said:

Besides, total gun homicide deaths in the UK, per 100 000, is less than the number of children killed in the USA each year by fire arms.

But how many of the 'children' killed in the USA are the victims of Dunblane style massacres and how many 16 year old gang members shooting each other?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mass-shootings-central-american-history-article-1.1457514

I stopped counting at 42 children and teens between 1999 and 2007.

There were 31 spree killings between 1999 and 2013 killing over 300 people.

[anonymous-user]

Asterix said:

.

When was the last Swiss mass shooting?

2013

[Clivey]

AshVX220 said:

Another view is the psychological difference relating to gun use and ownership between the US and UK.

I remember a poster on this very forum start a thread about his experience in a gun club in the US. He went to shoot, but got very nervous when someone else came in a used the cubical next to him. He was nervous that there was a stranger next to him shooting too. Which is so odd to me. It was just someone else enjoying shooting at a club, he's not going to suddenly go postal and want to shoot the bloke with a funny accent in the cubicle next to him. Yet, this PHer was really concerned.

The two nations (general) view on gun ownership are polar opposites. But, even with th examples and mental health people above going postal, my view remains the same. Gun Ownership should be allowed with the correct (stricter) checks and balances in place.

I love shooting and hate the fact that in this country I can't go to a range and squeeze off a few. Yes, I can go .22 rifle shooting, or clay pigeon, but pistol shooting is far more difficult to get right in my opinion and (also IMO) far more fun. Whenever I go to the US on holiday I'll arrange to go to a gun-club for an hour if possible, it's fun, you should all try it.

+1

I did this last time I was in the 'States (August last year). I must admit it felt completely alien that all they did was take a photocopy of my driving licence before handing me first a Glock, then a USP to try out. It was the first time I'd handled pistols (the nearest thing I've handled here is a Taurus long-barelled revolver belonging to a friend). I preferred the USP - the Glock was too light, felt a bit like a toy, I don't like not having a safety and it was a little awkward to load.

[swindorski]

No guns after 6PM - and 5 on a weekend! Sarajevo knows how to roll!!!

[Jimbeaux]

longblackcoat said:

I was working at one of our offices in North Carolina and was somewhat bemused to see a sign stating that the management would appreciate it if all guns were worn visibly when in the office, giving the distinct impression that being armed to go to work was a pretty run of the mill thing, but that having it tucked in your pocket rather than worn on your hip was pushing it a bit.

Sure enough, there were several guns to be seen in the office, unsurprisingly worn by white men in their 50s who looked to be about as much fun as having a tooth extracted without anaesthetic.

So, if you said black men in their 20s you'd be racist. But the white guy thing is OK, huh??

[Gaspode]

Jimbeaux said:

So, if you said black men in their 20s you'd be racist. But the white guy thing is OK, huh??

I think the possibly 'racist' aspect of the story is the least of it. The idea that people find it necessary to carry weapons with them even when they go to work in an office is deeply sad.

[redtwin]

Clivey said:

+1

I did this last time I was in the 'States (August last year). I must admit it felt completely alien that all they did was take a photocopy of my driving licence before handing me first a Glock, then a USP to try out. It was the first time I'd handled pistols (the nearest thing I've handled here is a Taurus long-barelled revolver belonging to a friend). I preferred the USP - the Glock was too light, felt a bit like a toy, I don't like not having a safety and it was a little awkward to load.

Glocks have a safety, more than one actually. The manual user-operated safety is activated by the little lever on the trigger.

I am with you on not liking Glocks, though there is no denying their simplicity, reliability and relative low cost. For that reason if I was ever in a position that I wanted to carry a pistol for self-defence, it would be a Glock. As a range or target gun, there are much more enjoyable pistols than Glocks.

Edited by redtwin on Sunday 27th April 08:45

[Asterix]

The Spruce goose said:

Asterix said:

.

When was the last Swiss mass shooting?

2013

Yup - however, a rarity compared to the US.

Time said:

Because of these traditions, gun ownership in Switzerland is among the highest in the world, trailing behind only the U.S. and Yemen. Between 2.3 million and 4.5 million are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. But while the gun-suicide rate is fairly high — about 300 cases a year — the number of violent crimes is relatively low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S. rate in the same year was about five firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.

http://world.time.com/2013/03/04/why-two-mass-shootings-will-not-change-swiss-gun-culture/

[vonuber]

Why the hell would you need a gun at work?

[lamboman100]

Gandahar said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Gandahar said:

Besides, total gun homicide deaths in the UK, per 100 000, is less than the number of children killed in the USA each year by fire arms.

But how many of the 'children' killed in the USA are the victims of Dunblane style massacres and how many 16 year old gang members shooting each other?

I am arguing that the UK total is less. No point trying to split the US total into gangs v non gangs to try and win the toss. The point stands. More guns etc etc etc

The US has had more school shootings than we have since Dunblane.
They will continue to have them, at school and college level.

Also number of children killed by guns in the USA is far higher per head of population than the UK

As is police men shooting themselves accidentally.

As is wives shooting their husbands.

As is neighbours shooting neighbours.

As is employee shooting boss he has a grudge against.

Do I need to go on to show the bleeding obvious?

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 25th April 21:05

The UK has one of the lowest gun-death rates in the world. The safest major country in all of Europe. Only a handful of countries, like Japan, are safer. Britain should be very proud it is not full of gun nuts. If you strip out the toytown gangsters from the stats, Britain's gun-death rate is, in effect, close to zero.

[longblackcoat]

Gaspode said:

Jimbeaux said:

So, if you said black men in their 20s you'd be racist. But the white guy thing is OK, huh??

I think the possibly 'racist' aspect of the story is the least of it. The idea that people find it necessary to carry weapons with them even when they go to work in an office is deeply sad.

Yes, I was surprised that Jimbeaux thought the rest of it was fine and just commented on the colour of the gun-carriers!

I made reference to the fact that it was white men in their 50s who were carrying guns as this chimes with the leadership of the NRA.

Of the 76 (I think) people in NRA leadership positions - essentially Board members, though Chuck Norris (yes, honestly!) is not a Board member but nevertheless an official celebrity spokesperson - there are only a few women. I can't see any black faces. And the men are - just like the people I saw in our office in Raleigh - predominately in their 50s.

Jimbeaux, point out the racism in my post, if you'd be so kind. And when you realise that there is none, I'll happily accept an apology.

[paranoid airbag]

Clivey said:

AshVX220 said:

Another view is the psychological difference relating to gun use and ownership between the US and UK.

I remember a poster on this very forum start a thread about his experience in a gun club in the US. He went to shoot, but got very nervous when someone else came in a used the cubical next to him. He was nervous that there was a stranger next to him shooting too. Which is so odd to me. It was just someone else enjoying shooting at a club, he's not going to suddenly go postal and want to shoot the bloke with a funny accent in the cubicle next to him. Yet, this PHer was really concerned.

The two nations (general) view on gun ownership are polar opposites. But, even with th examples and mental health people above going postal, my view remains the same. Gun Ownership should be allowed with the correct (stricter) checks and balances in place.

I love shooting and hate the fact that in this country I can't go to a range and squeeze off a few. Yes, I can go .22 rifle shooting, or clay pigeon, but pistol shooting is far more difficult to get right in my opinion and (also IMO) far more fun. Whenever I go to the US on holiday I'll arrange to go to a gun-club for an hour if possible, it's fun, you should all try it.

+1

I did this last time I was in the 'States (August last year). I must admit it felt completely alien that all they did was take a photocopy of my driving licence before handing me first a Glock, then a USP to try out. It was the first time I'd handled pistols (the nearest thing I've handled here is a Taurus long-barelled revolver belonging to a friend). I preferred the USP - the Glock was too light, felt a bit like a toy, I don't like not having a safety and it was a little awkward to load.

+...1/2? I've never fired pistols but got to play with a few rifles at school, would love to do so again.

The numbers make it so obvious we're better off than the USA as to make it not worth a debate - especially with handguns - but it does seem like we could make it easier for a registered businesses to create a place where you could plug away safely.

[paranoid airbag]

santona1937 said:

No, the most obvious difference is that driving a car is not a right. you have to earn and maintain the privilege to drive.
Carrying a gun is a fundamental right, and is therefore made as easy as possible, it is just like the right to freedom of movement or freedom of thought. And to ensure that right the Supreme Court of the USA in 2010 stated the right to bear arms is a FUNDAMENTAL right, and that any law that restricted that right was illegal.
Cold Dead Hand.

You've got to admit that's a little weird though - something's more regulated despite being a little less good* at killing and useful for something other than that.

• actually I'm not sure - it's probably easier to kill an unspecified person/people accidentally with a car? Guns are better for intentionally killing/wounding a specific person/people I guess.

[NRS]

I never get the founding father issue when this is brought up. It's basically saying we cannot adapt to changes in the modern world, because a few people back in the day said this is the way it would be. Why not bring back legal racism, because it used to be ok?

For me perhaps the right balance is no handguns and assault rife type weapons. Rifles should be ok with the appropriate checks, since they're much harder to conceal and can actually be used for hunting.

[redtwin]

"Hunting" rifles can be used to kill people and are far more effective (lethality) than pretty much every handgun ever produced. I don't see where ease of concealment makes any firearm more deadly.

FWIW handguns and Military style rifles are often used for hunting. I understand the point you are making, but if Hunting is to be accepted as the only legitimate use of any gun, then handguns and Military style rifles would qualify.

[Jasandjules]

I saw a TV show yesterday, Sons of Guns I think it was called. Lots of people played with lots of guns and shot at things and all sorts. No-one died though. Can't work out how not.