Guns Everywhere
Discussion
h8tax said:
Utter nonsense. The post Dunblane ban on handguns was a typical over-legislative knee jerk reaction from the most oppressive government we have had in recent times. It did nothing to stop subsequent gun killings - these will always happen without an outright ban on ALL firearms.
How would we ever know of any gun killings it did stop?AJL308 said:
That isn't the point though. Lots of 'gun related' deaths are suicide which isn't necessarily related to the availability of firearms, per-se. If someone is going to commit suicide then they will find a way to do it. Over 50% of firearms related deaths in the USA are due to suicide.
This may be relevant if you can show that the availability of firearms is increasing the suicide rate but I'm not aware of any studies which have shown that. Suicide is largely cultural; Japan has a very high rate yet has extremely stringent gun control laws - probably the most stringent in the world.
Suicide rates increase if there is an easy methods. The suicide rate fell in the UK when we switched from coal gas to natural gas as it meant you could no longer die by sticking your head in the oven. More recently platform barriers in Korea have reduced the amount of people jumping under trains, but without the expected increase of people jumping off bridges.This may be relevant if you can show that the availability of firearms is increasing the suicide rate but I'm not aware of any studies which have shown that. Suicide is largely cultural; Japan has a very high rate yet has extremely stringent gun control laws - probably the most stringent in the world.
Rostfritt said:
h8tax said:
Utter nonsense. The post Dunblane ban on handguns was a typical over-legislative knee jerk reaction from the most oppressive government we have had in recent times. It did nothing to stop subsequent gun killings - these will always happen without an outright ban on ALL firearms.
How would we ever know of any gun killings it did stop?Horribly socially regressive and elitist maybe, but I do wonder what effect a minimum purchase price (not a tax - the seller keeps the income) would have in the states. As somebody else has mentioned, the people splashing out on high-end AR-15s don't have a significant impact on firearm deaths - they are, well, geeks, with a mild obsession with technology (imagine that
). Given thaf AFAIK keeping a gun after illegally killing someone is a great way to get caught, I wonder if someone entertaining the thought of buying a gun for even slightly shady purposes might be dissuaded...edit: seems I'm not the first one to consider it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_specia...
Edited by paranoid airbag on Friday 25th April 01:14
A few facts I dredged up regarding fire-arms offences and more specifically legally owned fire-arms and U.S homicide rates.
67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm. Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.
Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the US. Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the U.S. is greater than other developed countries. In the U.S. Gun-related death rates in the U.S. are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. United Nations statistics record 3 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with where handguns are prohibited was 0.07 per 100,000, and for Germany 0.2.
Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used, with similar patterns in cases of family violence.
67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm. Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.
Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the US. Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the U.S. is greater than other developed countries. In the U.S. Gun-related death rates in the U.S. are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. United Nations statistics record 3 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with where handguns are prohibited was 0.07 per 100,000, and for Germany 0.2.
Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used, with similar patterns in cases of family violence.
A retired US police officer is being held in connection with the fatal shooting of a 43-year-old man in a Florida cinema in a row over texting.
Curtis Reeves, who is charged with second-degree murder, was denied bail during his first court appearance.
The 71-year-old opened fire after asking a man sitting directly in front of him to stop texting several times.
He told investigators he was "in fear of being attacked". The victim, named as Chad Oulson, died in hospital.
(The victim threw popcorn at the Retired Police Captain after he was challenged over the use of his mobile to contact his kids baby-sitter during the ads before the movie started)
Reeves had left the cinema to get his gun before returning to shoot the victim.
Mr Oulson's wife, Nicole, suffered non-life-threatening injuries as she had placed her hand over her husband just as he was shot, sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said.
Are you saying more incidents won't occur like this where a petty argument that would normally end up with a bloody nose or a few bruises, ends up in a multiple shooting. this is only one example if you want i can find dozens more of recent incidents.
Any argument regarding Cars vs Guns is also ridiculous.
To drive a car you must take lessons pass a written, practical, and hazard awareness tests. carry at all times your license. Have relevant insurance and each year take you vehicle for a MOT test. Also if you wish to drive large vehicles you must pass additional tests with regular re-testing to guarantee you maintain an acceptable level of competence.
If you have any serious mental or physical illnesses/ conditions that would impair your ability to operate a vehicle you won't get a license but that same person could purchase and legally carry a gun.
The Police can also carry out random stops and checks on vehicles, check all documents are correct and the person driving the car is legit with the option to impound the vehicle on the spot if otherwise.
In the new laws it states its now legal to carry a weapon into a bar, last i checked its illegal to drink-drive but apparently its ok to drink while armed.
for a vehicle license there are also compulsory health check-ups for those over a certain age or with health issues.
To compare vehicles to guns would you require that all Gun-owners go through similar testing and licensing.
Curtis Reeves, who is charged with second-degree murder, was denied bail during his first court appearance.
The 71-year-old opened fire after asking a man sitting directly in front of him to stop texting several times.
He told investigators he was "in fear of being attacked". The victim, named as Chad Oulson, died in hospital.
(The victim threw popcorn at the Retired Police Captain after he was challenged over the use of his mobile to contact his kids baby-sitter during the ads before the movie started)
Reeves had left the cinema to get his gun before returning to shoot the victim.
Mr Oulson's wife, Nicole, suffered non-life-threatening injuries as she had placed her hand over her husband just as he was shot, sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said.
Are you saying more incidents won't occur like this where a petty argument that would normally end up with a bloody nose or a few bruises, ends up in a multiple shooting. this is only one example if you want i can find dozens more of recent incidents.
Any argument regarding Cars vs Guns is also ridiculous.
To drive a car you must take lessons pass a written, practical, and hazard awareness tests. carry at all times your license. Have relevant insurance and each year take you vehicle for a MOT test. Also if you wish to drive large vehicles you must pass additional tests with regular re-testing to guarantee you maintain an acceptable level of competence.
If you have any serious mental or physical illnesses/ conditions that would impair your ability to operate a vehicle you won't get a license but that same person could purchase and legally carry a gun.
The Police can also carry out random stops and checks on vehicles, check all documents are correct and the person driving the car is legit with the option to impound the vehicle on the spot if otherwise.
In the new laws it states its now legal to carry a weapon into a bar, last i checked its illegal to drink-drive but apparently its ok to drink while armed.
for a vehicle license there are also compulsory health check-ups for those over a certain age or with health issues.
To compare vehicles to guns would you require that all Gun-owners go through similar testing and licensing.
redtwin said:
mackie1 said:
Rifles make up a very small proportion of gun murders in the USA. I think more are killed with hammers and clubs each year.
Actual assault rifles must make up a tiny number - they are not cheap!
Upwards of $5,000 for anything worth owning and that is if you meet the criteria and get ownership approval.Actual assault rifles must make up a tiny number - they are not cheap!
It is money in the bank though as prices are only climbing.
VeeDubBigBird said:
A retired US police officer is being held in connection with the fatal shooting of a 43-year-old man in a Florida cinema in a row over texting.
Curtis Reeves, who is charged with second-degree murder, was denied bail during his first court appearance.
The 71-year-old opened fire after asking a man sitting directly in front of him to stop texting several times.
He told investigators he was "in fear of being attacked". The victim, named as Chad Oulson, died in hospital.
(The victim threw popcorn at the Retired Police Captain after he was challenged over the use of his mobile to contact his kids baby-sitter during the ads before the movie started)
Reeves had left the cinema to get his gun before returning to shoot the victim.
Mr Oulson's wife, Nicole, suffered non-life-threatening injuries as she had placed her hand over her husband just as he was shot, sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said.
Are you saying more incidents won't occur like this where a petty argument that would normally end up with a bloody nose or a few bruises, ends up in a multiple shooting. this is only one example if you want i can find dozens more of recent incidents.
Any argument regarding Cars vs Guns is also ridiculous.
To drive a car you must take lessons pass a written, practical, and hazard awareness tests. carry at all times your license. Have relevant insurance and each year take you vehicle for a MOT test. Also if you wish to drive large vehicles you must pass additional tests with regular re-testing to guarantee you maintain an acceptable level of competence.
If you have any serious mental or physical illnesses/ conditions that would impair your ability to operate a vehicle you won't get a license but that same person could purchase and legally carry a gun.
The Police can also carry out random stops and checks on vehicles, check all documents are correct and the person driving the car is legit with the option to impound the vehicle on the spot if otherwise.
In the new laws it states its now legal to carry a weapon into a bar, last i checked its illegal to drink-drive but apparently its ok to drink while armed.
for a vehicle license there are also compulsory health check-ups for those over a certain age or with health issues.
To compare vehicles to guns would you require that all Gun-owners go through similar testing and licensing.
You forgot the most obvious difference. The primary purpose of a car is transport. With a gun it, it is specifically designed to impart kinetic damage to your chosen target. In a car, the benefits far outweigh the detriments.Curtis Reeves, who is charged with second-degree murder, was denied bail during his first court appearance.
The 71-year-old opened fire after asking a man sitting directly in front of him to stop texting several times.
He told investigators he was "in fear of being attacked". The victim, named as Chad Oulson, died in hospital.
(The victim threw popcorn at the Retired Police Captain after he was challenged over the use of his mobile to contact his kids baby-sitter during the ads before the movie started)
Reeves had left the cinema to get his gun before returning to shoot the victim.
Mr Oulson's wife, Nicole, suffered non-life-threatening injuries as she had placed her hand over her husband just as he was shot, sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said.
Are you saying more incidents won't occur like this where a petty argument that would normally end up with a bloody nose or a few bruises, ends up in a multiple shooting. this is only one example if you want i can find dozens more of recent incidents.
Any argument regarding Cars vs Guns is also ridiculous.
To drive a car you must take lessons pass a written, practical, and hazard awareness tests. carry at all times your license. Have relevant insurance and each year take you vehicle for a MOT test. Also if you wish to drive large vehicles you must pass additional tests with regular re-testing to guarantee you maintain an acceptable level of competence.
If you have any serious mental or physical illnesses/ conditions that would impair your ability to operate a vehicle you won't get a license but that same person could purchase and legally carry a gun.
The Police can also carry out random stops and checks on vehicles, check all documents are correct and the person driving the car is legit with the option to impound the vehicle on the spot if otherwise.
In the new laws it states its now legal to carry a weapon into a bar, last i checked its illegal to drink-drive but apparently its ok to drink while armed.
for a vehicle license there are also compulsory health check-ups for those over a certain age or with health issues.
To compare vehicles to guns would you require that all Gun-owners go through similar testing and licensing.
The population of the USA is circa 300m. The population of the UK is circa 70m. So in theory, the USA should have about 4-5 times as many gun deaths as the UK. (in fact, the UK should have proportionately more because we are far more densely populated so conflict should be more common.)
In 2008, the USA had 29000 gun related deaths. So we should have had about 7000. In fact we had 42. Not 42K...just 42.
Can anyone throw any light on this discrepancy. I assume that Americans aren't naturally more homicidal than we are?
In 2008, the USA had 29000 gun related deaths. So we should have had about 7000. In fact we had 42. Not 42K...just 42.
Can anyone throw any light on this discrepancy. I assume that Americans aren't naturally more homicidal than we are?
hidetheelephants said:
That's because the pinko commies in the white house will ban them soon!!!111one! Buy now while gullibility stocks lasts!
There is that aspect of panic buying, but the real reason for the increasing prices is simple supply and demand. Importation and manufacture of civilian legal Assault Rifles has been banned for nearly 30 years and demand has only risen since then. TwigtheWonderkid said:
The population of the USA is circa 300m. The population of the UK is circa 70m. So in theory, the USA should have about 4-5 times as many gun deaths as the UK. (in fact, the UK should have proportionately more because we are far more densely populated so conflict should be more common.)
In 2008, the USA had 29000 gun related deaths. So we should have had about 7000. In fact we had 42. Not 42K...just 42.
Can anyone throw any light on this discrepancy. I assume that Americans aren't naturally more homicidal than we are?
But people will just murder people in different ways, the murder rate will stay the same! That is why the US has 14,000 murders each year and we have 722. Infact if we had the same rate of murderousness, we should have about 2,800. Does that mean that statistically 2,000 people are not killed in the UK because of gun control?In 2008, the USA had 29000 gun related deaths. So we should have had about 7000. In fact we had 42. Not 42K...just 42.
Can anyone throw any light on this discrepancy. I assume that Americans aren't naturally more homicidal than we are?
rhinochopig said:
VeeDubBigBird said:
A retired US police officer is being held in connection with the fatal shooting of a 43-year-old man in a Florida cinema in a row over texting.
Curtis Reeves, who is charged with second-degree murder, was denied bail during his first court appearance.
The 71-year-old opened fire after asking a man sitting directly in front of him to stop texting several times.
He told investigators he was "in fear of being attacked". The victim, named as Chad Oulson, died in hospital.
(The victim threw popcorn at the Retired Police Captain after he was challenged over the use of his mobile to contact his kids baby-sitter during the ads before the movie started)
Reeves had left the cinema to get his gun before returning to shoot the victim.
Mr Oulson's wife, Nicole, suffered non-life-threatening injuries as she had placed her hand over her husband just as he was shot, sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said.
Are you saying more incidents won't occur like this where a petty argument that would normally end up with a bloody nose or a few bruises, ends up in a multiple shooting. this is only one example if you want i can find dozens more of recent incidents.
Any argument regarding Cars vs Guns is also ridiculous.
To drive a car you must take lessons pass a written, practical, and hazard awareness tests. carry at all times your license. Have relevant insurance and each year take you vehicle for a MOT test. Also if you wish to drive large vehicles you must pass additional tests with regular re-testing to guarantee you maintain an acceptable level of competence.
If you have any serious mental or physical illnesses/ conditions that would impair your ability to operate a vehicle you won't get a license but that same person could purchase and legally carry a gun.
The Police can also carry out random stops and checks on vehicles, check all documents are correct and the person driving the car is legit with the option to impound the vehicle on the spot if otherwise.
In the new laws it states its now legal to carry a weapon into a bar, last i checked its illegal to drink-drive but apparently its ok to drink while armed.
for a vehicle license there are also compulsory health check-ups for those over a certain age or with health issues.
To compare vehicles to guns would you require that all Gun-owners go through similar testing and licensing.
You forgot the most obvious difference. The primary purpose of a car is transport. With a gun it, it is specifically designed to impart kinetic damage to your chosen target. In a car, the benefits far outweigh the detriments.Curtis Reeves, who is charged with second-degree murder, was denied bail during his first court appearance.
The 71-year-old opened fire after asking a man sitting directly in front of him to stop texting several times.
He told investigators he was "in fear of being attacked". The victim, named as Chad Oulson, died in hospital.
(The victim threw popcorn at the Retired Police Captain after he was challenged over the use of his mobile to contact his kids baby-sitter during the ads before the movie started)
Reeves had left the cinema to get his gun before returning to shoot the victim.
Mr Oulson's wife, Nicole, suffered non-life-threatening injuries as she had placed her hand over her husband just as he was shot, sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said.
Are you saying more incidents won't occur like this where a petty argument that would normally end up with a bloody nose or a few bruises, ends up in a multiple shooting. this is only one example if you want i can find dozens more of recent incidents.
Any argument regarding Cars vs Guns is also ridiculous.
To drive a car you must take lessons pass a written, practical, and hazard awareness tests. carry at all times your license. Have relevant insurance and each year take you vehicle for a MOT test. Also if you wish to drive large vehicles you must pass additional tests with regular re-testing to guarantee you maintain an acceptable level of competence.
If you have any serious mental or physical illnesses/ conditions that would impair your ability to operate a vehicle you won't get a license but that same person could purchase and legally carry a gun.
The Police can also carry out random stops and checks on vehicles, check all documents are correct and the person driving the car is legit with the option to impound the vehicle on the spot if otherwise.
In the new laws it states its now legal to carry a weapon into a bar, last i checked its illegal to drink-drive but apparently its ok to drink while armed.
for a vehicle license there are also compulsory health check-ups for those over a certain age or with health issues.
To compare vehicles to guns would you require that all Gun-owners go through similar testing and licensing.
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.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The population of the USA is circa 300m. The population of the UK is circa 70m. So in theory, the USA should have about 4-5 times as many gun deaths as the UK. (in fact, the UK should have proportionately more because we are far more densely populated so conflict should be more common.)
In 2008, the USA had 29000 gun related deaths. So we should have had about 7000. In fact we had 42. Not 42K...just 42.
Can anyone throw any light on this discrepancy. I assume that Americans aren't naturally more homicidal than we are?
Just a quick correction..In 2008, the USA had 29000 gun related deaths. So we should have had about 7000. In fact we had 42. Not 42K...just 42.
Can anyone throw any light on this discrepancy. I assume that Americans aren't naturally more homicidal than we are?
UK population is about 60 million...
USA population is about 320 million
The USA murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000 people
The UK murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000 people
So the difference is there... but not as extreme as you point out.
For comparison... Estonia and Ukraine's murder rate are about 5.2 per 100,000 and Russia's is 9.7
Edited by skyrover on Friday 25th April 08:44
redtwin said:
I wasn't trying to reassure you, just disprove your thought that it is easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a car. 
Hmmm. I did say legally as well. So, it is as easy to buy a gun as a car, but to use the car in a public place requires a licence.
And I get the whole "fundamental right" bit, but as I say the founding fathers probably didn't see the car coming and certainly didn't imagine people using semiautomatic weapons on their class mates.
Comparing murder rates, as people are, is telling too IMO. The UK and US are modern, civilised, first world countries. Corruption is relatively low, and the police forces are among the better ones in the world. And yet the US murder rate is three times ours. (And I know people have pointed out the US rate is lower than the Ukraine and Russia, but both countries are a little more rough and ready, no?)
If people don't have guns they can still use other weapons to kill people, but a gun makes killing someone easier and far less personally involving. I've been reading an account of the Afghan conflict and even for battle hardened troops the step from shooting someone to fixing bayonets and getting in close is a very significant one.
There is an argument that UK gun control is too tight, but on balance removing access to one aspect of a hobby is a small price to pay. (And I've shot rifles and pistols as a hobby and currently have a shotgun and air rifle.)
grumbledoak said:
Good for them.
Our gun control culture is driven by our political classes' fear of us finally having our own revolution. Every opportunity is taken to hype up fear of guns. We only get the bad news, plus spin. No mention is ever made of the reduced crime rates that do result, even in America. From what we get told you could easily assume that neighbouring Canada is gun free. Or Switzerland. They aren't.
+1Our gun control culture is driven by our political classes' fear of us finally having our own revolution. Every opportunity is taken to hype up fear of guns. We only get the bad news, plus spin. No mention is ever made of the reduced crime rates that do result, even in America. From what we get told you could easily assume that neighbouring Canada is gun free. Or Switzerland. They aren't.
Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.
Edited by Saddle bum on Friday 25th April 10:48
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.
On that basis, it should be legal to own and use any weapon you like. However, I suspect if you took to wandering around shopping malls, carrying an MG42 and a couple of 75 round drum magazines, the authorities would soon put a stop to it (or most likely a stop to you...)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.
So it seems that they are able to differentiate between arms and indeed legislate so. Yet the most problem weapon - the handgun; cheap to buy, easy to operate, easy to carry, easy to conceal, it's only purpose is to shoot humans (target pistols accepted) - appears to be the one "arm" that they are unable or unwilling to deal with.
I dare say that if all handguns were replaced with M16's the murder rate would drop considerably.
Bill said:
redtwin said:
I wasn't trying to reassure you, just disprove your thought that it is easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a car.
Hmmm. I did say legally as well. If you are buying a gun from a licensed gun dealer, the process is considerably more involved and regulated than it is to buy a car from a licensed car dealer. That is before you even touch on the restrictions due to criminal record, age and location (state and city laws etc).
Private *legal* sales of guns and cars are equally easy.
Check the classifieds, find one you like "full service history, one careful owner, first to see will buy" etc, ring up seller, arrange to meet for an inspection and test drive/fire, hand over dosh and be on your way.
redtwin said:
I did mean legally.
If you are buying a gun from a licensed gun dealer, the process is considerably more involved and regulated than it is to buy a car from a licensed car dealer. That is before you even touch on the restrictions due to criminal record, age and location (state and city laws etc).
Read the following, all examples of shootings where it was clear the shooter should not have had a gun license.
May 2012 shooting in Seattle, Washington, in which concealed handgun permit holder Ian Stawicki killed a total of five people. Friends and family members of Stawicki had seen signs of mental illness in him throughout his entire life. He was charged with four domestic violence-related misdemeanors in 2008 after his girlfriend was injured in an altercation with him at their home. Two years later, Stawicki inexplicably accused his younger brother of causing him blindness and punched him repeatedly in front of their mother. He was charged with assault. All these charges were later dropped when his girlfriend and family declined to press forward with them. Nonetheless, Stawicki €™s own father, Walter Stawicki, saw the potential danger and tried to have his son €™s concealed handgun permit revoked. Law enforcement told him that under the state €™s existing €œShall Issue € law, there was nothing they could do.
Aurora, Colorado gunman James Holmes passed background checks and bought firearms despite seeking mental health treatment and confessing his violent thoughts to a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado. Dr. Lynne Fenton was so alarmed by her sessions with Holmes that she reported him to a campus threat assessment team as well as to campus police. Prosecutors also allege that Holmes threatened a professor at the university and was banned from campus at one point.
Sikh Temple shooter Wade Michael Page legally bought the firearm he used to kill in Wisconsin and had also obtained permits to purchase handguns in North Carolina. This was despite the fact that Page had an extensive history of alcoholism, with prior guilty pleas for DUI and criminal mischief offenses. Page had also been discharged after six years in the Army when he was caught doing exercises while intoxicated. Later, in 2010, Page was fired from a trucking company in North Carolina for driving under the influence. Then there was Page €™s involvement in hate groups. In addition to two far-right wing punk rock bands (End Apathy and Definite Hate), Page was involved with many white supremacist organizations and was even suspected of funding a domestic terrorism group. Because of this activity, Page was being monitored by both federal officials and anti-hate watchdog groups.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-s...
I did mean legally.
If you are buying a gun from a licensed gun dealer, the process is considerably more involved and regulated than it is to buy a car from a licensed car dealer. That is before you even touch on the restrictions due to criminal record, age and location (state and city laws etc).
Read the following, all examples of shootings where it was clear the shooter should not have had a gun license.
May 2012 shooting in Seattle, Washington, in which concealed handgun permit holder Ian Stawicki killed a total of five people. Friends and family members of Stawicki had seen signs of mental illness in him throughout his entire life. He was charged with four domestic violence-related misdemeanors in 2008 after his girlfriend was injured in an altercation with him at their home. Two years later, Stawicki inexplicably accused his younger brother of causing him blindness and punched him repeatedly in front of their mother. He was charged with assault. All these charges were later dropped when his girlfriend and family declined to press forward with them. Nonetheless, Stawicki €™s own father, Walter Stawicki, saw the potential danger and tried to have his son €™s concealed handgun permit revoked. Law enforcement told him that under the state €™s existing €œShall Issue € law, there was nothing they could do.
Aurora, Colorado gunman James Holmes passed background checks and bought firearms despite seeking mental health treatment and confessing his violent thoughts to a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado. Dr. Lynne Fenton was so alarmed by her sessions with Holmes that she reported him to a campus threat assessment team as well as to campus police. Prosecutors also allege that Holmes threatened a professor at the university and was banned from campus at one point.
Sikh Temple shooter Wade Michael Page legally bought the firearm he used to kill in Wisconsin and had also obtained permits to purchase handguns in North Carolina. This was despite the fact that Page had an extensive history of alcoholism, with prior guilty pleas for DUI and criminal mischief offenses. Page had also been discharged after six years in the Army when he was caught doing exercises while intoxicated. Later, in 2010, Page was fired from a trucking company in North Carolina for driving under the influence. Then there was Page €™s involvement in hate groups. In addition to two far-right wing punk rock bands (End Apathy and Definite Hate), Page was involved with many white supremacist organizations and was even suspected of funding a domestic terrorism group. Because of this activity, Page was being monitored by both federal officials and anti-hate watchdog groups.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-s...
Liokault said:
AshVX220 said:
Yes, but the point is, it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the crewed squishy bit, holding the gun. I don't believe there should be "stricter" gun controls, I don't like the anti-gun rhetoric and controls in the UK. I do however believe there should be much better gun control with more stringent and regular checks.
I like my anti gun rhetoric and my tiny chance of gun related death or crime in comparison to the USA thanks.
holes, we all have them. 
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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff