Another American shooting incident.

[mattmurdock]

youngsyr said:

Access to all guns in the UK wasn't restricted thirteen years ago though, only access to certain types of gun. It still is possible for a law abiding, sane person in the UK to acquire a shotgun with only minimal checks, so it stands to reason that if a (future or actual) criminal wants to illegally or legally buy/steal/use a gun, they simply buy/steal/use whichever gun is available.

If all guns were outlawed in the UK though I am as certain as I can be that gun crime would be further educed from the already low level.

Then on that you and I will have to disagree. With the exception of some extraordinary events, the vast majority of gun deaths in the UK are not caused by legal firearms, and removing those legal firearms may prevent such extraordinary events, but will not reduce gun crime significantly.

[youngsyr]

mattmurdock said:

youngsyr said:

Access to all guns in the UK wasn't restricted thirteen years ago though, only access to certain types of gun. It still is possible for a law abiding, sane person in the UK to acquire a shotgun with only minimal checks, so it stands to reason that if a (future or actual) criminal wants to illegally or legally buy/steal/use a gun, they simply buy/steal/use whichever gun is available.

If all guns were outlawed in the UK though I am as certain as I can be that gun crime would be further educed from the already low level.

Then on that you and I will have to disagree. With the exception of some extraordinary events, the vast majority of gun deaths in the UK are not caused by legal firearms, and removing those legal firearms may prevent such extraordinary events, but will not reduce gun crime significantly.

It should be easy to see which one of our opinions is closest to reality though - there must be gun crime statistics published for most countries. All we would need to do is plot the number of crimes where guns are used against the strictness of that countries gun laws (and I guess how strongly they are enforced).

I would imagine that a general trend would present itself, but if it doesn't then I will concede that you are correct.

[mattmurdock]

youngsyr said:

mattmurdock said:

youngsyr said:

Access to all guns in the UK wasn't restricted thirteen years ago though, only access to certain types of gun. It still is possible for a law abiding, sane person in the UK to acquire a shotgun with only minimal checks, so it stands to reason that if a (future or actual) criminal wants to illegally or legally buy/steal/use a gun, they simply buy/steal/use whichever gun is available.

If all guns were outlawed in the UK though I am as certain as I can be that gun crime would be further educed from the already low level.

Then on that you and I will have to disagree. With the exception of some extraordinary events, the vast majority of gun deaths in the UK are not caused by legal firearms, and removing those legal firearms may prevent such extraordinary events, but will not reduce gun crime significantly.

It should be easy to see which one of our opinions is closest to reality though - there must be gun crime statistics published for most countries. All we would need to do is plot the number of crimes where guns are used against the strictness of that countries gun laws (and I guess how strongly they are enforced).

I would imagine that a general trend would present itself, but if it doesn't then I will concede that you are correct.

The issue is comparing between countries is always going to be problematic, as there will be other factors at play. That is why I highlighted the situation in the UK, as there we have data that straddles a relatively drastic increase in the strictness of the gun control law, and therefore we can make an almost direct comparison between gun crime rates. Even that is problematic, as other factors in the UK itself can be driving a change. Hence the common expression of 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.

In the UK there has clearly been little to no impact on the overall gun crime rate of removing handguns from private ownership. This would strongly suggest that in the UK legally owned handguns were not being used in the majority of gun crimes.

In the end these discussions always come down to a fundamental difference in belief.

Some believe that firearms serve no purpose other than to cause injury and kill, and therefore the remotest change that a legally owned firearm could harm another is enough to ban them completely.

Others believe that a firearm is a tool much like an axe, a knife or a garden fork (all items that have historically been used to kill people) and can therefore be used for sporting purposes (in the same way as previous weapons of war like bows or javelins have been re-purposed as sporting items) and therefore it is unfair to deprive people of that sport simply because others could use the tool for harm.

You may have guessed which side of that particular fence I fall

[FasterFreddy]

youngsyr said:

mattmurdock said:

youngsyr said:

Access to all guns in the UK wasn't restricted thirteen years ago though, only access to certain types of gun. It still is possible for a law abiding, sane person in the UK to acquire a shotgun with only minimal checks, so it stands to reason that if a (future or actual) criminal wants to illegally or legally buy/steal/use a gun, they simply buy/steal/use whichever gun is available.

If all guns were outlawed in the UK though I am as certain as I can be that gun crime would be further educed from the already low level.

Then on that you and I will have to disagree. With the exception of some extraordinary events, the vast majority of gun deaths in the UK are not caused by legal firearms, and removing those legal firearms may prevent such extraordinary events, but will not reduce gun crime significantly.

It should be easy to see which one of our opinions is closest to reality though - there must be gun crime statistics published for most countries. All we would need to do is plot the number of crimes where guns are used against the strictness of that countries gun laws (and I guess how strongly they are enforced).

No, to back up your viewpoint you would need the figures for:

a) Number of gun crimes committed by criminals who legally held those guns.
b) Number of gun crimes committed with guns stolen or acquired from licensed holders.

The argument that banning all guns would lead to less gun crime is just rubbish because if you do look at the figures you will see that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that have never been licensed.

Legally held guns in the UK are not "in circulation", they are locked up and looked after by their owners and the number of guns stolen in targetted or casual burglaries is very small when compared to the number of guns which are truly "in circulation" in criminal circles.

Anyway, we did cover this subject comprehensively earlier in the year after the Moat incident here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... and here: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

So I don't think we need to go over old ground again so soon. Gun laws in the UK are not going to be drastically changed any time soon as the recent review published by the Government has shown.

Let's keep this thread to the US if we can and maybe discuss other ways of preventing this sort of thing happening again other than gun legislation?

Edited by FasterFreddy on Tuesday 11th January 15:45

[g4ry13]

FasterFreddy said:

Let's keep this thread to the US if we can and maybe discuss other ways of preventing this sort of thing happening again other than gun legislation?

Not sure how you can really do that when it's the cause of the problem.

Morons + Guns = Shooting sprees and higher murder rates

So i've deduced you either need to get rid of the guns (which you're not interested in) in which case the simple solution is to get rid of all the morons in the USA.

[FasterFreddy]

g4ry13 said:

the simple solution is to get rid of all the morons in the USA.

Now you're talking sense...

[Jimbeaux]

Bill said:

mattmurdock said:

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

Of course there's the argument that if the law abiding aren't armed then the crims are less likely to see guns as a necessary tool.

Honestly, I wouldn't count on that one tiny bit.

[Jimbeaux]

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

[Bill]

Jimbeaux said:

Bill said:

mattmurdock said:

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

Of course there's the argument that if the law abiding aren't armed then the crims are less likely to see guns as a necessary tool.

Honestly, I wouldn't count on that one tiny bit.

Really? If a criminal is highly unlikely to be shot at and the penalty is worse if he's caught carrying a gun surely he wouldn't bother. Burglars in the UK don't carry on the whole, and it's not like they couldn't get a gun if they wanted.

Obviously this is a moot point regarding the US.

[g4ry13]

The problem with it all is these shooting sprees aren't performed by the gang member, hardened criminal. A lot of the gun crimes they perform are against other gang members, drug dealers etc. The shooting sprees are performed by formerly law abiding citizens who possess a gun and have a few screws loose in their head.

[BoRED S2upid]

The only way to stop this is legislation which is never going to happen in the USA how would they round up all the guns in existence its not going to happen. One politician thought last weeks shooting would have been different if MORE people were carrying guns I guess in a good old fashioned shoot out with a lot of yee hawwing going on.

[ErnestM]

Getting back on topic...

A thought has been rattling around in my grey matter (an was touched on way earlier in this discussion, I think by 968)

Where were the deputies/LEO/City cops? I know that Orlando is a little bigger than Tucson, but any political gathering would have some sort of law enforcement presence. Even if it was just the token "two guys near the podium".

I am starting to believe that (a)This Sheriff (who is an elected official by the way) dropped the ball regarding coverage and (b)his remarks blaming Palin/talk radio/Tea Party/et al were an excercise in CYA that took on a life of it's own and got out of his control.

I can't locate a major news service of any type that has asked this question yet.

Thoughts?

[BoRED S2upid]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143984

One of her first acts in Congress was to push for a national day in recognition of cowboys. She is also a gun owner


Id have voted for her just for National Cowboy day.

[Ayahuasca]

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

The theory is great, but in practice the criminals in massacre cases are generally not criminals until they go postal. Sort of makes them tough to identify.

[Bing o]

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

Or you could try and stop people becoming criminals in the first place...(this applies to the UK as well).

[zakelwe]

youngsyr said:

mattmurdock said:

youngsyr said:

Access to all guns in the UK wasn't restricted thirteen years ago though, only access to certain types of gun. It still is possible for a law abiding, sane person in the UK to acquire a shotgun with only minimal checks, so it stands to reason that if a (future or actual) criminal wants to illegally or legally buy/steal/use a gun, they simply buy/steal/use whichever gun is available.

If all guns were outlawed in the UK though I am as certain as I can be that gun crime would be further educed from the already low level.

Then on that you and I will have to disagree. With the exception of some extraordinary events, the vast majority of gun deaths in the UK are not caused by legal firearms, and removing those legal firearms may prevent such extraordinary events, but will not reduce gun crime significantly.

It should be easy to see which one of our opinions is closest to reality though - there must be gun crime statistics published for most countries. All we would need to do is plot the number of crimes where guns are used against the strictness of that countries gun laws (and I guess how strongly they are enforced).

I would imagine that a general trend would present itself, but if it doesn't then I will concede that you are correct.

Yes there is and you are right and he is wrong. For the UK figures pre 1998 per year show the following

Circumstances Firearm Legally Held =6
Firearm Illegally Held = 35

In 2007-2008 that had gone down to 2 legally held and 21 illegally held, so the ratio has gone up so indicating that the claim "vast majority of deaths are caused by illegal weapons" might be true. However these figures do not take into account legally owned guns killing people by accident or an easy suicide. Taken as a whole any scaremongeriing of illegal weapons being a big problem is not the case. More people are killed in the UK each year by legally owned weapons than illegal.

Andy

[Jimbeaux]

Bill said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bill said:

mattmurdock said:

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

Of course there's the argument that if the law abiding aren't armed then the crims are less likely to see guns as a necessary tool.

Honestly, I wouldn't count on that one tiny bit.

Really? If a criminal is highly unlikely to be shot at and the penalty is worse if he's caught carrying a gun surely he wouldn't bother. Burglars in the UK don't carry on the whole, and it's not like they couldn't get a gun if they wanted.

Obviously this is a moot point regarding the US.

You give criminals too much credit for logical thought.

[zakelwe]

FasterFreddy said:

Let's keep this thread to the US if we can and maybe discuss other ways of preventing this sort of thing happening again other than gun legislation?

Make it compulsory for everyone in the USA to wear a kevlar helmet and bulletproof vest. If you are not going to disarm the shooters then you need to armour up the shootees.

What's your suggestion for keeping people from gun homicides in the USA?

Andy

[Jimbeaux]

BoRED S2upid said:

The only way to stop this is legislation which is never going to happen in the USA how would they round up all the guns in existence its not going to happen. One politician thought last weeks shooting would have been different if MORE people were carrying guns I guess in a good old fashioned shoot out with a lot of yee hawwing going on.

It wouldn't work in the U.K. as well. Do you honestly believe that a black market for weapons from China, Russia, Eastern Europe, even France will not fill the need?

[Jimbeaux]

ErnestM said:

Getting back on topic...

A thought has been rattling around in my grey matter (an was touched on way earlier in this discussion, I think by 968)

Where were the deputies/LEO/City cops? I know that Orlando is a little bigger than Tucson, but any political gathering would have some sort of law enforcement presence. Even if it was just the token "two guys near the podium".

I am starting to believe that (a)This Sheriff (who is an elected official by the way) dropped the ball regarding coverage and (b)his remarks blaming Palin/talk radio/Tea Party/et al were an excercise in CYA that took on a life of it's own and got out of his control.

I can't locate a major news service of any type that has asked this question yet.

Thoughts?

She set this corner meeting up via Twitter. How much of a notice was given I wonder?