Another American Shooting

[GolfJay]

Guy starts a fire, firemen arrive and the guy shoots them all! :n:

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925)

[DAMSK11]

2nd shooting in a Month. Hooligans.

[GolfJay]

2nd shooting in a Month. Hooligans.

4th. Two police officers (separate incidents) were also shot and killed on Monday :n:

[jonathon5]

America is in denial as normal

[Tommo87]

So again this prompts the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment should be reviewed/changed.

[blackie_2k5]

been three stabbings in the ne in last week

Pretty sure two of the were fatalities..

Might stop mass murders.. Won't stop ppl dieing

[AXracing]

You have to feel for those fire men and family. Good people trying to help others. Its a very sad story :(

[AXracing]

So again this prompts the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment should be reviewed/changed.

Why would that change anything? The gun the guy had was not legal anyhow and he was not even legally allowed to own a gun. I cant see adding any more laws is going to help much.

The US has more guns then cars. Yet more people are killed unlawfully by speeding motorists then murdered with guns. So why don't they change the law and make it illegal to own a car capable of speeding? That would save far more peoples lives.

How about drunk drivers? They again unlawfully kill more people. So why not make it illegal to own a car with out a breathalyzer immobilisers or something like that?

The US also has a murder rate lower then many European countries. Some states in the US have a lower murder rate then the UK and every single state has a lower violent crime rate then the UK.

Simple fact is the US is big and that why a lot happens there compared to the UK. But look at big place like Russia and even Europe as a hole and suddenly the US looks quite good.

[GolfJay]

Why would that change anything? The gun the guy had was not legal anyhow and he was not even legally allowed to own a gun. I cant see adding any more laws is going to help much.

The US has more guns then cars. Yet more people are killed unlawfully by speeding motorists then murdered with guns. So why don't they change the law and make it illegal to own a car capable of speeding? That would save far more peoples lives.

How about drunk drivers? They again unlawfully kill more people. So why not make it illegal to own a car with out a breathalyzer immobilisers or something like that?

Dragons Den idea right there!

[iluminusbutterfly]

Hardly a dragons den idea it's been available in the states for years

And the reason IMO that the gun law should be changed is over here when a nutter loses it he hangs himself end of, over there because of all the publicity these people get they decide they want to go out with everyone knowing their name, so they go to Walmart, buy an assault riffle and head to the nearest public place and shoot everyone up, make guns illegal and they'll go back to killing themselves, it won't stop the determined gun owner just like drug laws don't stop the determined junkie, but it'll stop the nutters

[AXracing]

Hardly a dragons den idea it's been available in the states for years

And the reason IMO that the gun law should be changed is over here when a nutter loses it he hangs himself end of, over there because of all the publicity these people get they decide they want to go out with everyone knowing their name, so they go to Walmart, buy an assault riffle and head to the nearest public place and shoot everyone up, make guns illegal and they'll go back to killing themselves, it won't stop the determined gun owner just like drug laws don't stop the determined junkie, but it'll stop the nutters

agree totally about the US culture of mass new coverage of these things is very much fueling such actions. The thing about gun laws though was there is already laws in place to stop this person from buying or even owning such a gun to start with. With nutters like this there really is no stopping them. Just look at the US and for such a tiny country with have a rather lot of mass murders. If they cant get guns I am positive these people will just go back to burning people alive, blowing them up, stabbing then, trapping them and starving them to death, kidnapping them and skinning them alone and all these other sick and twisted things people for some unknown reason do :(

[Tommo87]

I'm not saying the 2nd should be changed at all.

[mlawlan69]

Dragons Den idea right there!

Volvo made one

YouTube it :)

[Syphillis]

Dark. Over Christmas too.

[0rang3peel]

when guns are readily available whether it's legally or not, it's not really surprising that the odd nutter does that.

[Jazz]

Too many in circulation, too many readily available. Simple fact and something needs to be done about it.

Nutters exist everywhere, not just in the US. But a nutter with easy access to a gun is more dangerous.

[Jazz]

The US has more guns then cars. Yet more people are killed unlawfully by speeding motorists then murdered with guns. So why don't they change the law and make it illegal to own a car capable of speeding? That would save far more peoples lives.



What a bloody stupid comparison.

I suppose all those drivers deliberately kill people just like the murderers then?

Japan is a prime example of how strict gun-control measures save people's lives. In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw just 2, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally. Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds even at a Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan- one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Might sound strict but people not being killed sounds far better to me.

[iluminusbutterfly]

Handguns are the ones that get me, they are useless for hunting, there only purpose is to kill humans,

[0rang3peel]

Handguns are the ones that get me, they are useless for hunting, there only purpose is to kill humans,

yeah exactly, "self defence" from what? people with other handguns!!!

[Tommo87]

Handguns are the ones that get me, they are useless for hunting, there only purpose is to kill humans,

Handguns are useful for pest control so yes killing humans could fall in to that.

I feel that the 2nd is important and has its uses and tbh I see why it is in the constitution. However as it is in the constitution the idea of a gun free zone is crazy and should be abolished rather than gun law changes.

As for Japan, great they have strict gun laws but does that really stop the criminal element having them just as here.

[Jazz]

As for Japan, great they have strict gun laws but does that really stop the criminal element having them just as here.

You will never totally stop the criminal fraternity from acquiring guns, that much is pretty obvious. The Yakuza move weapons in, out and around Japan quite regularly and it is difficult to stop them.

What those gun laws do achieve is the dramatic reduction of civilian gun-deaths. You cannot walk around or even openly admit to owning a gun there without getting investigated/monitored, and as a result they are pushed to the corners of the underworld, meaning your average nut case on the street has to look for other means to commit his crimes. And it is harder to commit mass murder with a kitchen knife, hence the far, far lower homicide rates there.

Tough anti-gun laws don't just only work, they are the definitive key factor towards the reduction of civilian gun-deaths.

Which is why the sooner America gets off it's fat arse and has a drastic shake-up of their Firearms policy, the better.

I feel that the 2nd is important and has its uses and tbh I see why it is in the constitution

I personally think it's the single biggest piece of bullshit ever included in a legal system.

[Tommo87]

The 2nd is there to prevent the government having too much power.

[BarneyB]

I honestly don't see the need for guns (Except for those used for hunting etc) I mean why allow them to have guns still when incidents like this are almost becoming normal over there...

[Gabbastard]

I honestly don't see the need for guns (Except for those used for hunting etc) I mean why allow them to have guns still when incidents like this are almost becoming normal over there...

Because its in their constitution that everyone has the right to bear arms.

[AXracing]

The 2nd is there to prevent the government having too much power.

Yup and even after the English Civil War we had the same rights. However the founding beliefs of a free democracy has subsequently eroded with the degradation of each English citizens basic rights. The English government is more a dictatorship with the facade of a free democracy. In the US sadly the same sort of thing is happening. They started out with the same sort of rights as we did. History shows that it was hard learnt that these rights where essential to inshore freedom. Most people who live in England or the US have no idea of how it once was. This is far beiond the right to bear arms but the right of freedom of speech, the right for a fair trial and many other such basic rights. Sadly if history hold true the erosion of freedom can only end in oppression.

[TomT]

Some incredibly stupid shit written in this thread.

[Gordzilla]

Some incredibly stupid shit written in this thread.

You seem surprised.

[Jazz]

I know exactly why it is in their constitution and the reasoning/history behind it in great detail. I still think it is bullsh!t in a modern democratic society.

Think about it for a second. Should we have the right to shoot down the Royals or our government if we deem to be 'tyrannical'? How incredibly stuipid does that sound? Effectively that means in times of desperation we abandon the rule of law and take up arms and carry out whatever we feel is adequate justice. That sort of thing paves the way for complete anarchy and rebellion.

Years ago yes it is understandable and given America's history of course I can see why it was there as a safe guard for freedom back then, but it is now desperately outdated and completely needless if that is the sole reason.

All it serves now is to give households a 'consitutional right' to load up on military hardware capable of wiping out entire towns and villages.

Senseless is not the word.

[MonkeyKnifeFight]

Guy starts a fire, firemen arrive and the guy shoots them all! :n:

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925)

It's his constitutional right!! America FUCK YEAH!!

[AXracing]

Years ago yes it is understandable and given America's history of course I can see why it was there as a safe guard for freedom back then, but it is now desperately outdated and completely needless if that is the sole reason.

Its a freedom against individual or government oppression. You can look at far more modern day examples. Government oppression a great example is that seen in Germany in WW2. But probably a more relevant example is Bosnia Herzegovina. This is more relevant as its within the life time of most on this forum. A few people on the old SSC forum where even there. Both are examples of democracies gone wrong. As for individual aspect this can be seen every day all over the world.

The problem is its always hard to justify taking aspects of people freedom for "the greater good" unless this freedom will directly harm someone. The biggest problem is there is no clear line. No place to stop. We now lock people up indefinably with out a trial, we ban people from having all sorts of objects because the odd person just may use it as a weapon, we ban people from carrying objects that could be used to commit a criminal act, we ban people from saying many true things that others may find offensive the list goes on and on. What ever happened to innocent before proven guilty?

The oddest thing is these oppressive laws can be but in place with out any listed objectives. How on earth is this possible. At least then if a law failed to achieve its target task then it should be automatically abandoned. It would also make it incredibly hard to impose a intentionally oppressive law.

[Jazz]

Its a freedom against individual or government oppression. You can look at far more modern day examples. Government oppression a great example is that seen in Germany in WW2. But probably a more relevant example is Bosnia Herzegovina. This is more relevant as its within the life time of most on this forum. A few people on the old SSC forum where even there. Both are examples of democracies gone wrong. As for individual aspect this can be seen every day all over the world.

The problem is its always hard to justify taking aspects of people freedom for "the greater good" unless this freedom will directly harm someone. The biggest problem is there is no clear line. No place to stop. We now lock people up indefinably with out a trial, we ban people from having all sorts of objects because the odd person just may use it as a weapon, we ban people from carrying objects that could be used to commit a criminal act, we ban people from saying many true things that others may find offensive the list goes on and on. What ever happened to innocent before proven guilty?

The oddest thing is these oppressive laws can be but in place with out any listed objectives. How on earth is this possible. At least then if a law failed to achieve its target task then it should be automatically abandoned. It would also make it incredibly hard to impose a intentionally oppressive law.

I can see what you're saying, and yes I would certainly agree that democracy in practice is a flawed thing, if ideal in concept.

Agreed a line needs to be drawn somewhere. As you say, what is happening in Bosnia Herzegovina is terrible, and has been going on for a very long time. It is shameful that the media pays such little attention to it these days. But regardless of the resistance look at the results.

Is encouraging people to get involved in a fist-fight with the ruling powers the way to go? It is difficult to compare Bosnia, Syria and Gaza to the USA. America is in a very different position to these mentioned countries, mass genocide isn't happening there.


The by-product of all this is that there are so many of these military-grade machines in circulation most people are close to one regularly without even realizing it. And that makes it easy for a few lesser-minded individuals to do horrific things, such a killing innocent children at a school.

Again I would say in a modern democratic society there is no longer any place for a policy like this. Imagine if American people rose up against their government- the result would be something out of 28 days later, ghost towns and corpses everywhere.

I would personally put the lives of children in front of arming yourself against the (in his case non-existant) threat of a tyrannical government.

[Tommo87]

http://i621.photobucket.com/albums/tt299/Tommo87_2009/Random%20stuff/36FC8F0D-55BE-4B32-9B42-2B3EDC2C2986-178-000000A5D38DC570.jpg

[TomT]

http://i621.photobucket.com/albums/tt299/Tommo87_2009/Random%20stuff/36FC8F0D-55BE-4B32-9B42-2B3EDC2C2986-178-000000A5D38DC570.jpg

Oh well now you've posted a picture about a single incident that settles the whole arguement. May as well end the thread now.

[AXracing]

I can see what you're saying, and yes I would certainly agree that democracy in practice is a flawed thing, if ideal in concept.

Agreed a line needs to be drawn somewhere. As you say, what is happening in Bosnia Herzegovina is terrible, and has been going on for a very long time. It is shameful that the media pays such little attention to it these days. But regardless of the resistance look at the results.

Is encouraging people to get involved in a fist-fight with the ruling powers the way to go? It is difficult to compare Bosnia, Syria and Gaza to the USA. America is in a very different position to these mentioned countries, mass genocide isn't happening there.


The by-product of all this is that there are so many of these military-grade machines in circulation most people are close to one regularly without even realizing it. And that makes it easy for a few lesser-minded individuals to do horrific things, such a killing innocent children at a school.

Again I would say in a modern democratic society there is no longer any place for a policy like this. Imagine if American people rose up against their government- the result would be something out of 28 days later, ghost towns and corpses everywhere.

I would personally put the lives of children in front of arming yourself against the (in his case non-existant) threat of a tyrannical government.

I see what your saying and can not fault your logic at all. I wouldn't say the threat of a tyrannical government is non existent. But do see what your saying. I agree the odd of anything radically going wrong is extremely slim to almost none in our lifetime. I think the difference is possibly the way people are brought up. If someone has live in a relatively free society all there life and if there family has its all you really know. It becomes very easy to take freedom for granted or even to forget its importance all together. Being brought up with horror stories from my relatives and my Mrs actually living through some of the more modern terrors first hand for me freedom in many forms is worth a very high price. Freedom for us, our children and even our children's children. I know many don't agree. But that's the beauty of it. We still have for the most part the freedom to express our opinions :)

[iluminusbutterfly]

http://i621.photobucket.com/albums/tt299/Tommo87_2009/Random%20stuff/36FC8F0D-55BE-4B32-9B42-2B3EDC2C2986-178-000000A5D38DC570.jpg

Correct, the assistant principle threatened to shoot the "bad guy" with his legally owned gun

however the "bad guy" also owned the gun legally, ergo if guns were illegal the "bad guy" wouldn't of had a gun, so there would of been no need for the principle to threaten to shoot him


or is this logic too simple for you?


also can i point out as you obviously either dont know the full story of that killing or you are deliberately hiding the facts, he was shot AFTER he had done the shootings and was leaving, i believe the final toll was 2 dead 7 injured? plus the assistant principle never shot at him, just threatened to, then performed a citizens arrest

[AXracing]

Correct, the assistant principle shot the "bad guy" with his legally owned gun

however the "bad guy" also owned the gun legally, ergo if guns were illegal the "bad guy" wouldn't of had a gun, so there would of been no need for the principle to threaten to shoot him


or is this logic too simple for you?


also can i point out as you obviously either dont know the full story of that killing or you are deliberately hiding the facts, he was shot AFTER he had done the shootings and was leaving, i believe the final toll was 2 dead 7 injured? plus the assistant principle never shot at him, just threatened to, then performed a citizens arrest

Yes this person may have used a legal gun but you are implying two incorrect assumptions.

You are making the assumption that people who have criminal intent obey the law. This is quite a misconception. Take the UK handgun as an example. For over 10 years the UK enjoyed a very low rate of people being criminally injured in handgun offenses. In a few years following the handgun ban this had somehow doubled. Some 10 years after the band the number of people being criminally injured with hand guns had reached quadruple that of before the ban. So if there where no legal handguns in the UK how where the criminals getting these guns? Simple. Criminals did not obey the law and even before the ban almost all such crimes where already committed with illegally obtained handguns.

You are also assuming that people wishing to do mass harm will not do so unless they have a gun. You are probably best to look at more examples of serial killers. Most don't use guns. Most of the more successful (if you can call it that) ones did not use a gun. Even in the US and Switzerland where guns are common a vast number of murders are carried out by other methods. If you look at the history of UK mass murderers you will see how efficient modern day mass murders can be with our guns.

[iluminusbutterfly]

im not, as i have said in an earlier post the determined nut job will still get a gun, however i stand by my point that all the cases mentioned so far are cases of nut jobs who, with the introduction of the control of guns would of just hung themselves or jumped off a bridge, however with the media interest in shootings like these, and the easy access to guns, they find themselves wanting to be sent out in a "blaze of glory"


and if we are talking the uk for a second, only civilians permitted to own a handgun are vets, want to guess what is the most common way of vets killing themselves? if we assume that whatever happens they are going to kill themselves, is it any wonder they use the gun they are aloud to have instead of hanging themselves?

[Heliosphan]

You are making the assumption that people who have criminal intent obey the law. This is quite a misconception. Take the UK handgun as an example. For over 10 years the UK enjoyed a very low rate of people being criminally injured in handgun offenses. In a few years following the handgun ban this had somehow doubled. Some 10 years after the band the number of people being criminally injured with hand guns had reached quadruple that of before the ban. So if there where no legal handguns in the UK how where the criminals getting these guns? Simple. Criminals did not obey the law and even before the ban almost all such crimes where already committed with illegally obtained handguns.

These figures offer a real paradox but to take them at face-value could be a mistake. If you look on Wiki, it confirms (broadly) what you're saying but it goes on to to say that 'slight injuries' make up the vast number of total injuries recorded. A slight injury is defined as an injury that doesn't require 'hospital detention' and even includes figures for people who were merely threatened with a firearm, whether this gun was real or not. It further states that in 2005, 86% of the injuries were slight injuries. So the main question to ask is whether or not the police are now more meticulous in recording injuries that don't require hospitalisation. This would be plausible when you consider the seriousness in which gun-crime is viewed now.

Although the text doesn't suggest it, I would also be inclined to question whether the definition of 'slight injury' has changed over the period because that too has the potential to skew the figures.

I'm not saying that the figures are wrong just that they don't necessarily provide the full picture.