What type of gun law would have made this situation not occu

Post Reply New Topic

We have pretty strict gun laws here in the UK. Derrick Bird still managed to kill 11 people, plus himself.

And, Britain is a very well-defended island! If any nation should be able to eradicate illegal firearms, it is the United Kingdom. And, yet....

None whatsoever, the shootings in Cumbria UK (12 died and a further 11 were injured) still occurred and rates of crime are higher than ever due to a lack of moral discipline and right to self-defense. Gun control is nothing but an elusive lie.

I recall...Blair said you can't legislate crazy, in response to that.

Anyway,

You can pass feel good laws and all that, but in the end, people are going to find a way to kill people, no matter what weapon they have access to, whether legally or illegally.

The main thing is to understand that it's a very, very rare occurrence, and it's something people shouldn't have undue fear of (99.999999 or some other absurd percent of people will never experience it), even though it's always been with us, and always will be.

Rates of crime are not higher than ever (they're actually falling despite the poor economic situation and increased population density), you do have a right to self defence, and you've completely made up the "lack of moral discipline".

Bird's gun was legal and registered.

Our gun laws certainly seem much better at stopping mass murders than America's, although that's the only form of crime they've been any good at reducing. The situation is repeated in Australia, where mass murder is now much less common than before they implemented their strict gun controls.

There's been about 9 since the NFA (shootings, stabbings and arson). So, 9 over 19 years.

Prior to that, there was about 14 for 23 years (<1996).

So, 5 less in a similar time frame.

Hard to say if the the NFA actually stopped 5 of those. It seems like the sample sizes are too small to get an accurate picture. But yeah, you can say there's been 5 less.

The murder rate wasn't affected by the NFA for the most part. Which is generally what I consider to be the most telling.

These types of what/if questions can not be answered.

However, there is growing concensus among scientific researchers that more guns means more violence, especially deadly violence. (seems obvious enough).

Guns are used far more often to commit crime than they are in self-defense. It cannot be proven that if someone had a gun they could have stopped the shooting. It cannot be proven that if someone had a gun they would not have stopped the shooting. It cannot be proven that if gun laws were in place, the suspect would not have gotten a gun anyway.

It is fairly obvious though that guns are used very often in violent crimes.

most the shootings that happen in the US were legally bought. so how does background checks to prevent criminals from buying guns stop the shootings?

how do you prevent person A from shooting people 40 years from now when he has a mental break down that no one saw coming? <----- that there is the problem and I see no way of solving it. you can't predict when or if people will snap. there's a small chance any of us here could snap one day. so what lock everyone up in isolation rooms the whole population, because a small tiny percentage of them do these things. or we can mourn the losses and continue allowing people freedom. life is risky. you can't make life riskless without removing the reasons for living.

interesting thought. would you A. live in the matrix where its 100% safe. or B. go out and fight with the resistance.

imagine a world where you have no free will, everything is pre planned out and you have no choice, no one dies except those chosen to die for population issues. or you can live here where we have free choice and ability to live life how we want.

you can't have both.

Yep.

Depends on the study. For example, you can take the top and bottom 10 from the developed countries in the world regarding firearms ownership and then compare the murder rates, and you can find from this that there's little difference between the two groups. This is unbiased, and pretty accurate as firearm laws will differ between those 20 countries, from lax to strict.

Whereas, you can take several crime ridden areas with high firearm ownership, and compare it to low crime areas with low firearm ownership, and say that firearms are the cause. That's misleading.

I've yet to find a conclusive study that shows firearms = more murders/violent crime. Ones that do "show" this, use variables where the participants are highly likely to be involved in crimes, and they have firearms for that purpose. In other words, a false cause fallacy.

(Criminal stats were an interest of mine when I did Justice.)

no there isn't there's the anti gun paid ones who say that, and the pro gun paid ones who say differently. the rest who don't get paid for gun issu, don't give a s**t. probably more concerned with cancer and stuff, you know the stuff that kills way more people and can actually be solved.

actually guns are used far far far far more in defense then in crimes. something like 1million a year or more, its hard to know as most cases are never reported because the victim pulled a gun, bad guy ran, both went on with their lives.

there's been a bunch of cases where a guy with a gun prevent or stopped a mass shootings, you don't see them on cnn because it doesn't support the lefts anti gun agenda. just like if a guy goes and kills 50 kids tomorrow with a single shot 22 or a shotgun the left media will cover it for 1 day and move on. just like all the "mass" shootings with no ar15 type rifles. first they try to twist it saying it was a ar15 then when they find out it isn't they move on, except in DC where they called it a AR15shotgun, oh wow strange never heard of that probably because they just combined two words to make a new one, then when it came out to be a hunting shotgun they just dropped it.

and what is a mass shooting? to the left is 1 and up . so if you went and shot 2 people they'd add it to their list. even cnn the left's devot media center said the mass shooting lists was made up and that not nearly as many as it said happen were mass shootings. the antis would have us think there's blood running in every street all over the nation, that 1/4th of out population are dying in daily mass shootings. people here mass and think something like 20 or 30 or more. most people won't consider 3 people with one being the shooter as a mass shootings. also o.O how is the shooter a victim of the mass shooting? we don't call the terrorist on 911 victims. why because the left wants to paint it as the gun did the shooting. the gun forced the person to shoot others. that if not for the gun he never would have killed anyone and bee a peaceful monk. hogwash.

fact. there's some evil people in this world, always have been always will be, why do you think we fight wars? do you think good people who hate killing start wars? do good people want to expand their land, or is it greedy evil people?
how do you get rid of something(someones) who are so deeply apart of human nature?

I own guns. I'm against killing anything. but lots and lots of people don't have any such morality. wake up tomorrow and find the gov , military and police are gone, no laws. people would be killing left and right to take what they think is theirs. humans kill each other if they think they can get away with it or stop caring(mass shootings) about the punishments. fyi. lots of them do it for the media attention they get after, they'll gonna be forever remembered. no one knows the names of the victims, but most know the killers names. maybe if there was a media blackout for the killers we'd see less. but as is they next killer knows he'll get attention, heck some will try to out doo the last one.

The problem in the U.S., is the fact that the public can buy a military grade gun with great ease and you can easily evade background checks since it doesn't cover all places of sales.

If you want to buy a military grade assault rifle, you can do so.

On the other hand Japan and South Korea outright banned their people from owning guns and other firearms a long time ago.
To date Japan has had only a handful of gun related incidents, which were mostly due to American military and service personnel with the rest being Japanese military.
Though one was a police accident.

Japan has practically no violent crimes and if one does happen, said person gets punished quite hard.

Nearly all the gun violence in South Korea is caused by American military personnel and the occasional North Korean operative.

South Korea does get the occasional knife wielder and angry driver, though huge punishments are handed down.

Though with that said these countries also have very little gun violence and very strict gun control:
*Germany
*Belgium
*Netherlands
*Austria
*Switzerland
*Italy
*France
*Spain
*Poland
*Norway
*Sweden
*Ireland
*Finland
*India
*Egypt
*Canada
*Iceland
*Chile
*Saudia Arabia
*Jordan
*Kuwait
*Bahrain
*Qatar
*Thailand
*Singapore

And many more.

"Gun violence" is a misnomer.

As you're implying that the violence is caused by the firearm.

Japan would have the exact same murder rate whether they had their firearm laws or not. They're a homogenous culture with little in the way of an impoverished underclass.

The same with Switzerland. Their murder rate would be exactly the same if they had Japan's laws.

IIRC, Japan and Switzerland have around the same murder rate, even though their laws couldn't be further apart (less than 1 per 100,000).

One weird thing about the Dylann Roof situation - his father bought the gun and gave it to him. What if Dylann Roof would have bought it instead?

Probably nothing much. South Carolina doesn't appear to have any special regulations concerning firearms and issues concealed weapon permits:


http://scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c031.php

Whenever a gun is bought for another, it is a bit risky since the person who receives the gun as a present does not undergo any background checks not that it would apply here anyway since there doesn't appear to be anything in Roof's background disqualifying him to buy a gun but would he have gone to all the trouble on his own? This gun was just handed to him on a silver platter by a relative.

I still wouldn't want to buy a gun as a present for someone unless I was absolutely certain they weren't going to flake out with it.

So are you saying here that a reduction in the number of mass murders due to the introduction of better legislation counts for nothing? "... the only form of crime they've been any good at reducing" is an admission that gun control works to at least some extent, and is therefore worth considering.