Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

originally posted by: PaddyInf
You cannot say that guns don't kill people then say that cigarettes and cars do. Is it the person or the item?

It is the person choosing to use the item that results in the consequence.

As for N. Ireland the same laws that prohibit civilians from owning firearms in the rest of the UK apply to NI. If the laws are so effective then there should be no need for armed police. The same holds true for Australian law enforcement as well.

As for Coventry and Glasgow, and Manchester, you still have gun related crimes.

a reply to: Xcathdra


This is the problem. You guys just come up with excuse after excuse to protect your oh so important 2nd amendment rights. That’s why any debate is more or less pointless.

Yes cigarettes kill million. You cannot arm yourself with a pack of 20 though and go out and massacre kids in a school with them, or concert goers, or shoppers. You can with an AR-15 though or any of the plethora of weapons at your disposal.

An educated person cannot surely be happy to accept the numbers killed each year in the USA with weapons though?

As I said before, you guys will argue until you’re blue in the face that it is better to have guns than not. It doesn’t matter how many children are slain - your rights are more important.

My viewpoint is diametrically opposed to yours. I won’t convince you otherwise and nor will the endless stream of coffins. It is what it is.

As I said before, you guys will argue until you’re blue in the face that it is better to have guns than not. It doesn’t matter how many children are slain - your rights are more important.

Red white and Blue in the face....and proud of it

a reply to: ARM1968

Cigarettes, like guns, alcohol or cars, cant kill anyone one on there own. They need someone manipulating it to do so.

As for the failed argument about our 2nd amendment you and some others make, contrary to what you hear out of the fake news, passing a law to restrict the 2nd amendment is not how it works. The number of attempts that have failed are numerous yet never brought up in discussion for obvious reasons.

As for convincing each other I agree. I dont think you adequately understand our history, how our governments work or the way our constitution is changed. I think you ignore the fact inanimate objects cant kill anyone unless manipulated by a human being. People intent on breaking the law will find a way to do it regardless of what laws are in place.

The criminal history in your own country is evidence of that fact that you conveniently ignore.

Finally we are not royal subjects and have not been since 1776. Contrary to belief there is a fundamental difference between a subject and a citizen. Our law enforcement style, while based on the UK's, is different in some key areas. While both are based on policing by consent, US law enforcement is not in place to protect the individual but society as a whole. Our law enforcement is not required to act and can only get involved if a potential violation of the law occurs. When police are called it is because the crime is in prog4ress or already occurred.

The first person on the scene of a crime is the criminal. The second is usually the victims. Police are generally the last to arrive.

The high minded notion pushed by the left that the police will protect you is based on a lie and ignorance of how real life works. Brainwashing citizens, and in your case royal subjects, into thinking they dont need anything to defend themselves because the police are armed is a load of # and nothing more.

Your own well being starts with yourself - not government.

We can bar firearms in this country and we will still have criminals who are armed. Has it not occurred to you that these mass shootings are occurring in areas where law prevents a person from carrying a firearm? Serious question - has that ever occurred to you? Every time a crime occurs, regardless of crime type, laws were broken to get to that point.

Secondly being an island nation is a bit different than sharing a border with Mexico. What is occurring in Mexico is non existent in Ireland and France.

a reply to: ARM1968 Why would you trust the government with your family's welfare.

Why would you put your trust in the law enforcement to protect you when someone comes into your home to do you harm?
your not the only one they are trying to protect.
Do you really beleave,that congress man that lives 2000 miles away with his own family gives a rats ass about you and your safety?
No congress man or politician can stop someone from doing you harm.

You are crossing your fingers with your safety and your family's safety.
You can put the government on speed dial and guess who's going to be there.

Your literally trusting someone to protect you that doesn't even know who you are.
The second amendment doesn't protect our rights with guns.
Its the guns that protects our second amendment.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Willtell

The culture where there are more guns than people

You mean that culture where 99.99% of the people that live in this country don't ever get shot.

That 'gun culture'?

So the massive population of 350 million people is the thing you depend on

So what a few thousand kids get slaughtered now and then

That’s only a small percentage

Boy oh boy

About 450k Americans die each year from smoking / smoking related illnesses.
35k+/- die each year in the US from drunk driving.

Funny I dont see you advocating the end of those items like you do guns.

Why?

Smoking harms primarily only the person who smokes. There are quite a lot of laws restricting where you can smoke so as not to harm others.

Get caught drink driving and you can lose your licence or face prison time even if you haven't harmed anyone.

Neither is remotely comparable with the use of firearms that are designed with the purpose of killing people.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If you read my previous posts you will see that I fully advocate arming of police. As you rightly state, there will always be criminals with guns. I also advocate some form of legislation allowing for the carry of PPWs for those with a genuine threat. The firearms law in N. Ireland is actually quite different from the rest of the UK. In NI you can be issued a firearms license for personal protection, and handguns have not been banned. This relates to the terrorist threat there. I know - I carried one for long enough.

What you don't seem to grasp though is that there are FEWER criminals with guns in the UK, which has resulted in fewer people being killed with gun. This is because guns are much harder to get hold of and there are very harsh sentences for crimes involving guns. You will get a minimum of 5 more years on any sentence if a gun was used or even present. The guns that are used are often adapted blank firers or starting pistols, or home-made pieces. Many are antique guns.

Indeed despite there being a similar violent crime rate in both countries, the actual homicide rate per 100'000 in the US is 5x higher. Why do you suppose that is?

a reply to: seagull

That mentality is the difference between today and the Boston Tea Party. We need to go back to the make it happen mentality.

a reply to: PaddyInf

because the USA has 5 times (roughly) more people then the UK and the UK is an island

we have mandatory minimums for gun crimes too that enhance sentencing

and see even with your gun bans people still find a way to get guns by either making them or black market trading them America has a vastly larger black market for firearms and there are over 315 million legal guns in the usa and 2 trillion rounds of ammo that genie isnt going back in the bottle ,the police and even the national gaurd do not have the resources to go door to door to confiscate fire arms and even if they tried a certain subset of the population would go abosloutly ape s**t about such attempts. unlike the UK we cant not and are expressly prohibited from deploying our military against our people like they did in northern Ireland during the "troubles" thus making it an impractical policy to "just go get the guns"

during the last AWB no guns were taken from any one unless they committed a crime and under a future attempted AWB the weapons and magizines would be grandfathered in once more as we have laws against such things (think they are like expost facto laws)

we made drugs illegal and yet they are available pretty much every where from rural Montana and idaho(one of the most anti drug states in the union) to big cities and places you would expect it to be vastly easier to acquire them if we cant even ban a plant how do you expect to ban weapons from an industrialized nation with gun culture since our founding?

during the wars in vietnam,iraq,afganistan etc insurgents/militias/local forces managed to stay armed while fighting the us military if we could not stop them from improvising firearms,bombs and in rare cases chemical weapons how do you expect a nation as vast as the usa to magically be able to find all the guns when we are vastly more industrialized then those nations?

Canada a much more peacefully and vastly lower in population tried a long gun registry and even the candians didnt comply with the law and it was eventually scrapped
www.forbes.com...

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other. The bigger lesson of Canada's experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country Canada's suicide rates don't appear to have been affected by the gun law, either. The overall suicide rate fell by 2% between 1995 and 2009, according to Statistics Canada, but gun deaths only average about 16% of suicides and a decline in gun deaths was almost entirely made up by increases in hangings.

it didnt even result in lower suicide rates as the victims then switched to hangings

further complicating a attempted ban would be lets say the democrats win the presidency and house senate etc ban them/high capacity magazines , what happens in 4 to 8 years when conservatives win in the never ending see saw of power between our two dominant parties and they get un banned again? the good thing is if you live in the usa you have the freedom to move to an anti gun state if you so choose or you can choose to live in a state with less restrictive gun laws if either location makes you feel safer about where you live

and finally nothing short of a reppeal of the 2nd amendment would lead to the guns getting off the street and even then a good deal of Americans would either hide them,or continue to make them

www.theguardian.com... most gun control effective or otherwise happens at the state level not the federal one

a reply to: waynos

Sorry, but I'm going to politely disagree with you.

No one is forced to have a firearm. If my fellow Americans, or some of them, don't feel the need to have them, fine, I'm OK with that. If I misbehave with my firearms, which ever one, there are already a sufficiency of laws on the books to cover, I'm guessing, every eventuality.

I have absolutely no need, nor will I ever, nor have a reason to justify my owning firearms. You don't like it? I'm OK with that, too. You see, I mind my own business.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no failed argument regarding the 2nd. I haven’t made one. Didn’t you notice?

I said it was pointless even trying. Funny thing is you think you’re winning. Crazy. The bodies mount up - your own sons and daughters - and you’re winning.

a reply to: seagull

1 person kills people with a gun and all gun owners are labeled and they want guns banned.

Yet when a person kills someone when they are drunk nothing.
When an illegal immigrant kills someone nothing.

originally posted by: ARM1968
a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no failed argument regarding the 2nd. I haven’t made one. Didn’t you notice?

I said it was pointless even trying. Funny thing is you think you’re winning. Crazy. The bodies mount up - your own sons and daughters - and you’re winning.

Whats even crazier is the fact you think you know what I am thinking when you have absolutely no clue.

Yes - your arguments thus far have failed and your argument is based on our 2nd amendment.

Ted Kennedys car has killed more people than my personal handgun and my Duty gun combined.

Hope no one minds, but I thought this would go well here on this thread, too.

It isn't the agency that kills, it is bullets ripping through bodies that maims and snuffs out life. Any agency that seeks to take the life of others, is impotent until they possess a weapon of choice. Whatever their rage, whatever their aberrant mindset rationalises as being rightful action, none of it is potent until they hold a weapon. The weapon of choice we are discussing here is the gun, particularly the automatic and semi-automatic variety. Why? Simply because they give the agency the capability to take more lives in one event than the non-automatic kind, and I believe that this knowledge is what accounts for the frequency of gun rampages occurring. Someone who intends to take as many lives of random strangers and then perhaps suicide themselves will attempt to do so more if they have automatic and semi-automatic weapons, rather than just a few handguns that require more multiple loadings to do an equal amount of damage as with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

Mass shootings are not rampages against specific people, but against particular aspects of society, so the proper response to them is to make it as hard as possible for 'anyone' to own and possess an automatic and semi-automatic rifle and automatic shotgun. Completely and utterly remove the right to sell, buy, or own these kind of weapons. By doing this, you will at the least, go towards reducing the frequency of occurrence of mass shootings. Of course, gun rampages will still occur, but by a significant reduction in both frequency and victims, and that is the goal. By removing the ability to obtain automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, it can be achieved.

You'll still have the right to 'bear arms', but these will only be hand guns of the revolver kind, which are more than sufficient to defend one's home and family. However, the goal is more to defend people in public spaces, and although the current (twisted) rationale is to try to arm everyone with a gun, it is not the only type of defence that can be brought to bear on the problem. Adequate defence can be brought to bear by proper and well-thought out legislation, such as I am advocating here. Bear in mind, just because you think it won't work, does not mean that it shouldn't be attempted.

Before a mass shooter can act out their plan a chain of circumstances has to fall into place, at some point along that chain of circumstances society can and must interject itself, not at one point, but at multiple points. One such interjection can occur at the point where the weapon is bought. On application for buying a gun, the gun buyer should have to submit to a series of mandatory interviews by various state and federal agencies (eliminating any possibility of bribe or collusion) whose representatives meet face-to-face with the potential gun buyer in order to assess their suitability for the granting of a gun license. Remove the ease by which a gun can be bought. Until a license (acting also as a register) is granted by both state and federal authorities (you will need both), you will not be able to walk into a gun store, or any store, or go to any online outlet and buy a gun.

A second interjection can be made by requiring mandatory training in the care and use of the gun bought. The whole focus of gun control has to be predicated on the word 'control', at both state and federal level. A third interjection can target people who already own guns. Extend mandatory interviews, firstly at state level, then at federal level. Ensure face-to-face meetings happen. Find out why people want to own a gun, because much could be learned from their statements.

Much more could be done to reduce both the frequency of mass shootings and victims. You just need the will to do what is right.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Violater1

This was the school's fault in my opinion. This kid got expelled for making threats.

Why weren't authorities alerted before? How was he not hit with a felony. That would bar him from buying a gun.

Many of these shooters have had diagnosed mental illnesses. That should stop you from getting a gun.

And what felony are you going to give him? Are you going to charge him with the crime of potentially hurting someone in the future? That would be a very draconian road to go down.

As far as getting a gun goes, are you saying the Constitution shouldn't apply to people with mental illnesses? Have you ever read the DSM5? There's a lot of mental illnesses. Depending on how open you are with symptoms, you could probably file 80 to 100% of the population under one illness or another.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: PaddyInf

because the USA has 5 times (roughly) more people then the UK and the UK is an island

You seem to have a problem understanding statistics. The murder rate in the US is 4.88 per 100'000 people. That means that if you get any 100'000 people from the population, an average of 4.88 of them would be the victim of homicide. In the UK in is 0.92 per 100'000. The actual size of the population is irrelevant. If the population size was the same the rates would still be 4.88 vs 0.92.

At no stage in any of my previous posts did I advocate disarming the population. I have merely pointed out facts. The most glaring supposition is that if you take 2 countries with similar levels of development and culture (generally speaking) and you have one which has easier access to firearms, violence will happen in both but the rate of homicide is likely to rise in the one with the guns. Guns just make killing easier.

Until gun owners are willing to acknowledge these facts there can be no rational discussion on forming a solution to the gun homicide rate.

Now as a UK citizen I no longer feel the need to carry a gun to defend myself on the streets. You can call us cucks and pussys all you like, but the real reason we don't need to carry one is because the chances of us ever running into a situation where we need to use a gun are astronomically low. I'm no longer in NI where there was direct terrorist threat to my life. If I were in the US on the other hand, I would absolutely want one due solely to the fact that there are already so many being carried in the general population.

I don't profess to having a solution to the problem, but until you acknowledge there is an issue then you will never have a solution either, and people will keep dying.

a reply to: PaddyInf

and if you cant acknowledge your situation is different i cant help you much copareing stats of population when the populations are vastly different in ideals and numbers is irrelevant ,we have a gun culture you do not but you have had more terror attacks then us in the last 20 years we all have our diffrences you are protected by the channel and frendly neighbors to the north and south we have cartels to our south and chill as hell candians to the north our situatiosn are not comparable ,ill take random nut jobs vs terror attacks any day i have no children on this continent but the fact you guys keep getting killed by random terrorists vs our random school shootings im willing to take i live in bumb frack no where for a reason we dont have terror we dont have school shootings and my state is twice the size of your nation and my biggest concern is how much snow hits the ground vs whos gonna allah ackbar my friends and family we each got our issues but dont talk smack when your own house is not in order, your mandate of palestine and break up of the middle east caused half the problems the modern world is having we kicked your ass in 1776 and kept our gun rights so im sorry if i dont give a flying frack about what you monarchy bastards have to say about frack all

www.usatoday.com...

urski said it also is possible that "North America has done a much better job at integrating immigrants than governments in Europe. You just need to look at what has happened in some of the so-called (immigrant) ghettos in France, Belgium and the United Kingdom." So far this year, at least 39 people have been killed in 11 terrorist attacks in Western Europe, compared to five attacks in the U.S. that have caused seven fatalities, according to PeaceTech Lab, a group that analyzes conflict-related data. Since 1970, there have been more than 16,000 attacks in Western Europe compared to at least 3,200 in North America, according to the Global Terrorism Database.

you have had your boot on territories necks for longer then we have been a nation and you have the Gaul to give us crap? least our military dont kill their citizens like animals like you did to the Irish, you have had more people die from your "troubles" then we have had die in all the mass shootings and school shootings combined in the usa with roughly 3k to our 215 . all the places you occupied are # holes of violence least vietnam and germany ended up ok your fracking empire killed damn near as many as the khans until we helped play a small role in curtaling that from 4 frigging contients you pillaged looted and killed raped and enslaved and your gonna give us crap? 1776 ,you broke your promise to the kurds Israelis Hindi and Muslims,rampaged in the Caribbean and even at the height of our slavery nonsense we still screwed over far less people then you .we have guns you and yours can do frack all about it and your opinion is worth about as much as the irish opinion mattered to you .

www.telegraph.co.uk... you taught us how to oppress the natives and your legacy is far more damming then even our own shady brief by comparison past

hell you have quite the rape epidemic going on least our females and males can shoot back www.independent.co.uk... damn near half the rape total of the whole EU before your brexit with 80,000 total? such a fine country and empire you have

and if we include your territories your death rate soars Anguilla (UK) 27.66, British Virgin Islands (UK) 8.37, Cayman Islands (UK) 14.74, Montserrat (UK) 20.39, Turks and Caicos Islands (UK) 6.61, Bermuda (UK) 6.45, only theus vergin islands make up for your shenigans and deaths in your whole empire usa us at 4.46 we add up all the "crowns holdings" your statistics dont look so good

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power. The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa. Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems. The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

www.theguardian.com... least our violent crime rate has been going down vs yours that has been rising even with our vastly higher population numbers

www.npr.org...
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

so keep your crumpets and powdered wigs and we will keep our guns and continue to not give a flying frack about what our former overloards say

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Comparing the U.K. to the USA is laughable and quite literally pathetic. Again just more evidence of how hard you gun huggers cling to your delusion.

How many gun massacres in the U.K. this year? Or last?

Availability of guns and the ammo that feeds them in a society which has a sickness at its heart is the problem.

Again it’s utterly amazing because those of us posting here who are not supporters of your 2nd amendment are actually supporters of Americans, your dream and your citizens lives. You, however, seem much happier with the death and destruction. As I said earlier it is a sad price you guys are happy to pay. So you’ll just have to keep paying it.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

The overseas territories are self governing and are not regarded as part of the UK. The British government does not make their laws and only has a very distant relationship with them politically. We offer financial and humanitarian assistance when needed, but otherwise they generally do their own thing. Basically they are not regarded as part of the UK, which in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

By all means, cite violent crime statistics, however you fail to take into account what is classed as violent crime. In the US only 4 offences are included on the FBI violent crime stats (homicide, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault). Lesser assaults are not included. In the UK all crimes reported where an an assault of any kind (including threats of violence or if someone even lays a hand/spits on/pushes another person) are included. This means that the comparisons are vastly skewed. I mean if you want to start a talk on rape statistics for example, according to the US bureau of statistics the US has the highest proportion of reported and convicted rapes in the developed World per 100'000, but that is not what the debate is about. It's about shootings.

As I have stated many times already on this thread, there is violence in the UK. I fully agree with this (grow ups can accept when there is a problem). Yet despite all of the statistics you post, the murder rate is still a fraction of that in the US. Just a fact, not an attack.

You have a real issue with the whole 1776 issue. If you want to base your argument on a war that happened a couple of centuries ago, that's fine. If you cannot acknowledge that the World has evolved since then, there will be no reasoning.

The debate is about the high rate of murders in the US due to firearm use. You haven't shown that this is not an issue, relying instead on trying to deflect from the topic by shouting down the UK.

I have not at any stage derided or attacked the US or it's citizens in any way, or resorted to a 'my dad could beat your dad' style of argument. I haven't even stated that the 2nd amendment should be removed. I merely pointed out that it increases the chances of being murdered. No one has been able to demonstrate otherwise.

I have made direct and factual comparrison in the areas salient to the argument. Yet the go-to setting for response seems to be straight into slagging off a different country to avoid facing a problem in your own.

a reply to: PaddyInf

You both are silly your trying to compare statistics that are not recorded the same way. For example vehicular homicide is included in US statistics and not in the UK. Violent crimes statistics UK is always higher but the UK includes sexual harassment where in the US they count sexual assaults. There is no valid way to compare statistics between 2 countries do to different definitions. For example in the US if you don't have a gun secured and accident occurs the FBI counts that as a gun related homicide. In the UK without intent its not included. In fact the UK doesn't include terrorist acts in their statistics the US does.

Bottom line their is no effective way to compare the two countries based off government statistics.