12 confirmed murdered and 25 injured after Gunman runs amok in Whitehaven, Egremont and Seascale, Cu

Originally posted by badw0lf


Thing is, he was not a criminal. He was a 'friendly person' till this happened.

They're all "friendly people" until they commit a crime , then they become criminals...

reply to post by kangshung


You also have to consider that most of the weapons used in violent crimes in the US (Statistically) where purchased illegally. My state has statistically 95% gun ownership, there is no conceal and carry law and we have next to no violent crime at all.

There are many factors you have to consider here. Many people are trapped and will inevitably join in on organized crime because it is what is indoctrinated into them by their peers. They strive to be gangster. There are those that are very sick people that will steal, rape and show no remorse for their actions. Perhaps this is due to external stimuli. I cannot confirm or deny that. Unfortunately with current response times owning a gun isn't a luxury here, it's the first line of defense. In the UK it may work (although your government is free to do as they please because all that stands in their way are a bunch of unarmed peasants) in the US it would be disaster because the bad guys will always have guns. An unfortunate fact.

Still wouldn't you be less apt to shoot someone if you knew they would shoot back?

Regarding the comment someone made waay back, the one where if UK citizens were armed this would have been stopped sooner, can anyone show any creditable figures to show what proportion of this sort of crime in the USA has been ended by an armed citizen, rather than by the Police/Army/whoever or by the suicide of the perp?

That would be an interesting comparison.

It is my own view that, the UK being very much more densely populated than the USA and with the stresses that brings, an armed population here would invite these sort of occurrences every day. Gun ownership may work fine in the US. That does not prove that its OK for everywhere else too.

BTW, that very long pro gun post a bit higher up, its a shame you spoiled it by using the Daily Mail as a source. It is a discredited rag and is notorious for scaremongering needlessly and fabricating its own sources, just a heads up.

reply to post by EyesWideShut


No you didn't - you actively started it yourself with no reply to anyone else.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by EyesWideShut


I disagree. How do you know they are all friendly? lol!

My heart goes out to the families of all involved in this. Like many have said, this isn't an issue about gun control, but one of mental health. I truly think he would have used anything at his disposal to hurt and kill people if he was that far gone today.

If he had gone around strangling people, we would not be arguing about banning the use of hands in public.

Gun laws have so far stifled law abiding people in this country who have hobbies that harm no one, while the only people heavily armed are still the criminals. They get the best deal out of gun control laws. I am not advocating the willful concealment of firearms on the general public, but those who have hobbies in this area should not be punished by the misdemeanors and tragedies of a few.

Maybe we need better forms of "education" in how to spot mental health issues as a whole and more willingness to help people when they retreat into themselves. The emotional intelligence of people is something that we as a country really need to work on. I'm not saying we're all oblivious to the plights of others, far from it, but every little helps, right?

But if this ends up in the punishment of Joe Public, who simply has a hobby, then it is another blow for civil liberties in this already nanny state.

Originally posted by kangshung
..........
You outnumber us six to one. My money (and this is based on my recollection of the amount of this type of incident in each country during my lifetime) says that this kind of incident is much more then 6 times more common in the states.

The argument that offended me was that if we allowed open possesion of firearms, this wouldn't have happened.

'Deny ignorance'

Yet the fact is that in the states in the Union where most gun crimes happen are the same ones which have similar laws, bans, and heavy restriction as in the U.K.

Deny ignorance indeed....

Originally posted by badw0lf
reply to post by EyesWideShut

 

No you didn't - you actively started it yourself with no reply to anyone else.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go ahead and read your post again and explain to me where it makes sense...

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by EyesWideShut

 

I disagree. How do you know they are all friendly? lol!

Touche' ...


L
I
N
E

reply to post by EyesWideShut


This was a sad, sad thing that happened .........My thoughts right now are with their families.

RIP to all those that lost their life.............................

Thank GOODNESS we do not have the ability to buy guns at will, from a store!

Reprisal's...................Yes! But what the hell!

reply to post by vesta


Yes thank god. Good thing you can get one off the street huh?

Sorry...

reply to post by blupblup


Considering we have 38 times the land mass you'd have to radically adjust the numbers to be accurate.

edit to add:
we have a population of 310,232,863 and you have a population of 61,284,806 I'd say again, you need to adjust your comparisons.

SOURCE

[edit on 2/6/2010 by SeenMyShare]

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


It wouldn't be long before this question would be asked, i fully agree with you if the british were armed it might of stopped this madman in his tracks but compare Britian with an armed country, this happens on average once every ten years here, how often does this occur in the states?

Yet another crazed gunman goes on a spree. Seems like these people are possessed.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by badw0lf


Thing is, he was not a criminal. He was a 'friendly person' till this happened.

They're all "friendly people" until they commit a crime , then they become criminals...

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
This may be a little off topic, but doesn't this situation demonstrate the foolishness of disarming the law abiding public? A criminal has a gun and entire regions are being told to hide in their homes?

Not according to this, which is what I replied to. It claims that he was already a criminal with a gun. But if, as you say, they're all "friendly people" until they commit a crime, then the above is advocating giving all of these potential criminals a weapon.

It would be nice to be able to have it both ways, but you can't.

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by badw0lf
reply to post by EyesWideShut

 

No you didn't - you actively started it yourself with no reply to anyone else.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go ahead and read your post again and explain to me where it makes sense...

Wait, what? It's YOUR post I linked. Did you click it? It's where you first posted in this thread, guns a blazing.. And then you claim you were dragged into the gun debate?

ONCE AGAIN... Done with this argument and Sorry for the Derailment , I got sucked into it against my better judgment.

- A line from one of your last post claiming to be an unwilling participant.

It pisses me off that people are stripped of their God given right to protect themselves by the government.

- A line from your first post in the tread.

Anyway, I have to go to work.

Sympathies to all on the thread who knew victims in this, or who live there and feel the immediate shock.. Does not matter where you live, evil people or people with the capability for evil acts will always exist...




[edit on 2/6/2010 by badw0lf]

Originally posted by waynos
Regarding the comment someone made waay back, the one where if UK citizens were armed this would have been stopped sooner, can anyone show any creditable figures to show what proportion of this sort of crime in the USA has been ended by an armed citizen, rather than by the Police/Army/whoever or by the suicide of the perp?
.....

We have had at least two recent examples, that I know about. One in which an 80 year old man defended his wife, and himself when a burglar whom was also armed, broke into the couple's home. Both men discharged their weapons, but the 80 year old man was a veteran of the Korean war and his shot hit the criminal and killed him.

In another situation, a Marine with a gun started shooting, and an armed civilian shouted to the Marine to drop his weapon, which the Marine did, although he ran to his father's apartment and holed himself there but at least he was disarmed.

Perhaps you don't know this, but back in the 90s Clinton made a new law which disarmed most of our soldiers and banned firearms in bases, except mps. After training exercises we had, and still have to turn in our weapons, or lock them up.

Most of our military personnel cannot have their weapons meanwhile in our miltiary bases, unless we are training, and this was the reason why so many of our own personnel were murdered at the Fort Hood Army base.

If Clinton hadn't implemented the base gun ban so many woudln't have died...

EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban

Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage.
...

www.washingtontimes.com...

History has shown, even these days that an armed populace is more secure, and has more freedoms, than those who allow themselves to be disarmed.

reply to post by DaMod



Yeap...called the Black Market.............but only the bad ones go there!!

Not like there is a store in the UK that you can go into and buy a GUN!

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

That was a fool thing to say.

second line

reply to post by vesta


Unless you have a licence .............not many do (very few and far between)

I would say 1 to every 5000 even less in the UK





[edit on 2-6-2010 by vesta]