Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dunblane School Massacre....ended handgun rights in UK

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the United Kingdom.



More



Public debate subsequent to these events centred on gun-control laws, including media-driven public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official enquiry, the Cullen Report. In response to this debate, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 were enacted, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.


A media driven debate.




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.

It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.

Suits us just fine.


+11 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
And it hasn't happened since.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Owning guns should not be above a parent's right to watch their kid grow up.

Owning guns should not deprive kids from a safe place to learn.

Gun rights are eroding because we have had far too many massacres where the innocent blood of kids has been shed. I hope this nation has had enough of the mass killings, accidental kid shootings and street shootings that happen daily



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.

It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.

Suits us just fine.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.

It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.

Suits us just fine.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


I meant in the UK.

There hasn't been a school massacre since Dunblane, and there's only been one or two other incidents. Criminals still use guns, of course, but even that's relatively rare comparably - also it tends to be crim on crim. Your average UK law abiding citizen has a very low chance of being shot, or even stabbed which is a bit of a problem.

If you deal drugs though, your chances of both are much higher.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
These new laws did not prevent this from happening years later.



The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.


Cumbria shootings



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingIcarus

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.

It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.

Suits us just fine.


Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.


I meant in the UK.

There hasn't been a school massacre since Dunblane, and there's only been one or two other incidents. Criminals still use guns, of course, but even that's relatively rare comparably - also it tends to be crim on crim. Your average UK law abiding citizen has a very low chance of being shot, or even stabbed which is a bit of a problem.

If you deal drugs though, your chances of both are much higher.


Oh right, sorry.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
And it hasn't happened since.


Right. But to my point it was used to outlaw hand guns....and the laws stoped nothing.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Logarock because: n



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint
And it hasn't happened since.


Right. But to my point it was used to outlaw hand guns.


Are you saying that's a bad thing? You haven't actually said anything on the topic.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Yes. The laws will stop nothing.

If americans passed such laws in the wake of events, one would still see killings 50 years after the fact.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
These new laws did not prevent this from happening years later.



The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.


Cumbria shootings




On accuracy the legislation subsequent to the Dunblane shootings banned handguns, the Shooting you are referring to was carried out by a man with a legally held shotgun.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Yes. The laws will stop nothing.

If americans passed such laws in the wake of events, one would still see killings 50 years after the fact.



How can you say it stopped nothing without going back in time and observing what would have happened without the ban? Since then there's only been one massacre in the UK since then, and that's any kind of massacre, not just schools. Most massacres in the US are done with a legally obtained gun, like the incident you're talking about. You can't claim that the ban didn't stop anything.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.

It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.

Suits us just fine.


So you were looking for rarity? We have was to many guns, millions in fact, in this culture to even consider that such laws would be effective in any measure.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
These new laws did not prevent this from happening years later.



The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.


Cumbria shootings




Indeed it didn't. And that was a truly awful crime... but you'll notice it happened 14 years after the Dunblane legislation.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the UK is gun free. It isn't. You can legally buy, maintain and keep several weapons here - but under strict control. I live in a City centre for instance, so I'd not be allowed a shotgun because I don't need one. A farmer can have a shotgun though because he does need one. He must keep that shotgun unloaded and locked in a metal gun cupboard secured to the wall when he's not using it. I believe he has to keep the ammunition seperately too.

As I say, guns remain in the hands of criminals - but even that is relatively rare. Gun murders are low here, and the vast majority are the result of criminal disputes. It's rare as hell for someone to get shot by a burglar, or in a barfight. It does happen, of course, but it's huge news when it does.

Sound unlikely? Think of it this way, do you think UK police would be armed with just a club, CS spray and - in some cases - a single use taser if they routinely faced people with guns during their duties? When that happens, an extremely highly trained firearms unit is dispatched and the situation is resolved almost always without a shot being fired.

I believe all of these things to be good things.

Edit:

Yes, my apologies - the Cumbria shootings were with a legall held weapon, unfortunately.
edit on 17-12-2012 by KingIcarus because: Accuracy.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock


A media driven debate.


Well, it's not a Logarock-driven debate. You only added 4 words to the quotes.

I can't see the point in North Americans trying to make comparisons with British gun laws. We don't have a comparable gun society and never have done, gun restrictions or not.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.

It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.

Suits us just fine.


So you were looking for rarity? We have was to many guns, millions in fact, in this culture to even consider that such laws would be effective in any measure.


Would I prefer gun murders, injuries and accidents to be less frequent in both your society and my own? Of course, who wouldn't?

No-one is saying that an outright ban on guns will work in America for the reasons you suggest, but I - and a lot of other people, including Americans - suggest that fewer murders, injuries and accidents would occur if American gun laws were more restrictive of who can hold particular kinds of weapons.

Now, I know you won't agree with that because it's your right under the Second Amendment, but I contest - with respect - that the good men who devised that Amendment did and could not have anticipated the huge population growth, rapid uptake of military style weapons and the fetishisation of guns that has resulted in some of the gun problems America has today.

Just my thoughts, I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Yes. The laws will stop nothing.

If americans passed such laws in the wake of events, one would still see killings 50 years after the fact.



How can you say it stopped nothing without going back in time and observing what would have happened without the ban? Since then there's only been one massacre in the UK since then, and that's any kind of massacre, not just schools. Most massacres in the US are done with a legally obtained gun, like the incident you're talking about. You can't claim that the ban didn't stop anything.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)


It didnt stop the 2010 killings. The fact that you may have low numbers has to do with other factors.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Yes. The laws will stop nothing.

If americans passed such laws in the wake of events, one would still see killings 50 years after the fact.



How can you say it stopped nothing without going back in time and observing what would have happened without the ban? Since then there's only been one massacre in the UK since then, and that's any kind of massacre, not just schools. Most massacres in the US are done with a legally obtained gun, like the incident you're talking about. You can't claim that the ban didn't stop anything.
edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)


It didnt stop the 2010 killings. The fact that you may have low numbers has to do with other factors.


Yes, but there's 2 points here.

1. This was 14 years later, if you want to compare it to the US that's very rare even taking the population difference in to account.

2. That was also a legally obtained gun, which suggests stricter gun laws would have prevented it.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
How many mass shootings have happened in America oveer the years? Quite a few. Have your guns been taken away? No.

There may be lots of discussion about it from some peole in power and the media, but you all still get to keep your weapons.

You know why? Because anybody in power that stripped your weapons away from you would be committing political suicide.

Yes the Dunblane incident did end handgun rights in the UK. But the difference between the UK and the US is that we have never had a big gun culture and a right to bear arms in the way that the US does, so it didn't really matter a great deal to the majority of the UK population when handgun rights got stripped away.

edit on 17-12-2012 by skitzspiricy because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join