Gun Banning - Why would gun control measures that didn't work in the UK, work in the U.S.? (Hungerf

I usually don't post on these types of subject, but I have seen people posting about assault rifles and gun control, and it's really just such a shallow and ignorant argument that I had to post something.

If you really want to know why banning assault rifles is a waste of time, all you have to do is look to the UK.

In 1987, in the Hungerford massacre a man killed 16 people and wounded 15 others with 2 semi auto rifles. In 1989 they banned semi auto rifles (handguns and bolt actions/single shot shotguns were still legal). en.wikipedia.org...

Next in 1996, in the Dunblane Massacre a man enters a school with 4 handguns and kills 16 kids and 1 adult. The governments answer? Ban handguns (so now semi auto rifles and handguns are banned, only bolt actions and single shot guns are legal). en.wikipedia.org...


Finally in 2010 in the Cumbria shootings a man killed 12 people and injured 11 others using only bolt action (one shot at a time) rifles, and a double barrel shotgun.
en.wikipedia.org...

So basically you have the same problem repeated, each time the massacre weapon classes comply with the law, yet the death toll remains nearly the same. Each time the government took it a step further. In 2003 they made fox hunting illegal, likely to remove one of the remaining excuses for having a gun so they can taking hunting weapons eventually.

It hasn't solved the problem, but it has left the population disarmed. Gun control is obviously NOT the answer. For the people that say "no one needs a gun that holds a 30 clip" I say don't lay out your opinion until after being in a city full of looters, after a levee breaks, with no police, and the military days away.

Now, it's also become pretty obvious that this gun ban is going through. If you don't think so you are in denial. When the staunch gun supporters start taking this soft approach and stores start pulling guns off the shelf that is basically a taste of what's to come. I mean, if Dicks, and cheaper than dirt are pulling guns off their shelves and pulling their online gun stores already then that's showing how easy it will be for them to pass these bans. I don't think you guys are getting how bad this is, and we should really be taking to the street in protest. They are banking on tragedy to take your rights away and that is deserving of a reboot of politicians. I mean, how many people died to ensure the right to bear these arms? To do whatever we want really? The government knows, and studies show that guns are not the problem in these situations.

It's time to get really loud really fast on this subject or mark my words we will get a gun ban and it will be fairly extensive. Sincerely, now is the time to start making signs and protesting. If you have never stood on a corner with a sign in protest, even if it's by yourself, what better time?

Because there was a 14 year gap between Dunblane and the Cumbria incident, and the latter one was committed by a half decent guy who legally owned his guns.

Despite what you may thing, gun control worked over here. Criminals are too afraid (for the most part) to face the jail term for getting caught with them, and on the occasion where there is the random shooting, it is usually criminal vs criminal (obviously the very rare massacre is the exception to that).

reply to post by woogleuk


You missed my point kinda. I was saying to Americans that banning one class of gun didn't solve the problem. And when it didn't solve the problem they moved on to the next class of gun. Before you knew it you were disarmed. And you will still have mass shootings and people killed in other manners. Guns aren't the problem, deranged people and unsafe environments are the problems.

Actually I have read that your gun crime has doubled since shortly after handguns were banned and labour took office. Also, that's exactly the point, the people that are "forcing us" to ban guns are mentally deranged and suicidal. The kid broke how many laws the other day? Carrying an illegal firearm was probably the least of them.

It might cut down on gun crime, sure, of course, but we are basing it off of these mass shootings which is inexplicable. Also.. did you say one of the shooters in UK was a halfway decent guy?

The fact is our governments want gun control, and I can assure you it's not for the betterment of our society. They could do a # ton to better our society. Anyone that thinks it's to stop mass shootings is insane.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


The fact is though, those mass shootings in America are getting to be a regular occurrence.

I'm not saying America should ban guns, I think there should be tighter controls in place as to what type of weapons/ammo are available, and more thorough checks on the people purchasing them.

And yes, the guy responsible for the Cumbrian shooting was a half decent guy, I knew him personally and had many conversations with him when he gave me lifts home, either with shopping, or late on from the pub. (I also knew two of the victims, one I went to college with, the other was an arsehole solicitor (lawyer)).

EDIT: I know I have no say in American affairs, and I don't understand gun culture, I'm just voicing my opinion.

reply to post by woogleuk


Sure they are, but the guns haven't changed. We have had "assault weapons" since the 70's. It's not like people just learned about them, the problem lies somewhere else.

Well I guess your "friend" woke up one day and decided he was no longer a half decent guy. The point is he managed to kill almost as many people as the fellow with the assault rifles. So banning them didn't really change the mass shooting problem.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Mental issues (plus medication) are definitely a factor, combine that with a grudge perhaps?

There is also media coverage of the other massacres, perhaps someone with mental health issues will look at that, and want to get one better on it?

EDIT: In regards to Derrick, stress from various sources, access to weapons, snapped one day, bang. So it falls under the mental health category.

reply to post by woogleuk


I honestly think the real, and only problem in the US is the mental health issue. I never wanted to blame video games either, and I sincerely don't think it's the violent content, but I think that these people that play an unusual amount of online shooters, and stay online as the majority of their social life, those people do become disconnected and dis-associative.

Our mental health system is gutted, and when someone has a problem they throw a pill at it.. and half the time the pill has a side effect of making one violent or suicidal (see: almost any depression medication). I think there is something going on here, and it's not the guns whispering into a lads ear telling him to spill blood.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by woogleuk

 

You missed my point kinda. I was saying to Americans that banning one class of gun didn't solve the problem. And when it didn't solve the problem they moved on to the next class of gun. Before you knew it you were disarmed. And you will still have mass shootings and people killed in other manners. Guns aren't the problem, deranged people and unsafe environments are the problems.

Actually I have read that your gun crime has doubled since shortly after handguns were banned and labour took office. Also, that's exactly the point, the people that are "forcing us" to ban guns are mentally deranged and suicidal. The kid broke how many laws the other day? Carrying an illegal firearm was probably the least of them.

It might cut down on gun crime, sure, of course, but we are basing it off of these mass shootings which is inexplicable. Also.. did you say one of the shooters in UK was a halfway decent guy?

The fact is our governments want gun control, and I can assure you it's not for the betterment of our society. They could do a # ton to better our society. Anyone that thinks it's to stop mass shootings is insane.

edit on 19-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Look at these figures (Sorry the latest i could find where for 2009) :-

www.juancole.com...

Number of gun murders US 9,146

Number of gun murders UK 39

The figures speak for themselves.

reply to post by alldaylong


They don't really because it's not enough information.

Switzerland has a really low homicide (by gun) rate, yet they have more guns per capita then any other country in the world.

So those numbers don't work. Again, it's not the guns.

Also, everyone is missing the point of the thread which is that the problem remained and the mass shooters were just as successful with whatever guns were legal at the time. The information above makes that very clear. It's a warning that shootings will likely continue even if they ban semi-auto's and the government will eventually look to solve the problem AGAIN.

Also for that information to work, you have to find how many people were killed by guns each year before the ban went into effect. It doesn't work to just compare the US and UK because there are variables including healthcare and population.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I'm trying my best to stay out of the UK/US gun threads as they invariably descend into offensive national stereotyping but hopefully this one won't, so good luck OP.

Gun control isn't about cutting crime. If it is, it's failed. Badly in the UK. When I lived in Birmingham two people were shot in a house 10 or so houses down the road. It didn't even make the national news, barely made the local.

Gun control is about controlling the population and giving them nothing but angry placard making or disgruntled tutting as a protest. And in that respect, it's a massive success.

It's none of my business if Americans carry guns. If they want to, let them. If I were in the USA, I'd have one for home defence. But given this proviso, they have to accept that occasionally the wrong person will use them for mass murder. And sometimes those murdered will be children.

What needs to be investigated is what drives the people to do it, and in my opinion the mass medication of the American youth for any small 'problem' is the place to start.

To be clear, I am not comparing the US and UK on anything. I am simply showing the US members how the UK tried to solve the mass shooting problem and had to one up itself every time another successful shooting occurred with the guns that remained unbanned. Until finally the public was basically disarmed.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

One doesnt need to go that far. Just look at Chicago:

Chicago Gun Ban Axed After Violent Weekend: At Least 29 Shot, 3 Dead In Weekend Shootings.

Even with the gun ban in place, shootings in Chicago have been rampant. Last weekend, at least 52 were shot and ten killed in just three days, and this weekend the gunfire continued.

Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City's handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.

The leading cause of death in the US claimed 600,000 lives last year. Gun related deaths dont even come close at 8,500, not even in the top 10.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The gun confiscation agenda has nothing to do with safety or "protecting" lives.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I see what you are attempting here but it isn't really comparable. At the end of the day, there will always be someone with the potential for this type of act. The point about strong and rigorously enforced gun legislation is not that it will prevent gun crime, it is that it will reduce gun crime.

My solution for the US would follow those lines. It is obvious that guns will not be given up easily. Therefore it is that "compromise" solution again. Some extremely stringent guidelines and reinforcing would ensure that those who wish to keep guns, can do so safely and legally. Anyone found not to be capable of following the guidelines would either not get guns or would have have there guns removed. Because lets face it, if you can't follow the guidelines then you aren't fit to hold a gun anyway.

I would also apply this to those that carry out the checks. Not just gun shop owners but also, for example, Mental Health practitioners that do not properly update logs, etc. It has to be a concerted effort all round if an outright ban is not the answer.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
the mass shooters were just as successful with whatever guns were legal at the time.

There is your answer right there.

Legal access to the the weapons.

As I said, criminals with guns wont risk revealing them for fear of a hefty jail sentence, and on the occasion the criminals do bring their guns out, it is against other criminals (usually).

I know for a fact that round here (Cumbria), had Derrick not had access to legal weapons, no-one would have died that day, or at least not on the streets as so many did, he might have still found some way of getting to his brother and Kevin Commons, and he wouldn't have been the first to have wanted to string Commons up.

reply to post by khimbar


Thanks, I hope it functions as well.

As I said, I don't want to argue gun rights, or compare the two countries, I am simply showing something undeniable, which is that despite banning a gun class each time, mass shooters were still successful in their shootings.

The UK followed a shooting with assault rifles>ban assault rifles>shooting with handguns>ban handguns>shooting with bolt actions>??

It's clear that banning didn't solve the problem.

reply to post by woogleuk


You missed my point again. I didn't mean access to legal guns, I meant whatever guns are legal (as in country wide) at the time.

Most of these mass shootings are using stolen weapons.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

The fact is though, those mass shootings in America are getting to be a regular occurrence.

Are they? They were just as frequent under the Clinton AWB from 94 to 2004.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

The fact is though, those mass shootings in America are getting to be a regular occurrence.

I'm not saying America should ban guns, I think there should be tighter controls in place as to what type of weapons/ammo are available, and more thorough checks on the people purchasing them.

And yes, the guy responsible for the Cumbrian shooting was a half decent guy, I knew him personally and had many conversations with him when he gave me lifts home, either with shopping, or late on from the pub. (I also knew two of the victims, one I went to college with, the other was an arsehole solicitor (lawyer)).

EDIT: I know I have no say in American affairs, and I don't understand gun culture, I'm just voicing my opinion.

edit on 19/12/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)

The Virgina Tech dude killed more than any other massacre with a lowly .22 and 9mm pistol. More than any "assault weapon" rampage. Your missing the OP's point. Didn't some guy in Japan or china kill 6-7 with a sword? Half as many as Columbine, alone, no bombs or guns. (you could say 2 guys with swords could have been just as effective as 2 with bombs and guns) People will use any tool they wish. Banning anything does nothing and statistics have shown this.
Look at Switzerland.. Every home is required to have a REAL military assault rifle, and their crime is non existent. America's morals and values and society etc etc is the problem.


Gs

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


How did I miss your point? You said whatever guns are legal, I said they had access to those legal guns. Either way the subject is legal guns.

I apologise if I am reading you wrong.

reply to post by Flavian


What do you mean it isn't comparable?
There is nothing to compare. The point is that people will always snap and kill people in mass with whatever they can. Banning one time of weapon only led to another type of weapon being used, and if you banned them all they would find another way.

It is actually a perfectly illustrated point and kind of impossible to argue. We shouldn't base laws that restrict the rights of citizens because of the actions of any mentally ill people.