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

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

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

I never said anything about AWB, and I would class 94 as recent, yes, depending on perspective.

The OP is about UK vs USA control, so, there has been two mass shootings in the UK from then until now, how many has there been in the USA in all that time?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

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

Then we agree.

'If you outlaw catapults, then only outlaws will have catapults'.

reply to post by woogleuk


I am not saying what guns he had access to legally (as in it was legal for him to own those guns, ie: weren't stolen, legally in his name). I am saying that it didn't matter that assault weapons were banned, it didn't matter that handguns were banned, he still killed as many people with what was available to him (what was legal to buy in the country). He was mentally ill and was going to do what he did regardless of what was available, the new gun control laws were in place to stop him from doing exactly what he ended up doing.

Laws do not stop the mentally ill. If all guns were gone these mass killings would still happen one way or another. As I said before we shouldn't base our laws on the actions of the mentally ill.

reply to post by GermanShep


I'm not missing the OPs point, and we touched on mental health issues, but the thread title is "Gun Banning - Why would gun control measures that didn't work in the UK, work in the U.S.?"

I am challenging that, as I think it has worked.

reply to post by woogleuk


NO! The OP is NOT about US vs UK gun control. It is about the fact that the UK government consecutively banned whatever weapons were used in mass killings. It is to show that mass killers can be as succesful in killing with bolt actions as they can be with assault rifles and it made no real difference.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Right yes, but it was still guns he used, regardless of type.

You see mass stabbings with very few, if any, fatalities.

People get beaten up with baseball/cricket bats, very few. if any, fatalities.

You get someone running rampant with a gun, multiple fatalities, surpassing those injured.

reply to post by woogleuk


They didn't work. The measures were created not to quell gun crime, but because of massacres (just as is happening now). We know there is gun crime, but gun legislation is only put forth and excepted when a massacre occurs.

It did not work in the UK because you continued to have massacres with whatever was left after each banning.

reply to post by woogleuk


Yes and the point is they aren't banning all guns, they intend to only ban assault rifles and solve the problem.

So either you are left with banning all guns or it's pointless, and banning all guns leaves a disarmed public and that is a terrible thing to be.

As far as no guns, I can show you where a school in the US was blown up with dynamite killing 36 or so kids.
Mass murderers will always find a way.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


One massacre in 14 years, tragic, yes, even personal for me, but you can hardly use that as an argument when there has been so many massacres in the USA in the same time frame.

reply to post by woogleuk


I certainly can when the mass murderer was as successful as his predecessors but didn't have anywhere near the hardware due to banning.

Sincerely, I assure you, you are missing the point.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


ok, sorry, you are talking about the USA here, and I could maybe agree. But in the UK, gun control is working for the most part, if it wasn't, then these massacres would be more than 14 years apart, they would be more on par, if not greater than the USA.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

ok, sorry, you are talking about the USA here, and I could maybe agree. But in the UK, gun control is working for the most part, if it wasn't, then these massacres would be more than 14 years apart, they would be more on par, if not greater than the USA.

I disagree. There don't have to be 'massacres' for gun control to be failing. Just shootings.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


No I am not missing the point. A gun is a gun, regardless, it fires projectiles at a damaging pace.

Assault weapons can fire more rounds per minute, only real use is killing - BANNED
Hand guns, not that effective for hunting, can be easily concealed - BANNED
Shot Guns and Rifles, great for hunting, pest control, shooting ranges, clay pigeons, cant be concealed as easily - LEGAL

With assault rifles there is more chance the death toll could be higher before the shooter is stopped.

Originally posted by woogleuk

With assault rifles there is more chance the death toll could be higher before the shooter is stopped.

You know, ending the absurd "gun free" zones thing would accomplish the same goal without infringing on anyones rights.

reply to post by khimbar


I know that khimbar, but most criminals with guns don't want to risk getting caught, so they don't just freely walk about with them.

Whenever you hear of a shooting on the news, it is usually because one criminal has shot another, I know there are exceptions to that, but compared to America, the UK is pretty gun crime free.

"Past is prologue." Shakespeare
Actually the British experience could be the model for incremental gun control in this country. If they start banning the assault rifles then owners of other semi-auto weapons will feel that will appease the gun control impulse of the government; then another tragedy will happen (surprise, surprise) with a weapon not banned and then the bans will be expanded to include those weapons; and then the process will continue until virtually all firearms are banned (maybe they will leave the black powder [modern day muskets] long guns alone). Think of it as the ratchet effect. It is a one way process and it can only be added to and not reversed.

reply to post by woogleuk


There are uses for those other guns. Maybe you have to find yourself without power, in a city full of looters with no police presence before you figure it out, but there are uses.

For example, my friend found himself in just that situation when the levees broke after Katrina. No police, lots of rapists and looters, military days away and no power.

dbl post

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Yes, thank you, you got the point. That's what I was getting at. I guess I should have been clearer so I could avoid the compare and contrast rounds of the first two pages.

Also, consider if gun manufacturers started complying and focusing on making guns that conform to the ban, so even if the ban were lifted it would be hard to find and buy guns that are.. we'll say.. legal in California.

Why Gun Control would not have prevented the Connecticut school shootings:


- A fully grown man entering an enclosed area full of children will be perfectly capable of ending the lives of each of them, whatever weapon he arms himself with. This is akin to a fox going into a chicken coup. If he had armed himself with a machete or sword, the result would have been exactly the same, as it has throughout the long history of massacres going back thousands of years. Bats and machetes were used to carry out similar massacres on a huge scale during the Rwanda genocide inside churches and schools.

- Even if previously a strict permit procedure were in place for all firearms ownership in the US, Adam Lanza's mother would have gone through the necessary procedure to obtain them, as any other law abiding individual involved in various outdoor pursuits would.


- An 'assault weapon' did not enable this to happen.

What is an 'assault weapon'? It's nothing more than a media buzzword that can be used to describe almost any firearm from around 1890 onwards that is not a bolt action or a black powder muzzleloader of a 400 year old design.. If the firearm used had a wooden stock and he had smaller magazines would it make it less deadly? Would have reloading more often have given the children a chance to overpower him? The fact is that the children inside would not be capable of anything other than cowering in fear.



cheaperthandirt.com...


www.checkpointcharlies.com...


25.media.tumblr.com...


The first is not a 'battlefield weapon' and is not designed for use in combat. It is a civilian sporting rifle. It looks like an M4 assault rifle, but operates entirely differently. An original m4 rifle as you would find on a modern battlefield is not available for civilian purchase. The 2nd is a battlefield weapon designed for combat, but looks less scary since it has a refined look similar to a hunting rifle, which it is mechanically identical to. The third is the most powerful out of all three and is not designed for combat, but is designed to hunt with.

Even if he were armed with a traditional hunting shotgun, the result would have been the same. Even a kitchen knife is sufficient for taking out large numbers of children.


Nanping massacre - 8 dead

Weapon used: Kitchen knife

en.wikipedia.org...


Hanzhong massacre - 7 dead

Weapon used: kitchen knife

news.bbc.co.uk...


Osaka massacre - 8 dead

Weapon used: kitchen knife

en.wikipedia.org...