Mass shooting in my state

[Terramirabilis]

Another mass shooting in the US and this one is close to home. Local media are saying 13 students dead and 20+ injured. When are people going to see sense on gun control. I just don't understand this.

twitter.com/hashtag/UCCShooting?src=hash

Never mind Donthave, we can be dead polite to each other when we're awash with weapons if you get your way.

my property has a higher value than their life I'm afraid

That's you. Little respect for human life. What a sad and troubling way to think.

I said that I would try to avoid taking a life if I could, that's because I have a respect for human life.

Unless they are trying to steal your car, in which case the car is more important.

No, in which case they have left me no choice.I'd try to avoid it if I could.

I'm struggling to see why you have been left no choice though?

Lets for a minute imagine that I have a gun, there is an intruder, I shout to tell him to get out and that I am armed - he comes towards me aggressively with a weapon and threatens me, I tell him to take what he wants and leave or I will be forced to shoot, he says it's too late for that and I'm going be attacked. I shoot him to stop him if possible, trying to avoid major organs, he continues to come for me and then an only them am I compelled to shoot him so that he may be killed. in actual fact what happens is that DH kneecaps him with a pick axe handle

Other scenario, thief tries to take my car from the drive way, I shout to tell him to stop and that I am armed, he shouts back and tells me to fuck off and continues to get in the car, I note as much detail as possible about him and then go and phone the police - ensuing that my house door is securely locked - I think I do have a choice not to kill him.

But having a gun would make you more of a liability, not less. You're more likely to be killed

No choice other than just letting him nick your stuff then, not that that's much of a choice to have.

What do you think the police are going to do to him if he also refuses to stand down? They will use force including maybe even killing him, if you are happy for them to do it why not yourself?

That's what insurance is for, DontHave. AKA yes, it's a bit of a hassle, but you get a brand new one

Interestingly, someone just shared this on my FB Cocks Not Glocks: Protest of new campus carry law.

I can't think of a more insane idea than allowing students to carry guns to lessons

There is no way the police are going to shoot someone for stealing a car either,

And has been said many times on this thread, stuff is stuff. Yes, I would be angry and annoyed that someone has stolen my car/phone or whatever, but it is no way justified to kill someone over.

Btw - the video slug posted is very interesting. I think people assume that they're safe with a gun, and can defend themselves easily. Think again!

Greenwood there probably are people who assume that. As with every group of people, you get a mix of personalities. Undoubtedly some just carry as a status symbol, or never take the time to train with it, assuming that "I have a gun now im invincible", which is definitely not true. The majority know that it doesn't make you Superman nor is it an excuse to deliberately involve yourself in situations you shouldn't (noticed a few instances of these two things in the news in recent times)

Yes, well, obviously according to you there is absolutely no problem in the US as a result of having free and easy access to guns and semi-automatic firearms.

Except there is a big problem:

So far this year, there have been more mass shootings in the US than there have been days of the year.

Children as young as kindergarten are taught classroom lockdowns.

Children are getting hold of guns and shooting other children with them.

America has a cripplingly high homicide rate.

America has a cripplingly high gun death rate - and only a tiny proportion of those are deemed to be in true self defence. Most are accidental, because of an argument, domestic violence, suicide.

I could go on. These are things we simply don't have in the the UK, because we don't have many guns, and they're hard to get hold of. The problem is guns, and pretty much anyone being able to buy one at a corner store.

There is a problem but a ban on guns would result in other problems, people dying because they weren't able to defend themselves. I can't see any solution where we can guarantee saving everyone and preventing every single murder, whatever they do will still see innocents dying.

It makes sense for young kids to be taught lockdown procedures, because things like shooting sprees exist and are more common than they are here. You'd hope that your kid was never caught up in a spree but in case they were, you'd want everyone to be familiar with the lockdown procedures as it may give them a better chance to survive.

Slug - that video is fascinating and makes me even more glad (if that was possible) to live in a country where guns are few and far between and largely limited to shotguns.

Don't - do you train to the same level as police officers, in order to have confidence that you'd be able to react in a crisis? Because I think you're deluding yourself if you think you'd do any better than the kids in that video.

You see, that's what you're arguing for - a solution to the problems that guns cause, rather than the far more more effective solution of controlling guns. Classroom lockdowns are quite literally a sticking paster on a semi-automatic weapon wound.

You would rather have 4yr old children learning lockdown in the classroom, than control the semi-automatic weapon availability that makes these massacres so common. Guess why the UK doesn't have classroom lockdown practice?

You've fallen for the self defence fallacy.

Donthave
What do you think the police are going to do to him if he also refuses to stand down? They will use force including maybe even killing him, if you are happy for them to do it why not yourself?

Because they're the Police who are trained to use firearms in a controlled way. They are not some trigger happy moron who will shoot first and ask questions later. Just a thought.

They will also not be shooting someone who steals your car, in case you thought otherwise.

There is a problem but a ban on guns would result in other problems, people dying because they weren't able to defend themselves.
We manage pretty well 'not being able to defend ourselves' as you put it.

"Don't - do you train to the same level as police officers, in order to have confidence that you'd be able to react in a crisis? Because I think you're deluding yourself if you think you'd do any better than the kids in that video."

I can't in this country because I can't practice with a gun, so no.

"Because they're the Police who are trained to use firearms in a controlled way. They are not some trigger happy moron who will shoot first and ask questions later. Just a thought."

So that covers the untrained civilians, what about the civilians who are trained and competent in this area? There's classes and courses available to the public to train for exactly the kind of situation you're talking about, courses led by qualified instructors, the same instructors who provide the same training to the police.

"You would rather have 4yr old children learning lockdown in the classroom, than control the semi-automatic weapon availability that makes these massacres so common."

No, I'd rather the shooter was never able to get hold of a gun in the first place, then the spree would never happen and everyone would live. But there's no way to make that happen, because people like Raoul Moat and Derrick Bird have shown that shooting sprees still happen in countries with strict gun control.

If you don't want the mass shooters to be able to get hold of a gun in the first place, you want gun control.

This year so far:

America: 996 mass shootings with the deaths of 1,260 people.

UK: Zero mass shootings.

"If you don't want the mass shooters to be able to get hold of a gun in the first place, you want gun control. "

No I don't, because gun control didn't help Derrick Birds victims or Raoul Moats, they were still able to get hold of guns despite very strict legislation.

How do you explain the disparity in mass shootings then?

It's the gun laws. But the reason I don't think they should be changed is because while I accept it might lower the chances of such frequent shooting sprees, it would just shift those deaths onto others, people would die because they weren't able to defend themselves. So it's not a case of gun control saving lives, it's saving a life at the cost of another. It's good for the life that has been saved, not so good for the one who is dead because of gun control.

I don't think it's as easy as deciding more gun control or less gun control when tackling the problem. Assume that you were in charge and could decide our gun policies, you're going to have the same issue whatever you say.

Less gun control: People are murdered in a shooting spree, the relatives of the dead ask you how well your gun policy worked in protecting their children from being victims of gun crime.

More gun control: Relatives of people like David Rathband come up to you, and ask how well gun control worked in protecting him from dying in a gun attack

That should say Chris Brown, another of Moats victims and not David Rathband.

it would just shift those deaths onto others,

So why hasn't that happened in the UK? We have a much lower murder rate.

To say that just because Moat got a gun, gun control doesn't work is just untrue. Moat was an incredibly rare event.

No laws or controls prevent that law being broken completely. But you minimise the risk of shooters getting guns, you add strict gun controls to make it as difficult as possible for guns to get into the wrong hands. You reduce the number in circulation in society.

Sadly the gun lobby won't hear this - because they want to sell you a gun or 6.

"To say that just because Moat got a gun, gun control doesn't work is just untrue. Moat was an incredibly rare event."

He was, but it still happened. Gun control did nothing to save Chris Brown from being murdered. I'm not saying for sure that there would have been a different outcome if we had liberal gun laws, but they would have allowed there to be a level playing field, instead of the advantage the armed criminal always has in the UK: The knowledge that their victim is unarmed. Guns are the most effective force equalizer.

"you add strict gun controls to make it as difficult as possible for guns to get into the wrong hands. You reduce the number in circulation in society."

That's the wrong way to be looking at it imo. In the UK when we spot a gunman we send armed police to the scene. So that means we've accepted that the most appropriate response (and defence against) a criminal with a gun......is a law abiding person with a gun. There are differences between police officers and civilians but we are all human beings, so why should distinction be drawn between an armed police officer using a gun to confront an armed criminal, and an equally competent civilian doing the same? Surely the only thing that either should be judged on is if they can justify their actions later in any trial.

Should say "we are all human beings with the right to self defence and to defend others"