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

Good post Baconyum

Donthaveausername
He correctly pointed out that if he didn't have that weapon, he could have handed over his wallet and phone and then the mugger may have just beaten the crap out of him for good measure, he may have needed hospital treatment or worse.

So what. Just hand over the wallet and phone. If the mugger has that they are not then going to 'beat the crap out of you'. They will run. Why on earth are you advocating needing to wave a gun (a killing weapon) around? If that's the norm, it then becomes the norm for the attacker to wave a gun too.

There's been times in my life where a situation has made me feel quite scared and uncomfortable, I'd have felt better if I had a weapon as I know it would give me a better chance in those situations.
I'd love to know what these times in your life were. Someone brush up against you in a bar? Someone called you an arsehole for jumping the queue? What?

So when you feel quite uncomfortable, you'd like to brandish a gun and scare off the nasty people.

just pointing out that if you are armed and the culprit isn't, it puts you in a much better position to control the situation.
Ahhh, but give it a year or two and the agressor will be armed. It will be fighting fire with fire. In no time we will be copying the US like we do on so many other levels.

With that American I told you about, simply getting his gun out was enough for the would-be thief to see sense and he left very quickly.
This statement made me laugh out loud. I have this vision of the victim shouting "I've got a gun y'know" and whipping it out waving it around. And the aggressor saying "You've got me banged to rights, guv, I'm off, very sorry to have bothered you. I've seen sense". More likely than not, he will pull his gun out as muggers now need to be tooled up because the general public are allowed firearms. Or he'll just grab your gun and shoot you. Then run off with your mobile.

Anecdotes are not always true, and are far removed from evidence.

Agree Piglet and no one is going to say .. I wish I didn't carry a gun, they are always going to justify it.

That Tim Jeffries piece is brilliant. I'm going to bookmark it for every thread about guns.

Certainly in the 80s and 90s, no UK policeman I know wanted to carry a gun - although far more police are armed than you'd realise - (I used to work for an ex-superintendent). The Police Federation have polled their members, and the majority vote has always been against regular armed police.

An armed police force is no longer citizens looking after citizens. In the UK it would be people who are allowed to carry guns policing people who are not. And there finally goes any fiction (because the police still try it on) of saying "a policeman is like any other citizen". Yeah. Right.

"Just hand over the wallet and phone. If the mugger has that they are not then going to 'beat the crap out of you'. They will run. Why on earth are you advocating needing to wave a gun (a killing weapon) around? If that's the norm, it then becomes the norm for the attacker to wave a gun too. "

I wish all muggers could be relied upon to have such a sense of fair play. People can and do hand over their valuables and still get a beating anyway, maybe not as much as those who are allowed to leave unharmed by the mugger but it still happens, in my anecdotal case the guy just didn't want to put his own safety at the mercy of a criminal.

"More likely than not, he will pull his gun out as muggers now need to be tooled up because the general public are allowed firearms. Or he'll just grab your gun and shoot you. Then run off with your mobile."

I think it's more likely than not that they will cut their losses and leave, they are still humans with that in built survival instinct. The mugger knew that if he tried either of the two things you mentioned, he would have been shot. It's interesting that these arguments are never used on armed police officers: There's no point in them attending an incident armed if the attacker will just grab their gun and kill them, and there's no point giving every officer a baton because criminals now need to be tooled up with batons as well. In the world we live sometimes bad situations happen where people need protection from something. If you aren't armed, who do you rely on to protect you? Relying on the police seems to me to be trying to pass the buck for your own safety onto someone else. If you are opposed to carrying and using a weapon on principle, then why would you be calling people who are likely going to use their weapons on your attacker?

Whichever path the US takes on gun control it will almost certainly result in more deaths. Strict gun control will mean that people are going to die because they didn't have a weapon to protect themselves, and liberal gun control means that things like school shootings will still happen because of the easy availability of guns. It comes down to a choice between which deaths you think are more acceptable to happen, which is a horrible choice to have to make. Imagine you are a politician and had to make a choice knowing that whatever decision you make will almost certainly result in loss of life and that you will be demonized by the press no matter what. I certainly wouldn't like that job.

If you aren't used to shooting people, you will find it very difficult.

Quite apart from the time it might take you to rummage under your coat and pull out your pistol, cock it, release the safety, in a state of confusion and fear, during which your coked-up mugger (or his buddy standing behind you) might attack you, I have often seen on stage that women, in particular, have been unable to pull the trigger. I think this must be due to fear or anxiety, because it happens even when in a safe place and when they know it is a blank, or even a drill round. I don't think it is just physical strength in the fingers. Almost everybody flinches or shuts their eyes when they fire a handgun.

A US cop's willingness to fire is not the same as a normal person's

"Strict gun control will mean that people are going to die because they didn't have a weapon to protect themselves,"

Is this complete made-up nonsense? Or have you seen some evidence from a source other than gun nuts?

The reason I don't support gun control is that it won't actually prevent murders from happening. People with a desire to murder others will adapt to using different items to do it, or even just use their hands. Something as innocent as a rock or a pen can ultimately be used as a weapon to kill, and we can't ban all of them as well. At best all you might be able to achieve with gun control is lower the amount of school shootings, but that comes at a big cost: You'll also be putting a lot of people elsewhere in danger by not allowing them a weapon for protection. So do we decide that it's ok for 10 random civilians in the US to die because they didn't have a weapon, if it saves 10 schoolchildren? In my view that's not worth it.

The US should be looking at ways to make it harder for bad people to access guns while not preventing law abiding people from them. Even in the UK which is notorious for it's very strict gun laws, we recognize the legal right for people to have a weapon in the home for self defence, America just takes that a step further and allows them to carry it in public too.

Wow, from a non_USA perspective, that really is warped thinking.

Granted, there are so many guns floating around the system that you've probably gone beyond the point of no return, but who decides who is and who isn't a "responsible" gun owner? I'm sure all those mass shooters were law abiding, right up to the point where they massacred people.

Donthaveausername is the exact person Jim Jeffries was talking about

Do you subscribe to Padlock Monthly and post pics on FB of yourself with a shit-hot security door too?

"So do we decide that it's ok for 10 random civilians in the US to die because they didn't have a weapon, if it saves 10 schoolchildren? In my view that's not worth it."

What on earth? How is that even possibly true? Proper gun control could save the 10 schoolchildren certainly, but I doubt there would be a corresponding 10 random civilians who died for the lack of a gun though. Unless you're speaking from the Wild West, a century ago. Or a Clint Eastwood movie.

"People with a desire to murder others will adapt to using different items to do it, or even just use their hands."

Now there, I completely disagree with you. Guns, and especially the automatic weapons so widely available in the US, which have nothing to do with sport or with self defence, have been explicitly developed to kill people, quickly, efficiently and at minimal effort. I expect we have just as many homicidal maniacs in the UK as there are in the US, but they find it physically much more difficult to kill people, who are usually unwilling to stand passively while you beat them over the heat with a table lamp, and may be able to fight you off or call for help.

Additionally, humans, like all other animals, are genetically programmed not to kill their own kind. Soldiers and police have to be trained and desensitised, and even then many will avoid "shooting to kill" when they can see the individual. Modern mechanised warfare makes it psychologically much easier to blow someone to bits, for example firing shells at children playing football on a beach from a warship out to sea, when the gunners would find it much more difficult and harrowing to row ashore and beat the childrens' brains out with a rock.

Additionally, humans, like all other animals, are genetically programmed not to kill their own kind. Soldiers and police have to be trained and desensitised, and even then many will avoid "shooting to kill" when they can see the individual.

You'd think an American would be aware that during the civil war, it was commonplace to find a dead soldier with a rifle that had been loaded many times in his hands. The only explanation being that he had primed, loaded, packed, but been unable to fire, so then repeated the process so as not to stand out.

The improbably named "Grub Smith" made a fascinating (and therefore never repeated) documentary about this. There is a clear consensus - especially in the military, that human beings - despite our self image - have a deep instinctive aversion to killing one another. That's why it has to be (literally) drilled into us for combat.

DontHave
If you are opposed to carrying and using a weapon on principle, then why would you be calling people who are likely going to use their weapons on your attacker?

Because they're the Police??

Rather different to advocating Joe Public goes round carrying weapons.

Likening a gun to a rock or a pen as a weapon is quite frankly ridiculous. I would love to know how the individual who carried out the atrocity that started this thread would manage to kill 11 people with a pen!

I find your justification of carrying guns bizarre to say the least.

Even in the UK which is notorious for it's very strict gun laws, we recognize the legal right for people to have a weapon in the home for self defence, America just takes that a step further and allows them to carry it in public too.

Since when? I live in the UK and that's the first I've heard about it.

Even in the UK which is notorious for it's very strict gun laws, we recognize the legal right for people to have a weapon in the home for self defence, America just takes that a step further and allows them to carry it in public too.

There ain't half some cobblers written sometimes.

As a UK gun owner, I can categorically state that there is no legal right for people to have a weapon in the home for self defence. The only legal reason to have a gun in the UK is for target shooting (ideally as a member of a recognised club) or for hunting purposes.

Lurking yes

Knowing the hoops a farming relation of mine has to go through to have a shotgun, it is a tad cobblery! Can't quite imagine filling out the very lengthy Home Office application to have a gun in my house and the reason being "so I can shoot burglars".

You can give someone serious brain damage with a rolled up magazine - I have many magazines in my home including by my bed, I hope I'd be able to use one if the need arose. I'm even permitted to carry one on my person when I am out. However, despite intensive ninja training, I'd struggle to simultaneously kill 11 people with this months Grazia....

In the UK, there is no statutory definition of an offensive weapon.

People have been warned - and prosecuted - if they are unwise enough to admit to the police they have a baseball bat by the door "for protection". Police have also arrested people for carrying baseball bats in their car, with no good reason.

In general the law in the UK on self defence seems balanced enough (Kenneth Noye murdered a policeman and was acquitted when his defence of self-defence was accepted). For all the Mailsteria, Tony Martin was not defending himself. My one concern about the situation is that the jury is being asked to second guess something which happened in a split second against a background of terror and fear, in the comfort of daylight and safe surroundings. It rather stretches the word "reasonable".

In the UK, there is no statutory definition of an offensive weapon.

correct my own post. I meant there is no list of "offensive weapons".

My apologies for not making it clear I didn't mean a gun, I meant other weapons with guns specifically excluded from that. You can possess say a baseball bat in the house for protection and cannot be prosecuted even if you admit it's for protection, as offensive weapon legislation only applies in a public place. For the source look at the 1953 Act and some Lord who I believe said something about we were still perfectly free to go around "festooned" with weapons in the home. It stuck in my mind cos it sounded a weird way of phrasing things. You cannot however have a gun for self defence even in the house.

On a different subject entirely is it possible for the admins to erase my old account as I stupidly lost my password to it hence the new nickname? I'd guess not as can't prove that its actually me but thought I'd ask otherwise I'll just leave it and use this one.

I think that as long as you still have the same email address, you can ask to have the password reset and emailed to you.

Thanks, got it fixed now.

"As for the constitution? Bull! Gets changed whenever necessary and if THIS isn't a bloody good reason for change then the USA as a whole has a screw loose!"
The Constitution has been amended only 27 times (and ten of those were in one sitting) in nearly 250 years, it's not as easy as you'd think. Nor should it be or gods know what kinds of things would wind up there.

However, in this case there's no need for it - the full text of the second amendment is: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Pay special attention to the first four words; "A well regulated militia -"
That leaves oodles of room for requiring registration, limiting the types and number of guns people have, and even (taken to the extreme) requiring that any gun owners join a National Guard type organization. All perfectly reasonable, while neatly complying with exactly what the Constitution currently states. Although I suppose that legally I should also have to register the sword and the bow and arrows I have in my house. To be honest, if I was in need of a weapon for self-defense my first port of call would be the hockey stick I keep under my bed.

Guns are necessary for self-protection if you're going to be frequently crossing paths with grizzly bears or moose, but most people aren't going to have that issue.

Ninja leprechaun while it may be a challenge to change the constitution the point is if the will is there it CAN be done.

But I agree that interpretation may be the key. Legislature love a bit of interpretive law tomgo around.