What the hell? Shooting in US centre for disabled people.

[BertieBotts]

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34987697

This is sickening. Any shooting is but this has really upset me for some reason. :(

Those figures are horrific.
I am no expert on this subject or the gun laws in different countries, but I can speak of my experience living in a country where the vast majority of us do not carry weapons for protection, and I don't feel unsafe. I'm not stupid and I know there are criminals out there who may attack me, or mug me. But I also know the likelihood of this is not high and I think in the UK most of us take sensible precautions to minimise risks, for example I avoid walking home alone late at night when few people are around, I lock my doors before I go to bed, I don't leave valuables in the car or display very expensive items or carry lots of cash with me. I don't worry about ever being approached or threatened with a gun, for us it is just not on our radar.

A friend of mine was stabbed when we were teenagers at a party and he survived, thank goodness. Apart from that many of my friends had been involved in drunken bar brawls or fights but it never escalated beyond scrapping. If we carried guns in our country those fights may well have ended in murder or multiple murder.

I have no doubt in my mind that if the UK adopted a similar approach to guns as the US the murder and shooting rates would go through the roof.

The shootings seem (to me) to be getting worse and more frequent, and yet pro gun Americans don't seem willing to accept that the guns are the problem or at the very least a huge part of it. Why is America willing to let this carry on, when the current approach evidently isn't working?

This is very interesting. I wonder if Americans will finally wake up to the implications of their gun laws.

We think of terrorists attacks as loads of sinister people working in cells, plotting together, communicating over social media, building bombs.

And we think of gun attacks as being carried out by lone madmen.

But now, perhaps, it's time to realise this: the gun laws in America allow terrorists to kill lots of people without the need to build bombs. Or to communicate on email or social media - putting them out of reach of the security services. All they need to do is behave like normal citizens, while acquiring semi-automatic guns.

And then they can go out and kill just as many people as they could kill with a bomb.

Could this finally be what makes the US change its mind about legislating gun ownership?

"This is very interesting. I wonder if Americans will finally wake up to the implications of their gun laws."

No. Not now the prospect of self-radicalised IS-inspired low-tech atrocity has become a reality. They had bombs, it seems, in their arsenal.

Rousette I wasn't saying you are silly for not wanting a weapon, I was saying that it was silly for you to make the claim you "do not need personal protection". When you wake up on any given day you simply cannot possibly know for sure that you either will or won't need to protect yourself that day. You keep specifically mentioning the low likelihood of being shot as a reason not to carry, what about other crimes that you having a weapon could deter or protect against? Maybe you do have a low chance of being shot in England, but I assume you also have crimes like rape, theft, serious assault? You say you carry on with live regardless of what crime happens to you, I'd say surely it was better to ensure that crime never happened in the first place. A rape victim or someone seriously wounded in a stabbing can still go on to have a good quality of life I'm sure, but wouldn't you rather the crime didn't happen in the first place.

It was a broad statement of you to make. The people in the simulations you mention may not have survived, but you simply can't say that because they didn't, then other people in completely different situations also wouldn't survive. Maybe you find that gun control works for you, it doesn't work for us, because the bad guys wouldn't be put off getting weapons. Perhaps this is a topic where different laws work in different cultures. The comments that "America should wake up and change their laws" can come across as a bit condescending, because it assumes that we've never considered the anti gun arguments. We have considered the arguments, we just don't want to have an increase in violent crime, so we don't implement more gun control. Maybe in England, because guns seem incredibly rare over there, you find that it actually works in your culture and prevents most of the bad guys from accessing them. If you find that truly works for you then you need to do what you think is right. But it would not work the same in this country, so when you say "america needs to change their laws" it's a bit like an American telling you that "England needs to change their gun laws to sort out their crime levels". You might honestly believe that gun control in America would save lives but you have to bear in mind that people who disagree with that aren't opposing your goal to save lives, they are just disputing whether your policy actually would work. Thanks for being cool with me by the way, I know we seem to be chalk and cheese as I believe it's called, but you're being pretty polite despite us both being a journey and a half away from any common ground.

Thanks for the link Harriet. This article is also interesting. Explains why despite public opinion in US leaning towards gun control, the political landscape means nothing can be done.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34429918

"What do you guys do if you get attacked?"

I've never been attacked, and I've known ONE person who has been attacked. He was drunk and can't remember what happened, so it's unlikely he'd have been able to pull a gun out anyway. It's not a common thing, is it common in the US? Is that why everybody is frightened of being attacked? I'm not trying to be defensive. I'm genuinely wondering where the fear comes from. I don't think British people do worry about crime generally. I know that since I moved to Germany and mix in a group of mostly UK/US women as the English speaking crowd, a lot of the American women seem really cautious about walking home alone whereas the Brits aren't worried about it at all. I put it down to having lived in a safe vs not so safe area, maybe? It's odd. I think that perhaps our "worrying about crime" is a bit overstated, we do like to worry/complain about things.

But to address these -

Rape most often happens within relationships and the force used is psychological. Or drug/alcohol related inebriation is used to the rapist's advantage. A gun wouldn't help there. Stranger rape is extremely rare, to the point that it's actually more dangerous to be afraid of it (e.g. woman so afraid of being raped that she avoids taxis, only to be knocked over by a drunk driver or fall in a river and drown. Or accepts being walked home by male friend to "avoid rape" but is then raped by friend. Which is actually a more likely scenario than the walk producing a random bush rapist.)

Serious assault most often happens when a person is known to their attacker. Sometimes it's racially motivated or similar, or a bar fight which gets out of control, in which case it might be a stranger. But either way, if the attackee had a gun, surely it's likely that the attacker, who presumably came out with the intention of a fight in at least the first two scenarios, would also have a gun. In fact I'd say that somebody going out with the express intention of beating somebody up would be bloody stupid if they knew their victim was likely to have a gun and they didn't take one. So it doesn't change anything because both parties are equally armed. In fact it probably makes things worse because now somebody's likely to get shot, much as knife carrying among young men/teens in big cities has led to an increase in stabbings. People carry guns, knives, for protection. If you think there's a serious chance you'll get stabbed, you're more likely to carry a knife yourself, so the more people who carry knives means that the chance of a stabbing increases.

Theft - do you mean something like house/business/car or mugging? I'm pretty sure some muggers do have guns. Some certainly have knives. Others don't, of course. But again, I don't know anybody who has been mugged. One friend was the "victim" of a failed mugging in that the person said "Give me all your money" in what he clearly thought was a threatening manner, my friend said "No" and the mugger looked confused and ran off It's possible that the drunk guy I mentioned in the first paragraph was a mugging victim because it happened near a cashpoint and he couldn't remember if he'd lost money or spent it. For burglary I don't think it would help much - because you might be out when you got burgled, or asleep, and because surely if you point a gun at somebody they are just going to run.

Besides, all of these scenarios rely on the fact that the attacker/burglar believes that the victim will actually shoot them. Do you think most ordinary people would, given the opportunity? I think most people would fall short of actually doing it. Or they would aim terribly. I just can't see it going too well in general.

"A rape victim or someone seriously wounded in a stabbing can still go on to have a good quality of life I'm sure, but wouldn't you rather the crime didn't happen in the first place."

Yes but is that actually the most likely outcome? Or is the more likely outcome that the victim isn't the only one with a gun, and hence their threatening doesn't go too far when the perpetrator also has a gun and has already shown that they aren't afraid to hurt the victim.

Bertie our experience is that it is the most likely outcome. California has a huge problem with gun crime and has strict gun control laws. Other states have less gun crime, and less gun problems. The evidence speaks for itself. Your last sentence is, I take it, suggesting that the perpetrator would outright kill the victim at the start to prevent them shooting back. I'm not sure where that idea is coming from, it certainly isn't backed up by fact. If you find that gun control works in your country, I suppose it must be easy to look at other countries and think that if they did what you did, the results would play out exactly the same, and that if anyone disagrees they must be an idiot. But you've been told that gun control wouldn't work the way you think it would. Likewise it would be easy for people in my state to demand that "england needs to wake up and change their laws, how many people need to die before they see sense!" every time you have a violent crime where the victim couldn't defend themselves, but maybe the solutions that work for us in one culture, may not work for you in another culture.

I've been in two situations where, if someone had a gun, it would have been brandished, and maybe more.

Some years ago, I was harassed by 4 teenagers late one evening. I was more annoyed than afraid, but there was definitely a fear component. Fortunately, I was standing next to my car, and got in, locked the doors, and drove AT the boys, who scattered.

Another time, a case of road rage, someone followed me for THREE miles, honking and waving his fist. I was probably in the wrong, but his reaction was extreme. I was very concerned for my safety, but after three miles he gave up the pursuit.

If either of us had had a gun... Fortunately, I'm in Canada, which has quite strict gun laws. As someone said upthread, the presence of a gun tends to escalate violence.

chilled and I thank you. I do find the exploration of this subject fascinating because your view is so far away from mine (and I don't mean any offence by that! ) However, I do get it when you say you can't just withdraw gun ownership and expect everything to be hunky dory in your country, you can't change a mindset overnight. But I do think that steps should be taken, however small. I watched the montage of Obama talking each time after every mass shooting, his sadness and frustration is clear to see.

As wide as our chasm is, I can't convince you enough of not feeling the need to have 'personal protection'. It's not silly. I'm not unusual with this. I don't know anyone in my life (and I know a lot of people) who... on leaving the house, does a check list... car keys to drive, bottle of water in case I'm thirsty, book to read on train... some sort of weapon to protect myself. It just does not work like that over here, we don't imagine we are going to be attacked all the time. I go to London a lot, 2 of my DCs live there, I am not in fear and nor are they. As I said before, (and I can't emphasise this enough) we all take good, careful, reasonable precautions. I wear a bag across my body, I tell my DCs not to walk along with their Smartphone, and many other sensible measures.. But honestly, please believe me, for you to say it is silly not to protect myself - I just don't agree with this.

Chilled... you say "England needs to wake up and change their laws, how many more people need to be killed etc" We don't want to change our laws, our fear is small, shootings are rare, we don't want to end up with gun toting idiots on our street.

I want to tell you a story... bear with me...

My single young adult DD lives in London, she went to a party and was staying with a work girl she didn't know very well in an area she didn't know at all. They've both had a bit to drink, her workmate more so. They get back to workmate's house late and DD suggests going out to get some late night food and bring it back to workmate's house. DD leaves to go to all night shop just round the corner. At this point workmate goes into a deep sleep. DD goes out and as all streets look the same she ends up getting more and more lost and probably further and further away from the house. It's 2am, he's wandering the street of London in a bit of a rough area, she is lost, her workmate isn't answering her phone as she is in a drunken sleep. She walks around getting more and more lost. She can't find the right treet again. She does this for nearly an hour getting more and more upset.

What does she do? Yep, rings her mother and is sobbing down the phone in the middle of the night. My heart lurched, I nearly passed out, I thought she'd been attacked/raped because to hear your DD crying down the phone in the middle of the night is such a shock. The battery is running out on her mob and I am panicing about her safety and what is going to happen. Would I have felt better if she was carrying a weapon? Absolutely not.

To cut a long story short...from that moment on, she was treated with nothing but kindness... she found an all night taxi firm. They had a charger that fitted her phone, she sat there and I googled 24 hour hotels, taxi driver drove her there, refused to take a fare, and she stayed the night in the hotel until she could wake friend up and go back to her house. She didn't need personal protection, she wasn't threatened, attacked, held up at gunpoint. I honestly do know she was lucky, the situation could have turned a lot worse but what I am trying to illustrate is... it's not that bad over here, we don't live with daily threats, we know the general public for the most are not carrying a weapon because carrying any sort of weapon over here is illegal. That is... no pepper spray, no knives of any kind, no gun, no knuckle duster, nothing.

I think carrying a gun must make you more nervous because you know lots of other people are, if my DD had been carrying a gun that night and I knew others were, it just heightens the threat of violence. That scenario could have ended up far worse because of carrying a weapon but when you live in a country where it isn't the norm, situations don't escalate so quickly or so violently.
Sorry to ramble on

chilled: "We have considered the arguments, we just don't want to have an increase in violent crime, so we don't implement more gun control."

But your lack of gun control leads to high rates of violent crime. Can't you see that?

This is so interesting isn't it?

The thing that fascinates me is that you chilled seem to be assuming that we walk around in fear of attack and powerless to defend ourselves. That we experience high level of assault/attack and put up with it because we would rather not have guns.

Is it possible for you to get your head around the idea that we really really don't. We are not commonly the victims of assault or intimidation. We don't spend our lives impotently coping with fear. We walk around feeling very safe.
We may worry about some drunk getting in our face if we are out late in a city centre but we are not in fear of our lives.
In particular I am not fearful for the life of my adult sons.
We are not fearful. We are not putting up with violence. We don't routinely experience it.

Yes, well said, Capri. I am not young. I cannot think of a single occasion in my life when I've felt in danger, certainly have never felt the need of a weapon to defend myself. I regularly go to London for the day or evening, travel back on the train late in the evening, walk home from my local station. Always lots of other people doing the same thing. The worst you might get is a couple of rowdy drunks. Or, once, fans of the local football team who'd been on a rare trip to Wembley. Loud, but good natured.

Does anyone know the US crime drama NCIS? There was an episode once with a character who was supposed to be a detective in the Met. (With an Australian accent, but never mind.) He talked about how his daughter carried pepper spray to protect herself on the Tube, and he or his partner, forget exactly, was in the habit of carrying a backup weapon tucked inside his vest. I mean, WTF? Was gobsmacked at the research fail, apart from anything else.

But we don't have high rates of violent crime.

Well said Capri, guns + inequality + poor education = mass shootings

chilled it is very interesting to hear your point of view. i honestly think if you lived in the UK for a while you would begin to see this differently. I can't really imagine what it is like to live in America and knowing lots of people around you are armed. But I don't think you really understand our mindset that we actually feel safer without any personal weapons, I suppose it's because it's totally at odds with your mindset.
We certainly don't mean to be condescending or patronising, but for us it seems so obvious - America has lots of guns and lots of gun crime. We have few of either. So the solution seems like a no brainer to us, we can't understand why you would want to keep the guns after the horrific amount of shootings. As for the personal protection thing - this isn't preventing crime though is it? There are shootings at an alarming rate, why do none of these people protect themselves? Sure you may have less petty theft, less assault etc... But you have a hell of a lot more gun crime and murder. I would rather live in a country with a small risk of getting my handbag stolen than having a gun pointed at me and possibly being shot.

Anyway I don't mean to condescend, but you must see that your current laws are not protecting anybody. You do have crime, violent crime, more so than us, so how can the current approach be working?

One thing that bothers me is that when we had terrorist attacks in 2005 lots of Americans cancelled their trips to the UK but we are supposed to be fine with visiting a country with over 30,000 gun related deaths per year. I mean who would not be a little worried about taking their children to the US now?

I'm 55 and I've never been assaulted or robbed on street. I live in quite a poor area, but it's still very safe. I regularly go out alone after dark, no fear at all. I remember a few months ago when a mother was shot by her toddler in Walmart. I just comprehend that level of paranoia, feeling the need to carry a (loaded) gun to go to the supermarket. Sorry, chilled, that isn't a normal or healthy way to live.
I will add, a few years ago,my son was robbed at knifepoint at his job (working in a convenience store). Thankfully no one was hurt and the thief was arrested. I wonder how that would have escalated if it had happened in America. Would there have been casualties? I suspect there may have been.

Sorry, should have said 'can't comprehend that level of paranoia'.

I've got to do this again though - I appreciate your contributions Chilled. It really is interesting. I hope my comments don't read with an argumentative tone. The difference in culture is fascinating.

I know that since I moved to Germany and mix in a group of mostly UK/US women as the English speaking crowd, a lot of the American women seem really cautious about walking home alone whereas the Brits aren't worried about it at all. I put it down to having lived in a safe vs not so safe area, maybe?

It highly depends on area. There are unsafe areas in Germany, too. Women are worried, and rightly so, about walking home alone.

The worst I experienced was being hit on by a drunk male, in a "safe" area where he probably would not have dared attack me, but it was highly unpleasant even so.

That said, I do not want to be allowed to carry a gun. Because that would mean the man who attacks me has a gun, too (except if you made a law that only women are allowed to carry guns ...) and it all comes down to who draws the fastest.

I prefer to take my chances with no weapons and a knee to the attacker's genitals if necessary.

chilledwarmth
California has a huge problem with gun crime and has strict gun control laws. Other states have less gun crime, and less gun problems.
Link please.

VestalVirgin, it does not necessarily mean the man who attacks you would also have a gun, and even if he did there's no guarantee he would use it either, I don't know why the anti-gun lobby always jumps to that assumption. And sorry but "it all comes down to who draws the fastest" is rather silly, it's real life not a Western, and I can assure you it's certainly NOT about "who draws the fastest".

Outaboutnowt, you claimed that our current laws aren't working. This shooting happened in a state where they have strict gun control laws. So if laws aren't working, it's the strict laws.

Rousette you said that you don't imagine you are going to be attacked all the time, neither do I, and neither does any other gun owner that I know. It's not a choice between "I will never need to defend myself and I don't need a weapon" or "I will be under constant attack every minute of the day". Most that I know work under the assumption of "I probably won't get attacked but if I do, I've got something to defend myself" which in my opinion is a common sense, and balanced approach. Some of the comments seem to be asking "how many shootings before america changes laws", it's not a case of a specific number of shootings. No number of shootings will ever convince me to change the gun laws, because they almost always happen in places where there are already strict gun control laws, and those laws never prevent the bad guy from shooting people dead. I know you weren't meaning any offence, it's cool, it's also interesting for me to see the views of the other side of the camp, can't say that I agree with it though but it is interesting to read about.

We are obviously a lot nicer than the Americans in the UK. We don't need and don't carry guns (except the occasional farmer and person who hunts pheasants) so when people lose their temper with their spouse which is actually sadly most crime in many countries they only have their fist or a kitchen knife to hand so we tend all to be a lot safer.

This is not the thread for gun control debate however as California has gun control laws already.

If the Americans want to carry arms and vote to do so of course they can choose that. 50% of them believe in the literal truth of the bible and many of them live in huge rural areas. It's just a very different place from the UK. However I am very grateful every day that just about no one has a gun in the UK and we have so few killings.

chilled
This shooting happened in a state where they have strict gun control laws
But you are utterly missing the point that people can buy a gun in Nevada and drive into California with it (but not vegetables which is surreal)
so state by state laws are a bad joke
if it was no longer possible to buy a semi automatic anywhere in the USA
and they had all been handed in as part of a federal amnesty then the mass shootings would cease.

talkinpeace, I am not missing that point. It shows why gun control doesn't work. You make it illegal, the bad guys get the gun from a different source and use it anyway. Make it illegal across the entire US and they will get them from somewhere else. You can't say that "the mass shootings would cease" because you don't have the power to enforce a guarantee, so you aren't in a position to make it. As your own example shows, if it's illegal for the bad guy to get a gun in one place, he'll get it from somewhere else.

A federal amnesty is almost certainly not going to happen because it would put the government in a no win situation. There are lots of Americans who would refuse to comply with a gun amnesty, which means the authorities would face the very real problem of being shot and killed in every house they went into to confiscate. At that point, do the government order the police and the military to start killing civilians who are resisting, or do they back down on the confiscation? Both will destroy any credibility they have as a legitimate government, which is why I'm willing to bet it probably won't happen anytime soon.