American School Shooting, Newtown.

[Sean1875]

27 dead including 18 children. There are no words to decribe the pure evil it takes to conduct such an act. God help the families and friends of those effected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717

[frazeHFC]

Dad just told me about this, horrific news. :bitchy:

It's just so sad, at least 18 young lives lost because of some crazy individual.

RIP all those who lost their lives.

[Sean1875]

Latest reports suggesting the shooter was 24 years old and he has killed both his parents as well. Unbelieveable.

[Jonnyboy]

Brings Dunblane back to mind, sadly.

[Twiglet]

It's just shocking. I struggle to find words.

I am guider for Rainbows who are 5-7 year old girls. I had just left them after giving them their Christmas party tonight when I got in the car and heard the news. The thought that someone would harm any of my girls in any way makes me so angry and so upset.

What the people are going through over there I can only begin to imagine. My heart is breaking for them. Prayers to all out there.

[SkintHibby]

Sadly, American law provides mad people with the tools to murder en masse.

[twiceinathens]

And already there is the inevitable pro-gun lobby suggesting that the answer is greater access to guns for the general public to defend themselves. How long before they suggest that teachers should carry weapons to protect their classes? Even the restrictions on assault weapons were ruled as unconstitutional.

[SkintHibby]

And on the same day....

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

How many of these would have turned out fatal if this particular mad man had an array of firearms?

[frazeHFC]

Just makes you feel sick, can't imagine if that happened to my brother, feel so much for all the families involved. Would have just been a horrific scene, they need to ban guns.

That China attack is horrible too, pray for all of those kids fighting for their life.

[LeighLoyal]

Just another nut exercising his second amendment rights. BAU.

[Jones28]

How many tragedies like this will it take for America to realise the right to bear arms is becoming more and more dangerous. There was an incident in a shopping centre a couple of days ago in the US aswell, 2 people were killed.


Rest in peace

[hibsbollah]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15885754-boy-4-shoots-self-in-face-with-fathers-gun?lite

This sort of **** happens on a near daily basis in the US. Owning a gun puts everyone at risk.

Back to the OP, the problem is, there could be a dozen children shot in US schools every day and the gun lobby would never change their minds. They will argue that the deaths would have been avoided if you had some well armed security dudes in the primary school.

Sad.

[Fantic]

everyone can see what the problem is but more totally innocent lives have been lost. The politicans are to blame and one day the penny will drop.

Heart breaking.

[DaveF]

Just back from a good night out, turn on the TV and see this.

What the ****......

[Just_Jimmy]

61 mass shootings since columbine.

31 of them in schools.

The casualty list this time is greater than columbine.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I cannot ever see the Americans giving up their right to carry fire arms. I work with rednecks, there would be carnage. The excuse that will be tripped out again is that it is not guns that kill, it is warped people. Sorry, if they did not have the guns then they couldn't do it. Another thing that no American has been able to answer logically. Why are they allowed, in some states, to carry an unconcealed fire arm but will be arrested for carrying a knife? Makes nae sense to me likes. Meanwhile another bunch of poor wee kids are murdered, a community is in mourning and families and parents have to come to some sort of understanding what the hell has happened to their bairns 2 weeks before Christmas.

RIP kids, you have gone to a better place.

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Very sad news to lose your life at such a young age in this manner. RIP.

[Betty Boop]

Yet another terrible school massacre, and the inevitable debate about gun control. However in a country that is so obsessed with the manufacturing and selling of weapons, nothing will change any time soon. My heart goes out to the poor wee innocents and their loved ones, like lambs to the slaughter.

[Beefster]

Just utterly soul-destroying. I can't imagine what the kids of that school went through and how the affected parents are going to cope. Unimaginably tragic.

[Pretty Boy]

Just utterly senseless killing. Difficult to comprehend the how or why.

Why anyone 'needs' a gun is just beyond me.

[Betty Boop]

Concealed weapons permits to reach a million in Florida.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/gubernatorial/concealed-weapon-permits-to-hit-1-million-next-week-in-florida/1265900

[hibsbollah]

Unbelievable stats.

http://bradycenter.org/advocates/god_bless_america_2

[Dinkydoo]

Utterly tragic.

Can't imagine what families will be going through without their little ones this Christmas.

How many times does something like this need to happen before America deals with their ****ing gun problem?

So upsetting.

[(((Fergus)))]

Unbelievable stats.

http://bradycenter.org/advocates/god_bless_america_2

It IS unbelievable to say "guns murdered" as guns are inanimate but that (obvious) point aside, I would prefer to see statistics from a less partisan source.

According to Wikipedia's combined statistics mainly from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the WHO European Detailed Mortality Database and GunPolicy.org, the US has a rate of homicides by firearms of 2.98 persons per 100,000 population per year. That is just above Austria (2.94), Estonia (2.52), Slovenia (2.44) and Belgium (2.43) but lower than:

Croatia: 3.01
Finland: 3.64
Brazil: 18.10
El Salvador (top): 50.36

The UK rate is given at 0.03 homicides per 100,000 although looking over the stats there are approximately 20-50 firearm-related homicides each year, i.e. 0.03 - 0.08 per 100,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

[lyonhibs]

Absolutely ****ing unreal. 26 lives, 20 of them just bairns, gone in a flash.

Obama looked absolutely gutted at the press conference. Maybe some sort of meaningful gun control laws will be imposed, and anyone - NRA, redneck, whoever - who prattles on about their "rights" after this tragedy needs to give themselves a shake.

[HibsMax]

Tragic news. Of course this brings up the gun control debate again but I don't feel that this is the place to have it.

Edit : having seen so many other posts address gun control I feel that airing my views wouldn't be that far out if line. I understand that guns make the task of killing people very easy but that still doesn't explain why so many people go on rampages like this. I truly feel this is the more important issue. Tightening gun control is not a bad idea, I'm not against it, but I also don't think that doing so would eradicate crimes like this. I think it's simply too late to try and fix the problem now because unless everyone agrees to turn in their guns, it's just not going to happen. As long as people have illegal guns, law abiding citizens are going to demand the right to protect themselves from those people. It's a mess.

[hibsbollah]

It IS unbelievable to say "guns murdered" as guns are inanimate but that (obvious) point aside, I would prefer to see statistics from a less partisan source.

According to Wikipedia's combined statistics mainly from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the WHO European Detailed Mortality Database and GunPolicy.org, the US has a rate of homicides by firearms of 2.98 persons per 100,000 population per year. That is just above Austria (2.94), Estonia (2.52), Slovenia (2.44) and Belgium (2.43) but lower than:

Croatia: 3.01
Finland: 3.64
Brazil: 18.10
El Salvador (top): 50.36

The UK rate is given at 0.03 homicides per 100,000 although looking over the stats there are approximately 20-50 firearm-related homicides each year, i.e. 0.03 - 0.08 per 100,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Fergus, I posted a link to an accurate statistic. Your alternative statistical list puts countries with very small populations higher than the US because of the per capita stat line instead of the absolute stat line, but so what? what point is it youre making? Do you doubt that the US has a problem with guns?

My American friends and family, who all have young children, are sick of the situation and want it to change.

[HibsMax]

Fergus, I posted a link to an accurate statistic. Your alternative statistical list puts countries with very small populations higher than the US because of the per capita stat line instead of the absolute stat line, but so what? what point is it youre making? Do you doubt that the US has a problem with guns?

My American friends and family, who all have young children, are sick of the situation and want it to change.

What changes are they proposing? I'm being totally genuine. I want the answers as much as the next person. I'm not some gun-toting maniac, frothing at the mouth because some liberal ******s want more gun control. I'm not a gun owner. I vote democrat. I just really can't see what affect changes to owning guns legally will make to these sorts of crimes. If a person is hellbent on killing someone or a group of people, they will find a way. Driving a car through a crowd of people or making a primitive pipe bomb will have just as devastating effect.

As I said before, I think it's too late. The guns are already out there and people naturally want to be allowed the right to defend themselves against the maniacs who make owning guns legally such a controversial topic in the first place. I know lots of people who own guns. None of them are manic. It's very true that if they ever did snap they would have the tools at their disposal to cause serious harm. But let's say they didn't. Do you think that somehow their inner rage would be quashed? Something like, "I'm really mad at the world, if only I had guns I would kill a bunch of people. Alas, I don't, I'll just go eat a hamburger instead". I doubt that.

I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse and / or insensitive. I just don't see the solution (which is not to say that I am reluctant to hear any and all suggestions).

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Unfortunately i agree with Hibs Max. A deranged person will always find a way of causing carnage. Whether it through guns, knifes, cars or otherwise. Anybody who comits these crimes does not deserve to live. Why is it the cowardly ******* take their own life rather than face the consequences of their actions?

[Hibrandenburg]

Guns give people who flip the chance to instantly act on their whims. Any nutter can have an instant devastating rampage within minutes of wanting to. To say the same thing can be achieved by using a car or building pipe bombs is balderdash.

[lyonhibs]

Unfortunately i agree with Hibs Max. A deranged person will always find a way of causing carnage. Whether it through guns, knifes, cars or otherwise. Anybody who comits these crimes does not deserve to live. Why is it the cowardly ******* take their own life rather than face the consequences of their actions?

This is true, but I don't think the US government can be seen to do nothing. Access to guns has to be made as difficult as possible through the legislative system. That almost certainly won't reduce these horrendous acts to nil, but - in very simple terms - I just don't think the American government can adopt the whole "Oh, **** it all we can't make any real difference" approach that a couple on here - and I imagine in wider society as well - have taken.

Something has to be done to at least try to control access to guns.

[Betty Boop]

This is true, but I don't think the US government can be seen to do nothing. Access to guns has to be made as difficult as possible through the legislative system. That almost certainly won't reduce these horrendous acts to nil, but - in very simple terms - I just don't think the American government can adopt the whole "Oh, **** it all we can't make any real difference" approach that a couple on here - and I imagine in wider society as well - have taken.

Something has to be done to at least try to control access to guns.

Or ammunition.

[Hibbyradge]

Why do we try to restrict the number of countries with nuclear weapons?

Why shouldn't Iran and North Korea be allowed to defend themselves too?

After all, a bomb is an inanimate object, and, just like a gun, it doesn't fire itself.

[Beefster]

I'm normally against thread police but I think it would have been a good thing if this thread had been kept about the murder of all those kids and their teachers and the necessary gun control/nuclear proliferation debates had been done on another thread.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm normally against thread police but I think it would have been a good thing if this thread had been kept about the murder of all those kids and their teachers and the necessary gun control/nuclear proliferation debates had been done on another thread.

I understand your sentiments, but it's difficult to separate the two.

Even the BBC News page discuses the subject directly after a heart breaking video of a father talking about how his daughter used to "light up the room".

Horrible, horrible, horrible tragedy.

[Sir David Gray]

Terrible tragedy.

I will never understand any individual going around and murdering people at random but to deliberately enter a school and then shoot dead all those defenceless young children, who were in one of the places where they should have been safest of all, is just incomprehensible.

How anyone can even think of harming a child of that age is well beyond me.

My thoughts are with the families of all the victims of this awful crime and that also includes the family of the gunman. They also have to come to terms with the loss of his mother, who was one of his victims, and to also accept that a member of their family was one of the biggest mass murderers in modern times in the USA.

It cannot be easy, particularly for his brother who was initially reported by the media to be the perpetrator, to be related to someone who has committed such a dreadful act.

[hibsbollah]

What changes are they proposing? I'm being totally genuine. I want the answers as much as the next person. I'm not some gun-toting maniac, frothing at the mouth because some liberal ******s want more gun control. I'm not a gun owner. I vote democrat. I just really can't see what affect changes to owning guns legally will make to these sorts of crimes. If a person is hellbent on killing someone or a group of people, they will find a way. Driving a car through a crowd of people or making a primitive pipe bomb will have just as devastating effect.

As I said before, I think it's too late. The guns are already out there and people naturally want to be allowed the right to defend themselves against the maniacs who make owning guns legally such a controversial topic in the first place. I know lots of people who own guns. None of them are manic. It's very true that if they ever did snap they would have the tools at their disposal to cause serious harm. But let's say they didn't. Do you think that somehow their inner rage would be quashed? Something like, "I'm really mad at the world, if only I had guns I would kill a bunch of people. Alas, I don't, I'll just go eat a hamburger instead". I doubt that.

I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse and / or insensitive. I just don't see the solution (which is not to say that I am reluctant to hear any and all suggestions).

Legislation shouldn't be difficult, if the political will is there. It sounds like there are developments already, a Democratic senator is launching new gun control laws for debate in January on the first day back, she's tweeted she expects Obamas support. NY Republican mayor Michael Bloomberg was speaking in support of new controls too. 'The NRAs power is vastly overrated' he said on Meet The Press.

On the other hand, Texas Republican Louis Golmert saying the solution to gun control is more guns. he 'wishes to God she (the principal of the school) had a M4 in her office'.

I understand the 'guns are already out there' argument, but theres precedent for gun amnesties working. You could legislate against automatic weapons, expand background checks and limit the amount of weapons one person can own?

The argument that I just can't understand is the 'guns don't kill, people do' argument. Obviously that's in it's basic sense, true, but the inner rage you describe doesn't translate to mass killing without access to guns. It's the immediacy and easy 'delivery' that's the problem.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Mentally ill people are sometimes driven kill ..... the better access to guns the bigger the massacre they will achieve.

The only people in a civilised society who should have access to guns outside of registered controlled gun clubs are policemen ( in certain situations ) and soldiers. in my opinion.

The USA could make a start on the problem by allowing members of the public to own one weapon and to be restricted in the amount of ammunition they are allowed to keep at home. For example .. If you want to keep an automatic pistol for personal protection at home then you should be allowed one magazine of bullets ... If you want to practice then go to a gun club.

If you have a rifle for hunting then that is all you should have, one rifle and not an automatic one either.

As far as I am aware the constitution allows the people to bear arms ..... not to own a bloody arsenal.

If you have one gun with seven bullets you can shoot seven people ... 4 guns with seven bullets each you can kill 28 people. As the Americans are so fond of saying ...' do the math '

The US will never get the public to agree to stop owning guns outright ... but the above might limit the damage.

RIP to those poor kids and their ( according to reports ) heroic teachers.

[GhostofBolivar]

Guns give people who flip the chance to instantly act on their whims. Any nutter can have an instant devastating rampage within minutes of wanting to. To say the same thing can be achieved by using a car or building pipe bombs is balderdash.

Mass shootings tend not to be crimes of passion. They're almost always elaborately planned out in advance and sometimes involve bombs. The two kids responsible for Columbine had over 100 explosive devices with them. So it's not like they don't have the time or motivation to use bombs. It's more likely that bombs don't offer the psychological effects the perpetrator is looking for.

[HibsMax]

Guns give people who flip the chance to instantly act on their whims. Any nutter can have an instant devastating rampage within minutes of wanting to. To say the same thing can be achieved by using a car or building pipe bombs is balderdash.

How is it balderdash? If I wanted to kill someone right now with my car I could do so very easily and there's nothing you or anyone else could do to stop me. If i wanted to kill lots of people then i just need to find a crowded area.

I'm not arguing that guns don't make an attack easy, I say as much above, just saying that the REAL issue is inside the killers head.

[HibsMax]

This is true, but I don't think the US government can be seen to do nothing. Access to guns has to be made as difficult as possible through the legislative system. That almost certainly won't reduce these horrendous acts to nil, but - in very simple terms - I just don't think the American government can adopt the whole "Oh, **** it all we can't make any real difference" approach that a couple on here - and I imagine in wider society as well - have taken.

Something has to be done to at least try to control access to guns.

I agree but the problem with legislation is that you're hoping that it works. Making guns more difficult to come by will definitely affect some people who go about their "mission" using legally obtained guns but there is still the problem with illegally obtained guns. I don't think that any member of the general public should have access to assault weapons. There's no need. And if there is a perceived need, where is the line drawn? Can the public own tanks? Of course not.

Making guns more difficult to get is definitely something that needs to be addressed but I think we also need to find out why these people are snapping in the first place.

[HibsMax]

Why do we try to restrict the number of countries with nuclear weapons?

Why shouldn't Iran and North Korea be allowed to defend themselves too?

After all, a bomb is an inanimate object, and, just like a gun, it doesn't fire itself.

Different topic really but I do appreciate the irony. The USA is allowed to have nuclear weapons and we're the only country to have used them.

Just out of interest, would you feel safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?

[HibsMax]

Legislation shouldn't be difficult, if the political will is there. It sounds like there are developments already, a Democratic senator is launching new gun control laws for debate in January on the first day back, she's tweeted she expects Obamas support. NY Republican mayor Michael Bloomberg was speaking in support of new controls too. 'The NRAs power is vastly overrated' he said on Meet The Press.

On the other hand, Texas Republican Louis Golmert saying the solution to gun control is more guns. he 'wishes to God she (the principal of the school) had a M4 in her office'.

I understand the 'guns are already out there' argument, but theres precedent for gun amnesties working. You could legislate against automatic weapons, expand background checks and limit the amount of weapons one person can own?

The argument that I just can't understand is the 'guns don't kill, people do' argument. Obviously that's in it's basic sense, true, but the inner rage you describe doesn't translate to mass killing without access to guns. It's the immediacy and easy 'delivery' that's the problem.

I agree that legislation shouldn't be hard. But consider this. Let's say that the USA passes a new federal law tomorrow that states gun ownership is 100% illegal and that the entire population has till the end of next year to turn in all their weapons. Does that make America a safer place? I don't think it dies because there's no way in hell everyone is going to hand over their guns. That's what I mean when I say I think it's too late. Of course we should seek ways to make gun ownership more restricted / safe, I'm just not as convinced as others might be that it will fix the problem. If it saves one life then it's worthwhile.

To, perhaps, prove I'm not a total nutcase, I absolutely believe that we should NOT be arming teachers or keeping guns in school. That just means people know they don't need to sneak their own gun into the building! I don't believe more guns is the answer but I do see where those people are coming from, I just happen to strongly disagree with them.

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, when used by me, is not meant to make guns sound like totally harmless objects. That's nonsense. I just say it, repeatedly, because when these horrible things happen people inevitably jump all over America and its gun culture. Why are people not more concerned about our mass murderer culture? That would seem to be the more alarming issue.

[HibsMax]

Mentally ill people are sometimes driven kill ..... the better access to guns the bigger the massacre they will achieve.

The only people in a civilised society who should have access to guns outside of registered controlled gun clubs are policemen ( in certain situations ) and soldiers. in my opinion.

The USA could make a start on the problem by allowing members of the public to own one weapon and to be restricted in the amount of ammunition they are allowed to keep at home. For example .. If you want to keep an automatic pistol for personal protection at home then you should be allowed one magazine of bullets ... If you want to practice then go to a gun club.

If you have a rifle for hunting then that is all you should have, one rifle and not an automatic one either.

As far as I am aware the constitution allows the people to bear arms ..... not to own a bloody arsenal.

If you have one gun with seven bullets you can shoot seven people ... 4 guns with seven bullets each you can kill 28 people. As the Americans are so fond of saying ...' do the math '

The US will never get the public to agree to stop owning guns outright ... but the above might limit the damage.

RIP to those poor kids and their ( according to reports ) heroic teachers.

I agree with everything you said, almost. It's an ideal world scenario. I liken it to the nuclear arms race. Nobody wants to destroy all their nukes because that leaves them feeling defenseless.

The only part I disagree with is I think you need to allow people who live in very rural areas to have a little more leeway. I mean people who share their "back yard" with wild animals. People in cities don't deserve the same concessions though.

I'm a member of a fish and game club so I know lots of hunters. Lots of these guys have multiple weapons, mostly handguns and long guns (shotguns and rifles). I don't know anyone who owns an assault rifle and many of them say "why do you need one?"

In an ideal world things would be setup so this sort of incident would be impossible or near impossible. I'm not arguing against those people calling for changes to make this more likely, I'm just being blunt by saying I don't think it will happen. :(

[RyeSloan]

I agree that legislation shouldn't be hard. But consider this. Let's say that the USA passes a new federal law tomorrow that states gun ownership is 100% illegal and that the entire population has till the end of next year to turn in all their weapons. Does that make America a safer place? I don't think it dies because there's no way in hell everyone is going to hand over their guns. That's what I mean when I say I think it's too late. Of course we should seek ways to make gun ownership more restricted / safe, I'm just not as convinced as others might be that it will fix the problem. If it saves one life then it's worthwhile.

To, perhaps, prove I'm not a total nutcase, I absolutely believe that we should NOT be arming teachers or keeping guns in school. That just means people know they don't need to sneak their own gun into the building! I don't believe more guns is the answer but I do see where those people are coming from, I just happen to strongly disagree with them.

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, when used by me, is not meant to make guns sound like totally harmless objects. That's nonsense. I just say it, repeatedly, because when these horrible things happen people inevitably jump all over America and its gun culture. Why are people not more concerned about our mass murderer culture? That would seem to be the more alarming issue.

Max

Just because something is difficult does not mean it should't be attempted.

As for your last line..maybe the gun culture is facilitating the mass murder culture?

Seems clear to me the American constitution has been warped to fit the gun lobbies wants and needs and these repeated mass shootings are simply a by product of that...having a country awash with guns will result in only one outcome; a country awash with gun related tragedy.

Must admit reading this news brought a tear to my eye...the thought of so many 6 year olds being shot multiple times one after another is hardly conceivable and surely is the closet thing to 'evil' that can be imagined. Words fail me really to describe what I feel about this.

[Sylar]

Newtown's community church has been evacuated over "an unspecified" threat this afternoon.

Quite disgusting that anyone would try and add to the misery of this community, either as a hoax or actual threat of danger.

Also, Sandy Hook is set to be closed and the children redistributed to other schools in the region. Such a shame, as it apparently had a wonderful reputation as an elementary school in the area.

[Sylar]

Seems it's a bomb threat and both SWAT and Bomb Disposal units are on scene.

Unbelievable.

[da-robster]

It IS unbelievable to say "guns murdered" as guns are inanimate but that (obvious) point aside, I would prefer to see statistics from a less partisan source.

According to Wikipedia's combined statistics mainly from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the WHO European Detailed Mortality Database and GunPolicy.org, the US has a rate of homicides by firearms of 2.98 persons per 100,000 population per year. That is just above Austria (2.94), Estonia (2.52), Slovenia (2.44) and Belgium (2.43) but lower than:

Croatia: 3.01
Finland: 3.64
Brazil: 18.10
El Salvador (top): 50.36

The UK rate is given at 0.03 homicides per 100,000 although looking over the stats there are approximately 20-50 firearm-related homicides each year, i.e. 0.03 - 0.08 per 100,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Your US value is just for gun homicides, while all your others are for combined gun deaths (suicides accidents etc) the comparable number for the US is 9, far higher. The US is the highest developed country for gun homicides, suicides and accidents by far.

So your "non partisan" sources basically proves everyone else's point, that gun violence is far higher in the US.

[Hibrandenburg]

How is it balderdash? If I wanted to kill someone right now with my car I could do so very easily and there's nothing you or anyone else could do to stop me. If i wanted to kill lots of people then i just need to find a crowded area.

I'm not arguing that guns don't make an attack easy, I say as much above, just saying that the REAL issue is inside the killers head.

Max, I very much doubt if you wanted to kill me right now that you'd be able to do it in your car. Even if you own a four wheel drive, you'd have difficulty navigating up three flights of stairwell to get at me. Therein lies the crux of the matter. Guns (which are designed for one purpose and one purpose alone, killing) enable someone to do the deed at the place and time of their choosing. In other words it's about power. In addition a gun enables someone to kill someone remotely making it easier for a person to overcome their inhibitions and therefore removing another barrier which may have stopped a distorted person carrying out an atrocity.

I've had enough to do with guns and people with guns to realise that some people have an immediate change of character when holding them. Many people who carry guns illegally have been asked why and almost always the answer includes respect, how ****ing crazy is that?

I agree with you in the fact that it will be almost impossible to implement any law that demands US citizens give up their guns but that shouldn't stop them trying.

Every effort must be made to try and reduce the chances of another sickening tragedy like this latest one from happening again, unfortunately I fear the worst.

[VickMackie]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/16/anonymous-targets-westboro-baptist-church-for-planning-newtown-picket

Apparently those westboro baptist intended to picket the vigils. *****.

[Twa Cairpets]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/16/anonymous-targets-westboro-baptist-church-for-planning-newtown-picket

Apparently those westboro baptist intended to picket the vigils. *****.

Not surprising, but this may be the picket that finally sparks something physical against them.

The military funerals they picket are bad enough, but these are for adults and within an environment of discipline. 20 little kids murdered in a school is emotionally on a different plane. If they do this, there will be violence. Also shows how utterly vile WBC are.

[RyeSloan]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/16/anonymous-targets-westboro-baptist-church-for-planning-newtown-picket

Apparently those westboro baptist intended to picket the vigils. *****.

What vile group they are...on what premise were they planning to 'picket'?

[Sylar]

All schools in Ridgefield and Redding have been locked down in Connecticut due to a "suspicious" person being spotted, considered to be armed.

Edit: seems said person has been spotted carrying a rifle outside a school according to AP reports.

[Hibbyradge]

Different topic really but I do appreciate the irony. The USA is allowed to have nuclear weapons and we're the only country to have used them.

Just out of interest, would you feel safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?

No, of course not, that's my whole point.

I wouldn't feel safer if more people in the UK had guns either.

[Hibrandenburg]

No, of course not, that's my whole point.

I wouldn't feel safer if more people in the UK had guns either.

To be honest I don't feel safe that the US has nuclear weapons when I think who might eventually get their finger on the button, scary!

[Hibbyradge]

To be honest I don't feel safe that the US has nuclear weapons when I think who might eventually get their finger on the button, scary!

Indeed!

[edinburghhibee]

I think this is disgusting and it breaks my heart listening and reading quotes from the families of these poor children. I hope the murdering ****bag rots in hell.

Max, with all due respect, I can't see how you can say that banning guns in America outright will not work at all. I believe that if Obama was to say today "everyone in the US has until the 1st of January to hand in their weapons" you would surely get at the very least half of the guns off the streets?? (Guess figure)

Bring in laws which state that if your caught with a weapon without the proper certificates you will serve 10 year jail term. After a decade or two of this law being implemented strictly, I believe you would have much less of these instances and the US will be safer for it.

To stand back and do nothing is putting the lives of more children and people in general at risk. (This last bit not directed at you max)

[Hibbyradge]

I think this is disgusting and it breaks my heart listening and reading quotes from the families of these poor children. I hope the murdering ****bag rots in hell.

Max, with all due respect, I can't see how you can say that banning guns in America outright will not work at all. I believe that if Obama was to say today "everyone in the US has until the 1st of January to hand in their weapons" you would surely get at the very least half of the guns off the streets?? (Guess figure)



There are approximately 275,000,000 guns in the USA.

That's around 89 guns per 100 people.

Staggering.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg

[twiceinathens]

Just been watching a feed from C span in the USA. Guy from the National Review being interviewed. Depressingly totally unwilling to accept any need to restrict gun ownership. When asked if any civilian needs a 30 round magazine version of the military m16, which appears to be the main weapon used in this massacre, merely states that when the ban on assault rifles was temporarily introduced by Clinton, it had virtually no effect on the levels of gun crime. When asked if he thought that school staff should be armed, said that he thought that "consideration should be given to some individuals should have access to weapons". Indirectly fell back on the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" defence by claiming that the answer might lie in detecting the the mentally instability of the killers.Spend more on treating these individuals.(obviously a desirable issue in its own right)
Now what the Americans do in their country is their business. As a democracy it is up to them how they govern their own society.
As an outsider it appears to me that we have here a mixture of "nobody's going to tell me what to do, and some kind of would be John Wayne philosophy in combination with a paranoic fear of their fellow citizens. Surely the right to bear arms in order for the provision of a militia is an irrelevant anachronism. You have an army, a National guard and a police force.The days of a citizen army to repel the redcoats is long gone.
It appears to me that the fundamental question, to somewhat paraphrase president Obama , is "Do you regard such events as this to be an acceptable price to pay in order that you should maintain the right to carry a weapon of lethal force?"

[edinburghhibee]

There are approximately 275,000,000 guns in the USA.

That's around 89 guns per 100 people.

Staggering.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg

Unbelievable

[Haymaker]

I understand, and agree, with calls for Gun Control however we Britons must remember that Americans have a very different culture to ours and the ownership of guns is deeply ingrained in that culture.

A lot of people I have met would say it isnt about the Right to Bear Arms and all the 2nd amendment, state milita crap but the Right and Freedom to, if you so wish to, own a weapon. It isnt *just* right-wing gun nuts. The culture that they feel they should be able to buy one if they so wished is the bigger barrier than the right wing gun nuts IMO.

[hibsbollah]

I understand, and agree, with calls for Gun Control however we Britons must remember that Americans have a very different culture to ours and the ownership of guns is deeply ingrained in that culture.

A lot of people I have met would say it isnt about the Right to Bear Arms and all the 2nd amendment, state milita crap but the Right and Freedom to, if you so wish to, own a weapon. It isnt *just* right-wing gun nuts. The culture that they feel they should be able to buy one if they so wished is the bigger barrier than the right wing gun nuts IMO.

You're right, there is a cultural difference, and a practical difference too (my friends live up in the mountains in North Carolina and have grizzly bears rooting about in their porch in the winter, so a shotgun for them is a necessity). But theres a big difference between that and the kind of scary arsenal that some people assemble, quite legally. The founding fathers probably didnt have in mind automatic rifles with clips that carry 200 bullets each, when they drew up the second amendment.

[HibsMax]

Max

Just because something is difficult does not mean it should't be attempted.

As for your last line..maybe the gun culture is facilitating the mass murder culture?

Seems clear to me the American constitution has been warped to fit the gun lobbies wants and needs and these repeated mass shootings are simply a by product of that...having a country awash with guns will result in only one outcome; a country awash with gun related tragedy.

Must admit reading this news brought a tear to my eye...the thought of so many 6 year olds being shot multiple times one after another is hardly conceivable and surely is the closet thing to 'evil' that can be imagined. Words fail me really to describe what I feel about this.

I've never said that something shouldn't be attempted. I'm being a doom and gloomer and saying that I think it's too late and that passing more legislature is unlikely to have much of an impact - obviously that is just my opinion and I hope to be proved very wrong. How do you force people to give up all their guns? How do you force people to store their legally owned guns safely? How do you stop someone stealing guns?

I do believe that there are certains types of guns that do not belong in the hands of the general public - assault rifles are at the top of the list. Every state is different but I know that owning something like that in Mass is next to impossible. It's next to impossible to get firearms license in the city of Boston (and it gets progressively easier the farther you get away from the city). A friend recently told me that you can get a gun in Vermont with a driver's license but I haven't verified that for myself.

I would say there should be some sort of cap on the number of weapons you can own too. Some will argue that they are gun enthusiasts and like guns, they like collecting them and they like to fire them at the range. There is nothing wrong with any of that. It's only a problem when one of the minority loses the plot and decides to kill a bunch of innocent people before deciding that it was themself they wanted to kill all along.

It might tough to control ammunition since many people make their own. How? I don't know. Perhaps you can limit the raw materials?

I agaree that access to guns facilitates mass murder, but I don't think it's a root cause, and that's what I think is fundamentally more important. Again, that's just my opinion. The reason that I think it's more important is because I can't see a way of easily removing all the guns from society. If we accept that we can't get rid of, or make safe, all the guns in the country then we need to look somewhere else for the solution.

As for the Constitution, I couldn't agree more, but that's a different part of the same debate. The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago when there was no standing army, there was no police force, guns were single shot and took time to reload, etc. Times have changed and I don't believe that the authors of the Constitution could have even considered what would have happened in the future - and I am sure they would not be happy.





As for your last point....words can't do justice. I think about it over and over and can't comprehend what would make a person do this. If someone is pissed off at the world then seeking help would be the first option. If you're intent on killing yourself, go ahead and do it but don't take anyone else with you. Why should your pain be spread amongst hundreds of others? My concern is that there might be other people out there, people in pain, people who fancy going out with a bang. It's times like this that I wish I was religious and believed in a Heaven and Hell because then I would know that he would be well taken care of in the after life. It just doesn't make any sense.

[HibsMax]

Max, I very much doubt if you wanted to kill me right now that you'd be able to do it in your car. Even if you own a four wheel drive, you'd have difficulty navigating up three flights of stairwell to get at me. Therein lies the crux of the matter. Guns (which are designed for one purpose and one purpose alone, killing) enable someone to do the deed at the place and time of their choosing. In other words it's about power. In addition a gun enables someone to kill someone remotely making it easier for a person to overcome their inhibitions and therefore removing another barrier which may have stopped a distorted person carrying out an atrocity.

I've had enough to do with guns and people with guns to realise that some people have an immediate change of character when holding them. Many people who carry guns illegally have been asked why and almost always the answer includes respect, how ****ing crazy is that?

I agree with you in the fact that it will be almost impossible to implement any law that demands US citizens give up their guns but that shouldn't stop them trying.

Every effort must be made to try and reduce the chances of another sickening tragedy like this latest one from happening again, unfortunately I fear the worst.

You're right, I would find it very hard to kill YOU but who says you're the target? From what I know of these incidents the gun man doesn't really select his targets, he kills indiscriminantly. I couldn't drive my car through school doors, down a hall and into a classroom but I could drive it through a crowd of people somewhere else. I agree with you that guns make killing easier. I think I've said that in almost all of my posts on this matter. That isn't even up for debate. As you said yourself, guns have a single purpose.

[HibsMax]

I think this is disgusting and it breaks my heart listening and reading quotes from the families of these poor children. I hope the murdering ****bag rots in hell.

Max, with all due respect, I can't see how you can say that banning guns in America outright will not work at all. I believe that if Obama was to say today "everyone in the US has until the 1st of January to hand in their weapons" you would surely get at the very least half of the guns off the streets?? (Guess figure)

Bring in laws which state that if your caught with a weapon without the proper certificates you will serve 10 year jail term. After a decade or two of this law being implemented strictly, I believe you would have much less of these instances and the US will be safer for it.

To stand back and do nothing is putting the lives of more children and people in general at risk. (This last bit not directed at you max)

The reason I think it won't work is because I don't think people will hand over their guns. I can't say I KNOW this but I feel so strongly about it that I want to say that. There already enough people out there who want less government in their lives, they don't want any more restrictions put on their "right" to own weapons....you can be damn sure they won't accept "Hand over all your guns". It simply won't happen. One very obvious resaon is that it follows that law-abiding citizens will hand over their guns while criminals won't. Now criminals know that they have less chance of being challenged with deadly force when they go about their business. That's certainly a paranoid perspective but it's still a valid one.

If there was a way to remove all guns from society then I am certainly not going to reject it arbitrarily. Maybe I'm being too narrowminded but I can't figure out what the solution is. I know what the solution isn't. It's not putting guns in teacher's desks. Sure, that might have helped out on Friday but the thought of guns in schools, legally, just scares the crap out of me. One thing that could help prevent this particular sort of incident happening again is to make sure that schools are locked down during the day. But schools are pretty big and that might be tricky. So maybe they limit the access points to the buildings and make sure they are secure.

I think your guess of at least 50% during an amnesty is way off base. I have nothing to back that up with but I would put that number at closer to 10%. Depends on what you mean by "streets" though. Do you mean city dwellers who own guns or everyone? People who live in the middle of nowhere, and hunters, are not likely to hand over their weapons.

[--------]

There are approximately 275,000,000 guns in the USA.

That's around 89 guns per 100 people.

Staggering.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg




On the morning of the Dunblane killings I was up at the local primary school where we were living at the time - in Sutherland.

The headmaster had called an assembly to speak to the chidren and staff (and a few parents) about what had happened, and at one point he asked the kids to raise their hands if their parents had a gun (shotgun, rifle, competition handgun, bazooka, whatever) in the house. He and I were a bit taken aback when three-quarters of the kids raised their hands.

I knew most of those parents, and trust me, there was NO WAY some of them should have been trusted with a firearm. Think of a Highland Scottish culture constructed around drink, guns and masculine machismo, with a few genuinely clinically unbalanced fruitloops thrown in?

The law was changed over here after Dunblane, but that only accounted for the handguns - apart from the ones that weren't handed in, of course. Plenty rifles and shotguns out there, and personally, if I were ever to decide to get my own back on society for long decades of wilful under-appreciation of my all-round unapproachable awesomeness, I'd go for a sawn-off loaded with number one buckshot in a long cartridge. Two barrels of that'll go a long way towards clearing an average-sized room. You don't even have to aim the thing except point it in the general direction. Pump-action reload would be good, too, of course. I'm sure I could find a man in Lanarkshire who could get me one.

Now I KNOW that those last two sentences could be considered as being in extremely poor taste, but it isn't as simple as some of us are trying to make out. It wasn't THAT long ago that a taxi-driver went off the deep end in the Lake District. These things don't happen as often over here, but they do happen. There was the guy in Cardiff who went berserk in his car just recently, too. And not too far away, on the continent of Europe, there was Anders Breivik.

There's an awful lot of guys living in the States with their Constitutionally-justified arsenals. How do you take those weapons away from him? By sending in armed police? The National Guard? The US Marines? And then there are the militias ...

Forcible removal of privately-held firearms could lead to what would in effect be a civil war. Even hitherto law-abiding gun-owners aren't likely to just hand over their weapons without a legal battle.

Radical gun-control in the US would be a very good idea, but the question is, how does the government achieve it without sparking off a running fire-fight from sea to shining sea?

I think we need to listen to Max.

[Hibercelona]

The dangers of anybody having ownership over firearms is that anybody can have a mental breakdown at any moment in their lives, regardless of how mentally stable they may be right now.

I was horrified when I heard about the suggestions of teachers being armed with guns in class rooms.

What if a teacher is having a bad day?

[Haymaker]

You're right, there is a cultural difference, and a practical difference too (my friends live up in the mountains in North Carolina and have grizzly bears rooting about in their porch in the winter, so a shotgun for them is a necessity). But theres a big difference between that and the kind of scary arsenal that some people assemble, quite legally. The founding fathers probably didnt have in mind automatic rifles with clips that carry 200 bullets each, when they drew up the second amendment.

No, they did not. However I read an interview somewhere (it might have been in a newspaper on the train) with one of the Supreme Court Judges who take the view that Americans were told to beware tyrannical Governments and to bear arms. At the time this meant keeping a milita and weapons similar to what a Government Army would muster. Because of that, he argued that Americans should now be allowed, by law, to own heavy weapons including Anti-Aircraft and Anti-Tank missiles. Was a very crazy view.

I also find it strange that most of my Liberal, democrat, left leaning friends in Connecticut are now posting on FB and also saying to me about how it is now their "Social responsibility" to own and carry a firearm.

[HibsMax]

No, they did not. However I read an interview somewhere (it might have been in a newspaper on the train) with one of the Supreme Court Judges who take the view that Americans were told to beware tyrannical Governments and to bear arms. At the time this meant keeping a milita and weapons similar to what a Government Army would muster. Because of that, he argued that Americans should now be allowed, by law, to own heavy weapons including Anti-Aircraft and Anti-Tank missiles. Was a very crazy view.

I also find it strange that most of my Liberal, democrat, left leaning friends in Connecticut are now posting on FB and also saying to me about how it is now their "Social responsibility" to own and carry a firearm.

I read the same article but from months ago. There is something you should keep in mind. It's the job if the Supreme Court to interpret the law. What the judge said was factually correct. Scary but correct. I would need to see if I can find the article again but I don't believe he was actually saying that American citizens SHOULD have access to those weapons, just that the constitution allows for it. That might have been what you were saying anyway. :)

[Haymaker]

I read the same article but from months ago. There is something you should keep in mind. It's the job if the Supreme Court to interpret the law. What the judge said was factually correct. Scary but correct. I would need to see if I can find the article again but I don't believe he was actually saying that American citizens SHOULD have access to those weapons, just that the constitution allows for it. That might have been what you were saying anyway. :)

Yeah that is what I meant! :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

I heard the same guy (I think) talking on the radio after the shooting of that woman congressman last year. I'm pretty sure he was parodying the situation ie-if we take the original bill of rights and their amendments as sacrosanct, if we believe the individual needs to be able to defend themselves against their Govt, and we allow NO room for modern interpretation, then it is the right and perhaps duty of all Americans to get the most up to date weaponry available. That means armour piercing bullets, surface to air missiles, drones, nuclear subs etc.

After all, even a semiautomatic rifle isn't much protection against a US Army tank.

[GhostofBolivar]

I heard the same guy (I think) talking on the radio after the shooting of that woman congressman last year. I'm pretty sure he was parodying the situation ie-if we take the original bill of rights and their amendments as sacrosanct, if we believe the individual needs to be able to defend themselves against their Govt, and we allow NO room for modern interpretation, then it is the right and perhaps duty of all Americans to get the most up to date weaponry available. That means armour piercing bullets, surface to air missiles, drones, nuclear subs etc.

After all, even a semiautomatic rifle isn't much protection against a US Army tank.

The Taliban have done alright...

[--------]

I heard the same guy (I think) talking on the radio after the shooting of that woman congressman last year. I'm pretty sure he was parodying the situation ie-if we take the original bill of rights and their amendments as sacrosanct, if we believe the individual needs to be able to defend themselves against their Govt, and we allow NO room for modern interpretation, then it is the right and perhaps duty of all Americans to get the most up to date weaponry available. That means armour piercing bullets, surface to air missiles, drones, nuclear subs etc.

After all, even a semiautomatic rifle isn't much protection against a US Army tank.


What you need to brew up an Abrams is a Russian RPG-22, according to a pal of mine in the Chaplaincy Department, who got it from a sergeant in the Scots Greys.

The 'insurgents' (why do they always call them that - it's their country, after all) punctured a number of Abrams M1's in Iraq round about 7-8 years ago. This caused a great deal of consternation in the US Army command - the Abrams' armour is supposedly impenetrable. That's what they said about the Bismarck, of course, and look where she is now. From front and side the Abrams is very well-protected, but they do admit to a certain vulnerability to the rear, I think down to the design of the turbine engine's casing. I'll say it before anyone else does - they don't like it up them, and that's exactly where the Iraqis were putting their RPGs..

Later marks, IIRC, were given diesel engines which improved protection but slowed the beasts down. They also put more armour on the front and sides, which helped a lot in one way, but not at all in solving the main problem which was what happened when the Iraqis put a missile up the tank's back-end.

It also slowed it down a bit more.

An RPG-22 apparently burns its way through the armour plating, like a thermal lance only much more powerful. The Russians have apparently sold them to the Iraqis and to the Taliban - which may be what Ghost's referring to - so I'm sure they'd sell them to Second Amendment militias in the States.

I believe that the Chobham armour on the Challenger 2 is quite a lot stronger than what's on the Abrams. There's also a vulnerable 'sill' space between the turret and the chassis of the Abrams - hit him there and he brews up nicely.

Or you can hang half-a-dozen anti-tank mines round your neck and go throw yourself under its tracks. That'll stop it, but it tends to have a slightly 'negatory' effect on YOUR state of health.

[HibsMax]

What you need to brew up an Abrams is a Russian RPG-22, according to a pal of mine in the Chaplaincy Department, who got it from a sergeant in the Scots Greys.

The 'insurgents' (why do they always call them that - it's their country, after all) punctured a number of Abrams M1's in Iraq round about 7-8 years ago. This caused a great deal of consternation in the US Army command - the Abrams' armour is supposedly impenetrable. That's what they said about the Bismarck, of course, and look where she is now. From front and side the Abrams is very well-protected, but they do admit to a certain vulnerability to the rear, I think down to the design of the turbine engine's casing. I'll say it before anyone else does - they don't like it up them, and that's exactly where the Iraqis were putting their RPGs..

Later marks, IIRC, were given diesel engines which improved protection but slowed the beasts down. They also put more armour on the front and sides, which helped a lot in one way, but not at all in solving the main problem which was what happened when the Iraqis put a missile up the tank's back-end.

It also slowed it down a bit more.

An RPG-22 apparently burns its way through the armour plating, like a thermal lance only much more powerful. The Russians have apparently sold them to the Iraqis and to the Taliban - which may be what Ghost's referring to - so I'm sure they'd sell them to Second Amendment militias in the States.

I believe that the Chobham armour on the Challenger 2 is quite a lot stronger than what's on the Abrams. There's also a vulnerable 'sill' space between the turret and the chassis of the Abrams - hit him there and he brews up nicely.

Or you can hang half-a-dozen anti-tank mines round your neck and go throw yourself under its tracks. That'll stop it, but it tends to have a slightly 'negatory' effect on YOUR state of health.

I saw a show a couple of years back on the military channel about tank armour and I forget what tank they were talking about but one from the UK was able to withstand RPG attacks at point blank range (this was documented in the field - the tank was disabled with the guys inside but the tank took it and they all survived). They discussed the armour in brief since it's obviously a secret and it's simply amazing what they do. If you (not "you") think that a tank's armour is just thick metal, think again. Amazing.

EDIT : I hope nobody takes offense at the direction this thread has taken - none is meant. I will happily shut my mouth and take this to another thread.

[RyeSloan]

I saw a show a couple of years back on the military channel about tank armour and I forget what tank they were talking about but one from the UK was able to withstand RPG attacks at point blank range (this was documented in the field - the tank was disabled with the guys inside but the tank took it and they all survived). They discussed the armour in brief since it's obviously a secret and it's simply amazing what they do. If you (not "you") think that a tank's armour is just thick metal, think again. Amazing.

EDIT : I hope nobody takes offense at the direction this thread has taken - none is meant. I will happily shut my mouth and take this to another thread.

I think threads are allowed to diverge from the OP.

The M1 is a bit of a relic and while probably still very capable in 'normal' warfare is vulnerable to IED's due to it's aged design. In particular it's flat bottom is an obvious weakness.

As ever it would seem political moves are preventing the Americans from retiring the tank in favour of a design based on taking account of the dangers such a vehicle will face in a more unorthodox war compared to what it was designed for....quite amazing how much influence the producers of weapons have in choosing the Pentagons arsenal for it. That said the Yanks have been developing MRAP vehicles for some time, as a direct consequence of their experiences in Iraq etc, and have had noted success in reducing IED deaths in their newer vehicles.

[--------]

I saw a show a couple of years back on the military channel about tank armour and I forget what tank they were talking about but one from the UK was able to withstand RPG attacks at point blank range (this was documented in the field - the tank was disabled with the guys inside but the tank took it and they all survived). They discussed the armour in brief since it's obviously a secret and it's simply amazing what they do. If you (not "you") think that a tank's armour is just thick metal, think again. Amazing.

EDIT : I hope nobody takes offense at the direction this thread has taken - none is meant. I will happily shut my mouth and take this to another thread.

Yup. One of the odd things my padre pal said was that while the RPG penetrated the Abrams armour, it didn't kill the gys inside - it's as if it expended its force in getting inside, and had nothing left once it got there.

The conversation took place after Eddie had been on a week's course down in England - the Greys guys were there, as were some guys from a US Army armoured division, and the usual pissing contest has ensued in the mess after hours.

Suffice to ssay i wouldn't really want to meet either an Abrams OR a Challenger coming up the Main Street of the Caldera.

[twiceinathens]

4 presidents assassinated. 6 serious firearms assaults survived.
In 2007 12632 homicides and 17352 suicides(these people of course would have found other means of eliminating themselves of course).
52,497 deliberate and 23,237 accidental (would these casualties have found some other means of injuring themselves?)injuries.
And the NRA's answer. Decent gun owners are being " demonised" and it's all down to computer games and the media.
The answer is .....MORE GUNS
Armed guards in schools.
And what happens if a guard turns rogue, as in blue on blue in Afghanistan.
I have a son who lives in America at the moment and on visits there I have found the people friendly and much to be admired there, but when it comes to gun ownership I am baffled.
The key seems to be MY RIGHT to bear arms is paramount.

[HibsMax]

4 presidents assassinated. 6 serious firearms assaults survived.
In 2007 12632 homicides and 17352 suicides(these people of course would have found other means of eliminating themselves of course).
52,497 deliberate and 23,237 accidental (would these casualties have found some other means of injuring themselves?)injuries.
And the NRA's answer. Decent gun owners are being " demonised" and it's all down to computer games and the media.
The answer is .....MORE GUNS
Armed guards in schools.
And what happens if a guard turns rogue, as in blue on blue in Afghanistan.
I have a son who lives in America at the moment and on visits there I have found the people friendly and much to be admired there, but when it comes to gun ownership I am baffled.
The key seems to be MY RIGHT to bear arms is paramount.

Love them or loathe them, I do neither, but strictly speaking they're right. Decent, law-abiding gun owners are very much in the majority. Should law-abiding drivers be tarred with the same brush as drunk drivers? Of course not. Should we ban cars because of drunk drivers or accidental deaths? Again, no. I understand that theses are very different demographics but I think they can be discussed together. While a drunk driver doesn't go out of his way to kill people he's taking risks that shouldn't be taken. Sometimes these risks end up with death(s). We rarely hear about these incidents unless its someone famous, or local.

Obviously weapon ownership and driving cannot be compared equally. It's not apples to apples but its not apples to bricks either.

When there is a mass shooting, people are all over gun laws.

When there is a prominent alcohol-related car death, we look at the person - never the car. Never the alcohol they were drinking. I'm speaking in terms of blame and requirements for stricter control. Habitual drunk drivers might have their cars fitted with breathalyzers but maybe all cars should have them? All guns have safety features. Different topic but I don't know how habitual and drunk driver can even coexist in the same sentence - why aren't they banned for life?

Cars and guns are both very dangerous when misused. Both are equally as safe when used responsibly.

I would wager that more people per year are killed with cars than guns on a yearly basis (although I just read an article that says those numbers are projected to swap by 2015 - the number of deaths by gun does not include suicides though).

I'm not trying to hammer home any agenda. I'm just trying to say that I can easily see why good, honest gun owners feel the way they do.

[twiceinathens]

Because it appears to me that there are too many easily accessible guns I am "demonising" gun owners in general? Hardly a logical assumption. Do I believe that guns can be eliminated overnight? Of course not. But what is depressing is the apparent belief from a fairly substantial section of the population that there is a need to take any steps to reduce the volume of weapons in existence. Why is it that the US has such a high ratio of gun deaths per thousand of population of countries not involved in war/civil war?

[Beefster]

Should we ban cars because of drunk drivers or accidental deaths? Again, no. I understand that theses are very different demographics but I think they can be discussed together. While a drunk driver doesn't go out of his way to kill people he's taking risks that shouldn't be taken. Sometimes these risks end up with death(s). We rarely hear about these incidents unless its someone famous, or local.

Obviously weapon ownership and driving cannot be compared equally. It's not apples to apples but its not apples to bricks either.

When there is a mass shooting, people are all over gun laws.

When there is a prominent alcohol-related car death, we look at the person - never the car. Never the alcohol they were drinking. I'm speaking in terms of blame and requirements for stricter control. Habitual drunk drivers might have their cars fitted with breathalyzers but maybe all cars should have them? All guns have safety features. Different topic but I don't know how habitual and drunk driver can even coexist in the same sentence - why aren't they banned for life?

Cars and guns are both very dangerous when misused. Both are equally as safe when used responsibly.

I would wager that more people per year are killed with cars than guns on a yearly basis (although I just read an article that says those numbers are projected to swap by 2015 - the number of deaths by gun does not include suicides though).

I'm not trying to hammer home any agenda. I'm just trying to say that I can easily see why good, honest gun owners feel the way they do.

I use a car safely every day to transport me and my family around. What practical purpose is there for a safely-used gun? I think that's why it's completely pointless comparing cars and guns. Guns and radioactive waste might be a more realistic comparison. Both pointless and safe if handled in the right way but easy to be mishandled.

FWIW, I'm not instinctively opposed to gun ownership but there comes a point when society suffers more than it benefits from something. Action then needs taken.

[HibsMax]

I use a car safely every day to transport me and my family around. What practical purpose is there for a safely-used gun? I think that's why it's completely pointless comparing cars and guns. Guns and radioactive waste might be a more realistic comparison. Both pointless and safe if handled in the right way but easy to be mishandled.

FWIW, I'm not instinctively opposed to gun ownership but there comes a point when society suffers more than it benefits from something. Action then needs taken.

Hunting, recreational shooting and sports are three uses I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm not really trying to compare gun and car ownership. I'm just saying that when guns are misused they get a lot more attention than, say, cars.

[HibsMax]

Because it appears to me that there are too many easily accessible guns I am "demonising" gun owners in general? Hardly a logical assumption. Do I believe that guns can be eliminated overnight? Of course not. But what is depressing is the apparent belief from a fairly substantial section of the population that there is a need to take any steps to reduce the volume of weapons in existence. Why is it that the US has such a high ratio of gun deaths per thousand of population of countries not involved in war/civil war?

Who said YOU are guilty of demonising anyone? If you're talking about the NRA, I wouldn't listen to them for an unbiased opinion.

Obviously the number if gun-related deaths is related to the number of guns. That makes sense. No guns, no shootings if you look at one end of the spectrum.

I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from but the feeling I have is that the majority of people do want stricter gun control. Your post makes it sound like the majority of people feel the other way - the assumption I'm making is "fairly substantial = majority".

[twiceinathens]

Who said YOU are guilty of demonising anyone? If you're talking about the NRA, I wouldn't listen to them for an unbiased opinion.

Obviously the number if gun-related deaths is related to the number of guns. That makes sense. No guns, no shootings if you look at one end of the spectrum.

I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from but the feeling I have is that the majority of people do want stricter gun control. Your post makes it sound like the majority of people feel the other way - the assumption I'm making is "fairly substantial = majority".

Can I first of all state that I recognise that I am making comment on a situation which I am observing from a distance, but having made observations from a number of visits to visits to my son in recent years, enhanced by following the political situation through media of various kinds and political bias.
As a non USA citizen I also recognise that what happens in the states is for you to choose.
The statistics come from the United nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
My reference to demonising meant that it would seem that for the NRA by questioning access to guns I would be classed as "demonising all gun owners.
When I say "fairly substantial" I mean a significant number.
Apologies for any lack of clarity in what has been a pretty civilsed analysis of a complex issue.
With regard to the highlighted section of your quote does this mean that you believe a reduction in the number of guns available would reduce the number of deaths?

[VickMackie]

I read that some bikers turned up to stop those ***** from the WB church getting to funerals. Pitt they didnt know the ***** put of them.

[Hibs Class]

I read that some bikers turned up to stop those ***** from the WB church getting to funerals. Pitt they didnt know the ***** put of them.

Presumably without predictive text and the swear filter this post would have made sense? :greengrin

[VickMackie]

Presumably without predictive text and the swear filter this post would have made sense? :greengrin

Marshmallows. :greengrin

[VickMackie]

http://m.sodahead.com/living/bikers-stop-protest-by-westboro-baptistgood-job/question-3408613/


This is what I meant. You can probably think of the sweary bits.

[twiceinathens]

And now another two dead and two wounded. This time a result of volunteer firemen being deliberately lured into an ambush. Seems the shooter had mental health issues, so no doubt the gun was purely incidental again.

[heretoday]

And now another two dead and two wounded. This time a result of volunteer firemen being deliberately lured into an ambush. Seems the shooter had mental health issues, so no doubt the gun was purely incidental again.

Presumably the NRA will now be advocating that firemen should be armed to the teeth when they go out. So that's teachers, firemen.......what's next? Posties?

[cabbageandribs1875]

always wanted to visit the good old US of A one day...i think i'l opt for safer climes, somalia appears a better option lately

[Hibrandenburg]

Presumably the NRA will now be advocating that firemen should be armed to the teeth when they go out. So that's teachers, firemen.......what's next? Posties?

The NRA would insist that kids need to be armed if ever a teacher went nuts. I don't get it, I just don't get it.

[heretoday]

The NRA would insist that kids need to be armed if ever a teacher went nuts. I don't get it, I just don't get it.

I think what's happening is that the NRA and gun lobby are getting their retaliation in quick, knowing that the general tide of media opinion is one of revulsion at the glut of firearms about.

The janitor and some of the teachers at my school would like to have been armed, I reckon.

[HibsMax]

Can I first of all state that I recognise that I am making comment on a situation which I am observing from a distance, but having made observations from a number of visits to visits to my son in recent years, enhanced by following the political situation through media of various kinds and political bias.
As a non USA citizen I also recognise that what happens in the states is for you to choose.
The statistics come from the United nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
My reference to demonising meant that it would seem that for the NRA by questioning access to guns I would be classed as "demonising all gun owners.
When I say "fairly substantial" I mean a significant number.
Apologies for any lack of clarity in what has been a pretty civilsed analysis of a complex issue.
With regard to the highlighted section of your quote does this mean that you believe a reduction in the number of guns available would reduce the number of deaths?

Sorry for the delay but I've been on holiday and I've been sick as well.

You ask a very good and important question. I think it follows that if you reduce the number of guns on the streets that the number of deaths will also drop but I don't think there is a 1-1 correlation. It depends on how many deaths (I'm really talking about murders, not accidents or suicides) are committed with legally owned vs. illegally owned guns. I say that because it doesn't matter what laws you put in place since illegally owned guns aren't procured via legal means.

I saw a number posted earlier in this thread, I think, stating that there are 285 million guns in the USA. If that number was 142.5 million, would the number of deaths be halved as well? Maybe, maybe now....I don't know and can't say for certain but I don't believe so. Again I am talking about murders.

There are many facets to this problem, three of which are highly important : (a) how "easy" it is for a lunatic to get guns legally, (b) what sort of guns are readily available to the public, and (c) how well people secure their guns. If everyone securedtheir guns correctly then there would be less murders - with Newtown, CT being an excellent example (the kid tried and failed to buy his own gun(s) before taking his mother's).

Also, when I am talking about murders I am talking about very specific types e.g, not those involving gangs or organised crime which "typically" only affect those involved rather than innocents.


So to answer your question, sort of, I think if we continue to flood society with more guns then we won't reduce the number of murders because there will be more guns available to people who want to get them illegally (this assumes that people continue to keep their guns unsecured). If we reduce the number of guns then I think the murder rate could drop but don't look for a straight line. I could see lots of people giving up their legally owned weapons becoming sitting ducks for criminals who want to take advantage of the new imbalance of power (which is why I don't think many Americans would every turn over their weapons). So a 10% drop in gun ownership could result in a 0.5% increase in homicides. But if we continue then I would say that once we get past some hump / boundary, we would see a marked reduction in gun-related crime but I would expect that more than 50% of Americans would have to turn in their guns for us to see that happening. And that's just not going to happen. And that number, 50%, would probably need to be much higher.

[hibsbollah]

Obama launches most radical gun proposals since the 1960s, NRA promises 'fight of the century'...

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/16/obama-gun-control-plan-nra

[Beefster]

Obama launches most radical gun proposals since the 1960s, NRA promises 'fight of the century'...

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/16/obama-gun-control-plan-nra

The NRA collectively are ****ing lunatics.

[hibsbollah]

A fascinating time to be an American politics watcher. Unlike in this country theres a proper, partisan schism in the States on this issue (and quite a few others). Obama needs to be brave here.

[RyeSloan]

A fascinating time to be an American politics watcher. Unlike in this country theres a proper, partisan schism in the States on this issue (and quite a few others). Obama needs to be brave here.

Faced with NRA logic like this he's gonna have some battle on his hands: "keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority". "Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."

[Speedy]

Faced with NRA logic like this he's gonna have some battle on his hands: "keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority". "Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."

Despite dramatising their point with a 'please think of the children' view, the bit in bold is actually a very good point imo.

How exactly do you get all the guns back from the nutjobs and criminals? It's going to be a very difficult, and probably costly, task.

Edit: I don't really have a view either way, it's not something that I care that much about.

[Jonnyboy]

According to the NRA, whose membership is apparently going up substantially, Obama is taking the p!sh given that his own kids are guarded by armed security staff

I know it's unfair to brand a whole nation due to the actions of some, but it's helluva hard not to on this occasion

[HibsMax]

Despite dramatising their point with a 'please think of the children' view, the bit in bold is actually a very good point imo.

How exactly do you get all the guns back from the nutjobs and criminals? It's going to be a very difficult, and probably costly, task.

Edit: I don't really have a view either way, it's not something that I care that much about.

Agreed 100%. While I am not against changing gun laws we have to remember the laws only affect people who abide by them. I would love to hear the argument against that.

Take the CT shooting. The crime was committed by a person who obtained weapons illegally - even if you don't consider stealing from your own mother as illegal (I'm assuming that most people consider killing your own mother as being illegal).

It's a really problematic issue that, IMO, cannot be solved by people who are only interested in spouting their own agenda.

[HibsMax]

Here's a question for you. How many people do you think have been killed by a gun since the Newtown shooting? Try and guess before you click on the link below. Clue, even though I am about to tell you that you won't believe the answer, you'll still guess too low.

LINK (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html)

[Hibrandenburg]

Here's a question for you. How many people do you think have been killed by a gun since the Newtown shooting? Try and guess before you click on the link below. Clue, even though I am about to tell you that you won't believe the answer, you'll still guess too low.

LINK (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html)

****ing mental.

[Jonnyboy]

There are some really sick minded people on this planet

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/09/british-man-arrested-after-facebook-threat_n_2650935.html?ref=topbar

[Sir David Gray]

There are some really sick minded people on this planet

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/09/british-man-arrested-after-facebook-threat_n_2650935.html?ref=topbar

I saw this on the news earlier today.

Words fail me to be honest, it just beggars belief that someone can think that doing something like that is even remotely funny.

I hope this is dealt with very seriously and he is locked away for a considerable amount of time.

[Sir David Gray]

Here's a question for you. How many people do you think have been killed by a gun since the Newtown shooting? Try and guess before you click on the link below. Clue, even though I am about to tell you that you won't believe the answer, you'll still guess too low.

LINK (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html)

Shocking.

I was hearing on the news as well that over 40 people have died already this year in Chicago alone from gunshot wounds.

More than 40 people in just over a month in a single city.

It's hard to contemplate that, particularly when that's the sort of figure we would expect to see over a whole year in the UK.

[RyeSloan]

Shocking.

I was hearing on the news as well that over 40 people have died already this year in Chicago alone from gunshot wounds.

More than 40 people in just over a month in a single city.

It's hard to contemplate that, particularly when that's the sort of figure we would expect to see over a whole year in the UK.

And death by firearm in Scotland is almost unheard of...gun homicides per year are single figures with a rate per 100,000 of 0.04 or thereabouts.

The USA has a rate of anything between 3.5 and 4 so in simple terms you are 100 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the US compared to Scotland.

That said some of the gun crime rates in the likes of South America and South Africa are truely staggering. Brazil for example has a rate approaching 20 per 100,000.

[HibsMax]

Here's a question for you. How many people do you think have been killed by a gun since the Newtown shooting? Try and guess before you click on the link below. Clue, even though I am about to tell you that you won't believe the answer, you'll still guess too low.

LINK (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html)

Since I posted this less than two weeks ago, more than 300 people have died. I had no idea that death by gun was quite as rampant as this. That doesn't change my opinion on gun ownership (in general) but it is eye opening.

[twiceinathens]

And inevitably South Dakota has passed a law allowing teachers to carry guns.:crazy: Very generously no teacher will actually be required to take up the opportunity!

[LeighLoyal]

I wouldn't have trusted some of the idiot teachers I had at school with a tatty peeler, never mind a gun.

[HibsMax]

And inevitably South Dakota has passed a law allowing teachers to carry guns.:crazy: Very generously no teacher will actually be required to take up the opportunity!

Excellent! So now we're just waiting on the first teacher to have a meltdown and shoot a bunch of kids.

[Hibrandenburg]

Excellent! So now we're just waiting on the first teacher to have a meltdown and shoot a bunch of kids.

It will definitely happen, the where is now known it's only a matter of when.

[Pete]

Just started watching a panorama program about this and couldn't continue as it started going into the lives of kids who died. Just heartbreaking thinking about how they died and what was going through their minds.

I did go back to it eventually and it was talking about gun shows and how easy it is to get assault rifles. Assault rifles FFS!

The argument for bearing arms would be a lot more digestible if it didn't include these weapons which are totally unnecessary! You could defend yourself in your home with a hand pistol but why would anyone need one of these things that are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible in theaters of war?

In a country that's probably irreversibly saturated with firearms, there has to be a happy medium to be aimed for.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Allegedly a member of staff at an educational unit in Suffolk held a gun to the head of a pupil according to BBC News, just shows that there are nutters everywhere.

[Jones28]

The link above is heartbreaking, the number of children killed is horrific

[hibsbollah]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21849814

Well thats that over with then :rolleyes:

Most Americans want a ban on assault rifles, but the NRA has obviously been exerting pressure on the senators...

[VickMackie]

Just started watching a panorama program about this and couldn't continue as it started going into the lives of kids who died. Just heartbreaking thinking about how they died and what was going through their minds.

I did go back to it eventually and it was talking about gun shows and how easy it is to get assault rifles. Assault rifles FFS!

The argument for bearing arms would be a lot more digestible if it didn't include these weapons which are totally unnecessary! You could defend yourself in your home with a hand pistol but why would anyone need one of these things that are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible in theaters of war?

In a country that's probably irreversibly saturated with firearms, there has to be a happy medium to be aimed for.

I switched it off after 10 minutes. Couldn't watch.

Apparently the gun arguement isn't for home protection, it's protection against the government in case they everr try and suppress the masses. I read that some civilians even want access to military hardware!