Thetownend.com

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

I just can't fathom it

insane.

Crazy, kids getting run over and stuff seems, if very unfortunate, understandable. Some nutter mowing down loads of them indiscriminately is baffling to me.

This seems to be a regular occurance in the US, but they will not change their gun laws as 'everyone has a right to bear arms'.

sadly, it's probably far too late to change anything.

Indeed, by quite a few decades.

If handguns were suddenly made illegal there wouldn't exactly be a rush to hand over existing weapons, the authorities would be lucky to get a fraction of them back.

Those who want a gun will always have a gun regardless of what laws may or may not happen some distant time in the future.

Their gun laws don't make a difference. This happened because of someone's actions. End of the day, laws or no laws if someone wants to go on a rampage they will. They will get the weapon however they see fit. It could happen in any country.

Agreed.

But why does it always seem to happen in America? I can only think of Breivik in recent years that wasn't a yank.

Whom just so happened to have a gun with him.

Exactly.

What a fucking ridiculous statement. If access to guns wasn't as easy as it currently is, the number of shootings like this would be nowhere near as high as it is.

Exactly. The only mass shootings I can think of in this country happened in Hungerford and Dunblane, with the last of those around 20 years ago.

He had a bulletproof vest. Why would a civilian want a bulletproof vest?

Are they going to wear it to work? Wash the car wearing it? Down the pub? Are they going to sleep in it?

Jon Williams BBC foreign editor tweets: Truly shocking: in 2009 (latest yr) 31,347 killed by firearms in US. Almost as many as road accidents (via @MicahZenko)

 

The gunman is named by US media as 24-year-old Ryan Lanza. He is reported to have also killed his mother, who worked at the school.

Reports are saying they have found a body at his home, believed to be his father.

This is why I don't understand how America feels it can police the world when they have such major issues at home to deal with first.

The guns were bought legally apparently

Go and have a lie down

I spent the summer working for republican who claimed that shootings were being engineered by Obama to bring through gun laws.  Cunts like that will still justify these things.  Its so fucking sick.

It's because they have rights. (I've known quite a few Americans)

That bloke up north who went on a rampage with a shot gun, then recently a bloke got shot in the head in Devizes.

The point I'm trying to make is that if someone wants to go on a rampage then they will go on a rampage. They will get the guns anyway possible if that's what they want to do. Yes they are more freely available, but look at the size of the us compared to the uk. There will obviously be more psychopaths over there.

It is a tragic state of affairs in any country, and there is no excuse for it.

Links please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9586076/Manchester-shootings-PC-Bone-laid-to-rest-today.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-18952102

Do for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/gunman-sought-person-shot-dead-whitehaven

this thread has descended into an argument that the UK has as many gun-toting nutters as the US and it's only page 2.

Debate...yes.

Argument...no.

The Devizes shooting was a personal grudge.

I'm struggling to understand how anyone can say that the relaxed gun ownership laws are not a key facilitator for this kind of scenario.

Granted, if a nutter wants a gun he's going to do anything to get one. But at least make it a little more fucking difficult.

de·bate  [dih-beyt]
noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints


ar·gu·ment  [ahr-gyuh-muh nt]  Show IPA
noun
2.
a discussion involving differing points of view; debate

*Pedantry*A debate is an argument *pedantry*

Interesting link Nick. Didn't know about that.

In 2008, in the UK there were 39. If someone has flipped and is intent they will find a gun, but the US makes it very easy in comparison to the UK.

After the shootings at that batman premiere I genuinely heard a pro gun lobbyist saying that the area the cinema was in was one where it was illegal to carry a gun.  If it wasn't illegal someone would have taken him out and it would have all been fine.

Cant argue with that....rather i cant debate that :D

There was probably more deaths by 'friendly fire' by US troops than deaths in the UK.

how many is that per 100,000 people though? the massive difference in population makes comparisons such as those very skewed.


we all love a mass debate now and then...

i'm not convinced that changing gun laws in the US will ever make a difference. the guns are out there, the culture will not change because of a change of law and as instances around the world has proved, these tragic events will still happen.

it's a sad thought.

This is a widely held view in the US.

I am a member if a couple of American Football forums & on one of those they have already pooh pooh'ed the idea of Gun Control in relation to this tragedy & even suggested that IF teachers were allowed to carry guns then that would stop events like this.

They can't comprehend that less guns might equal less shootings.

With the population of the US being around 5 times bigger (Est. 63m v Est. 315m), that would be 195 v 31347 !!

ok, must work on my mathematics.

not arguing the point that more relaxed gun laws are the way forward, i'm just cynical.

I was going to stay out of this but...teachers should be armed?!

Sweet Jesus.  Where do you start with that?

It's amazing to think that instead of having less guns in the classroom...they want more.

What happens then if a teacher decides to take out pupils he/she doesn't like?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-god-didnt-stop-ct-school-shooting-because-hes-gentleman-who-doesnt-go-where-he-not-w

You start by shooting the shooter...i think it is a good idea and would be a deterrent as well i reckon.
I have always though having an armed guard on air flights(plain clothed)would help stop hijackings.

Well it really deterred today's shooter, whom got shot dead. As were others before him.

To answer the question :

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

US 9 per 100,000 (2.98 murders, 5.75 suicide, 0.27 accidental)
UK 0.22 per 100,000 (0.03 murders, 0.16 suicide, 0.01 accidental)

Wonder what the gun murder rate in Britain would be if chavs could buy* guns

*Or get them on tick.

Yep but only after shooting people beforehand.....if a bullet in the head could await you before you made a name for yourself i reckon things may be viewed differently by these crackpots.

Which goes back to the point that the possibility of being shot is not a deterrent.

especially as many shot themselves in the course of the attack

So what happens if a teacher, who has a really bad day,decides to take out a number of pupils who has pissed them off?

There are pros and cons.

Either way, if people are even contemplating having armed teachers then that is one fucked up society.

This.

Oooh. Good point.

that sentence was phrased really badly, sorry

the threat of being shot by an armed teacher/janitor/security guard isn't going to be much of a deterrent as many attackers commit suicide after carrying out the attack.

You put it a little more eloquently than me.

Do you ever sleep, by the way?  What time is it in Bangkok right now...3am?

Almost 4.30 am.

I have clients in the UK and America so I've adapted to their working hours. It's also a perfect excuse for me to make the most of the serenity of everybody else sleeping and therefore not making a fucking racket.

That's all going to change when the next sprog pops out though.

The support staff. Why does no-one ever think of the support staff...

Youre locked in your office playing FM!

Interestingly in China, which has strict gun laws, a similarly deranged man went on the rampage today in a school. Two differences.

Because of the strict gun laws, the weapon of choice was a Knife.

Because it was a knife, rather than a gun, nobody died.

The fact remains that 22 schoolchildren were slashed up, but were the perpetrator readily armed, they wouldn't be with us still

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story

A great example of why Sippo's post is one of the most nonsensical things I've read.

If you wanted to get a gun now, do you think you could get hold of one? I can get some naughty things but a gun is definitely not one of them, I would barely know where to start.

spot on.

Very strange that no one died. If you attacked 22 people with a knife the odds are that one would probably die.

[url width=280 height=280]http://img.dooyoo.co.uk/GB_EN/orig/0/0/4/9/3/49346.jpg[/url]

The same people you get other naughty things might be able to advise i imagine.  What about Farmers? they must all have a gun.

Gun control laws in America would make absolutely no difference anyway, there are too many guns out there in circulation now.

 :hmmm:

[url width=882 height=626]http://i.imgur.com/wWmdo.jpg[/url]

If it were made illegal to own a handgun what sort of pertcentage of the millions of guns do you think would be given up to the authorities?

Im guessing not all that many

I could get you one in 2 hours.We have gun laws here yet gun crime is increasing,we have laws on knives,it does not stop stabbings.Put any law you want in place,you will not stop mentally unstable people doing mentally unstable things.

No, ,you will not stop ALL mentally unstable people doing ALL mentally unstable things.  But you will stop most.  I believe the gun death figures (and homicide figures generally) show that we are right and the USA wrong in this respect.

Yes. But in fairness not everyone knows a dodgy, shady cunt like you...

If anyone hasn't watched it, Bowling for Columbine is an excellent analysis of gun ownership and shootings in the USA.

The problem with blaming it all on their high gun ownership is that it doesn't happen in other countries - it's only the USA that has a high number of gun related homicides. Sure, it doesn't help but there is other stuff going on in the USA that causes it such as the media (for glorifying it) and Government (for making people live in fear).

Can't see it ever changing. The gun lobby is too powerful and too many people stand by the constitution and the amendment providing the right to bear arms.

An American without a gun is like an englishman without a cup of tea

 :D

:D

I agree with the bigger picture about mental health but you do more damage with a gun than you could ever do with a knife. If that guy didn't have a gun and used a knife instead he wouldn't have killed half of those people. He would've been stopped.

The only other thing that would've caused the same (if not more) devastation would be if he used a bomb but again I get the feeling these guys that go on a shooting rampage do so with guns because they feel superior with a weapon and because it's easily obtainable and can cause mass damage in little time and effort.

He didn't have a gun - he had the consumer version of the M16 military assault rifle. If he'd had a gun he wouldn't have killed half the people as he'd have been over powered whilst reloading all the time - you can get 30 bullet cartridges for the AR-15 (which he used).

gun (plural guns)

enPR: gŭn, IPA: /ɡʌn/, X-SAMPA: /gVn/

Rhymes: -ʌn

Noun

Any implement designed to fire a projectile from a tube.

You do come out with the most bizarre comments at times Johnny

It's a strange phrasing but it's pretty clear what he meant, suggesting that a military grade Assault Rifle is the same as a Pistol or something is clearly silly.

"He didn't have a gun"

I think it's pretty clear he's a chump

Is it really? Aren't parts of South America (Columbia?) bad or that just a myth?

Not sure how I could have been much clearer with my "he didn't have a gun" point. It wasn't a handgun, it was the consumer version of the assault rifle that is a weapon of choice for the soldiers of many armies. It's not for self defence, it's not for hunting, it is designed solely to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Sure it's technically still a gun but then using one of the definitions posted above, so is a nuclear submarine.


Not sure about the dodgier countries, I was referring to the countries that are generally safe places to go. Canada has high gun ownership as does at least one of the Scandinavian countries for example, but neither have anything like the homicide rate you get in the USA. Obviously the easy access to guns enables it but on it's own it's not the cause.

Fucking hell  :doh:

Overpowered by who, exactly ?

Do you have the right to bear nuclear submarines in America?

It polarises opinion.

Wasn't my definition of what a gun is.

Submarines fire missiles (projectiles) from tubes. Which apparently means it's a gun.

As, presumably, is a penis? Meets that description quite neatly.

*whom

Thanks, never quite sure on that one.

For starters, and to be a little pedantic, a missile tube IS NOT a gun. A missile is self-propellant. The tube does not fire the missile, it just holds it there and the missile does all the work itself.

Secondly, even if the missile silo was a gun, that does not make a submarine a gun. It makes the submarine a weapons platform. A platform that carries weapons such as missiles, torpedos and, to keep you happy, guns. An attack helicopter is not a gun. A battleship is not a gun. A jet fighter is not a gun. A tank is not a gun. They are all just weapons platforms.

But to keep to the point at hand and assault rifle IS a gun. Of course it fucking is.

I think you'd need to go for the more inclusive term of male genitals due to the role of the testicles.

Though thinking about it, based on some of the videos I've seen you could go for female genitals as well.

The major distinction between countries in Scandinavia and the US is that gun ownership in Scandinavia is solely for hunting and not self-defence. Because of the whole self-defence/right to bear arms thing, gun ownership is massively higher than Norway or Sweden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I'm inclined to agree with the point you make about handguns and assault weapons - it's absolutely insane that you can buy consumer versions of military grade assault rifles, which as you say, are just killing machines.

Really? You have a grammatical Achilles heel? A flaw in your pedantic armour?

"Who" only when it refers to the subject:

"The man who shot me" / "The man from whom I received this wound".

I think you're all getting a little worked up over an inferior definition of gun. Now, if you were to use a proper dictionary,

http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gun (http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gun)
"a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise."

you could be reassured that the weapon involved was indeed a gun, and go back to discussing the real issues. Unless you prefer bollocks of course.

It's a discussion forum dear.

And your definition from your superior dictionary does not explain a self propelled missile. (The type that johnny was clearly referring to)

Anyways....

the laws in America have led to the whole gun culture being pretty much fucked up. It's been said that anybody could get a gun in the UK within two hours. In which case, why is there not more gun crime? The Yanks seem to think it's OK to have guns, even good to have guns. It just is not good to have guns even if they are considered necessary. Even the police in the UK don't want guns, they know they are not a good thing to have.
 
Most people around the world know that guns are in no way good and would much rather keep well clear whereas the yanks want shot guns and assault rifles for 'protection'.

I seem to recall the high gun ownership in Switzerland (?) is related to military service. Not sure the exact reason, maybe they have a lot of reserves and they're all required to have a gun at home - something like that.

There is some peculiarities if you combine the above data with this;

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

Especially around suicide - high gun ownership in western countries also leads to a lot of people shooting themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[url width=900 height=701]http://legalbizzle.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/rjo0604h.jpg[/url]

Well, I'll concede that point, as long as it's the sort of self-propelled missile that comes out of a tube, like the Katyusha, rather than an unhoused one, like the Rapier or Scud.

I always thought a gun's a gun though. Doesn't matter how many bullets it fires per minute. If i get hit by a car and some cunt points out at my funeral that it was a MPV not a car then i'll haunt them from my grave...

What it all essentially boils down to for me, is a law that was introduced to kill bears and British people that no longer applies in the modern age with modern weapons. Home defence is all well and good, but the only reason you need a gun is because the other guy might have a gun. He only might have a gun because the householder he's trying to rob might have a gun. Repeat Ad Nausem.

Get rid of assault weapons. It's not a massive step. No-one can reasonably explain why they need an assualt weapon. Perhaps, maybe, if the giddy thrill of firing one is something that you NEED in your life, then make it so they're kept safe at the Police Station for use by individuals with correct certification, under observation, instead of avaliable for any nutter with some forged papers to buy at a Walmart.

It drives me mental when a yank appears on the TV attempting to justify the RIGHT to buy assault weapons, and that 'no country is going to shame America into withdrawing them'. Us? The rest of the world? We couldn't care fucking less, go, implode on yourself in a riot of school shootings and gun violence for all we care, we just hate seeing 30 children shot by a nutter because some cuntbucket back in the C18th decided it'd be a good idea to build a country based upon the tenant of citizens being ready for invasion at all times. It's the 21st fucking century you cockbags, we don't take a minute and a half to reload our single shot blackpowder weapons anymore, we can kill thousands of people in the space of a minute with a hand-held weapon, or drop a bomb that annihilates entire cities and makes the locale uninhabitable for hundreds of years, what kind of antiquated bullshit is 'being able to have a gun for protection'?

I'm not in a stellar mood today.

Charlie Brooker Newswipe report from 3 years ago about how media coverage is culpable in propagating copycat mass murderers. The longer we continue to obsess over and glamorise these crimes in international media instead of localising these stories to the affected communities the longer these incidents will go on to propagate greater and worse examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

Yeah, just ignoring mass shootings will sort the whole issue right out.

That's not what he's saying. Instead of glorifying the perpetrator into some kind of anti-hero by putting pictures of his face everywhere, the focus should be on depicting the community that has been affected, and how they are grieving, being supported, and will rebuild afterwards.

In the media's defence, this time I cannot remember what the guy looked like. So chalk one up for them.

He looked like a little bit of a loner. In fact I was reading about the Columbine massacre and the 2 that did that looked like loners as well. Be careful who you bully at school in America folks!

Hew was a 'prepper' apparently. Those weirdos that get ready for the new world order and stuff.

HTH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

That's pretty much the same conclusion Michael Moore reached in Bowling for Columbine. Except it was the more general media coverage of crimes, especially glorifying violent ones. Switch on the news and there is loads of coverage of crime in a way you just don't get in other countries, definitely not in the UK.

Not so much him, as his Mum. Which is why she had all the guns and had trained both her kids to use them for "when the balloon goes up and we'll all need guns to defend ourselves". The same guns with which he then murdered her.

The NRA have finally responded. Apparently the Government are to blame for making schools gun free zones, which is equivalent to putting a sign up saying "easy target for gun wielding psychos, come and kill people here". They reckon these types of incident can be prevented in the future by employing armed guards at every school in the US.

Their press release makes a typical Paolo interview look sane and coherent in comparison.

They also said that good guys with guns can kill the bad guys with guns.  Which has worked in Pensylvania tonight where 3 state troopers have been killed by a gunman who was also killed.  Thats bad guys 3 good guys 1 as far as I can see.

they're also blaming Mortal Kombat, a 20 year old game with no guns in

I blame Maze Craze.

https://www.atariage.com/software_page.html?SoftwareID=1141

Funny they were blaming it on violent movies, as though it is only America that watches those movies.

I see two firefighters have been shot dead in the States after responding to a fire...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925

Crazy bastards, shocking.

<NRA>It would not have happened if all firemen have guns<NRA/>

A petition has been sent to the Whitehouse to deport Piers Morgan, because he is anti-guns. Please don't send the prick back to Britain. Here he is making a fool of himself and abandoning reasoned debate for naughty words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaHWBlVzNoc

While I agree with his sentiments he made himself look a right dick (more so than usual) in that interview.

However, what's more ridiculous is the petition. Wanting him deported for voicing his opinion? Really?

Piers Morgan should be the next victim, horrible despicable cunt.
That would make my Christmas

There was a good chance to have a well reasoned debate about guns and that idiot morgan blew it.

He's 100% spot on in this instance.

Although I agree he could have phrased what he said much better.

very democratic, isn't it?

Indeed.

Perhaps somebody should begin a petition to imprison those wanting Morgan deported, because they are attacking the 1st amendment?

I watched that whole interview and that clip has been edited massivley.I can't stand Morgan but based on what that bloke was like for the half hour previously he was bang on.

How do you have a well reasoned debate about guns with someone who is in favour of teachers carrying concealed weapons in classrooms and who thinks arming everyone is the way to reduce gun crime?

The bloke is obviously a republican loon and has some very questionable beliefs and logic related to guns, but at least he debates his points in a vaguely sensible way and responds to the very little that Morgan offers. To throw away the opportunity to expose someone clearly so rife for a grilling and fucking over is a travesty. Paxman would have destroyed him.

Having watched the 12 minute version I think the highlights capture it well enough. Morgan repeatedly shouts over the top of the other guy, tries fickle tactics like making a big deal of the guy laughing (at his interview technique), and ultimately completely fails to corner the guy and get anything other than the usual NRA lines out of him.

Piers Morgan is a walking cunt.

Damned right.  Morgan is an intellectual pygmy; a fat Hugh Grant.  He's got no business wading in to a debate like that...even if his instincts are OK.  He's just given the gun lobby over there another target.