Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 26 minutes ago NRA makes first statement following CT school shooting Posted by CNN Political Unit (CNN) - The National Rifle Association said in a statement Tuesday it was "shocked, saddened and heartbroken" by news of the elementary school shooting in Connecticut. It said it is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again." The group explained its several days of silence was "out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency." It is the most prominent national gun rights group and spent $17 million this year on federal elections. Since Friday's shooting, several legislators have said they plan to submit, support, or consider strengthened federal gun legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Actually it is the point! wearing a seatbelt in the UK is a legal requirement like a helmet for bikers, not a legal requirement in all US states (bike helmet)? Not the point I was responding to though. You asked whether the chap who kept a Glock next to his bed had ever been burgled by armed intruders. He hadn't. I haven't been in a potentially fatal crash or one which would cause me severe injury yet I still wear a seat belt. The fact that it is a requirement is irrelavent as I would wear it anyway. The fact that society has forced me to wear it shows that the principle of prevention against a relatively unlikely event is a sensible course of action. Plenty of people don't wear seatbelts, and still survive crashes but wearing a seatbelt increases your chance of survival in crash. Owning a gun does not reduce the chance of you being burgled or of you being shot at it. The evidence would suggest it actually increases it! The point being made was one of being the victim of a violent burglary where violent burglary is more common than elsewhere. It may still be less than common (less tha 50%) but the result may be personally devastating. If its very unlikely to happen (like the UK) then you might take the risk but if there is even a 5% chance of being the victim of a burglary in which you will have the **** kicked out of you then why is it unreasonable to have a means to stop your attacker? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) The thing is though; does the USA have a higher suicide rate than elsewhere? J. According to https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=phNtm3LmDZEMqSKSyVkWcWw Much lower than places like Japan where firearms are very rare in private hands (but suicide is cukturally significant)........... Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house? If so, why? How many times did you have to put out a fire? How many times has your house caught fire? I do and in my car the car i put out once...... however statistically the same is true its unlikely to be used. I agree but the fire extinguisher has 0% chance of causing a fire.And very unlikely to kill someone if misused or handled by a child or inexperienced user..... Edited December 18, 2012 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 read the quote again mate i said WE ALL HAVE LESSONS TO LEARN EVEN THE UK we do not have perfect 100% gunlaws You posted the above not me. I think its a fair question to ask what lessons we have to learn in the UK if you can't or won't answer that's up to you. PS To say we all have lessons to learn and not be able to give examples doesn't make sense. I would be interested to know what lessons we have to learn in your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Like Labour did? Oh yes. Precisely and exactly like Labour did. http://www.smallarms...annexe-4-EN.pdf On these 2007 figures not true although very high for finland. Brazil however is very low. The issue is some numbers are estimates some include military weapons (Switzerland) and none accurately reflect the numbers of illegally held firearms. Brazil has very low levels of legal gun ownership and staggering levels of deaths by shooting. The figures for Switzerland may show 'military' weapons but lots of them are possessed by private individuals as part of their military service. They are not kept in military armouries. I was talking to a chap from Norway the other day, they have a similar system. Lots of people in Norway keep military firearms at home, including full-autos as they are military reservists. Apparently, the police do not know where any of these guns are or who has them as they are recorded in military records not civilian police ones. Presumably this is so that in the event of the country being invaded the police cannot be instructed to go and seize them as they don't knwo where they are. With firearms or in general? In general. If they don't then it suggets that the availability of firearms doesn't drive the suicide rate. Japan has a huge rate of suicide yet virtually none are comitted with firerms. Scandinavian countries have higher rates than other places in Europe but not excessively so with firearms even though they have quite high rates of firarm ownership. J. Edited December 18, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweedledee Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Any political party that tries to implement change in the states will commit suicide .simple as. Obama is the worst president for being both anti gun and anti America. Think they need to look into the use of violent video games . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 One of the two American women interviewed on the J.Vine show today told of how it had actually been seriously suggested (by whom I don't know as I didn't catch the entire piece) following the shootings, that children as young as 8 should be armed! Neither of the two women were in favour of a ban,neither of them could see how a ban would work,and both of them were in favour of being armed depending on where abouts in the States they happened to be. One of them did think it was worth mentioning however, that Government funding towards mental health issues had been severly cut back, if not scrapped, in 1985(?) and she suggested this was an issue worth examination,(as I've said before,mentally stable people do not indulge in shooting sprees) and also,that at Gun Shows,dependant on State,guns could be bought without any personal background checks whatsoever. I remember reading in a 'Guns and Ammo' magazine some years ago about the US military sending their trainee surgeons to Washington DC hospitals to gain experience in treating gunshot wounds as they occurred there on a daily basis.Apparently DC is STILL the guncrime capital of the USA according to one of the two women,despite DC having some of the USA's most severe restrictions on the private ownership of firearms. There are no easy answers,but to consider a ban as the cure(especially in the USA) is naive beyond belief.Politicians will repeatedly moot the idea to the general public however,as they are then deemed to be 'doing something',as 'something' must be done.Don't underestimate a politicians capacity to score brownie points,whatever the situation. Does anybody know how many people have been killed on mainland Britain with handguns since the handgun ban?' If the answer is one or more,then it hasn't worked.If the answer is 35 then is this considered acceptable,and that the ban has worked, because they were all isolated incidents?When does the number of isolated incidents become unnacceptable,and people consider that the ban obviously hasn't worked? Ban all the guns you want,but there's far more to this issue than simply guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Any political party that tries to implement change in the states will commit suicide .simple as. Obama is the worst president for being both anti gun and anti America. Think they need to look into the use of violent video games . Alas, as far as Obama's concerned, the facts simply don't support your wholly unsubstantiated opinion. Care to offer us any facts to support the next one? That said, I'm with you four-square on the unfettered access to shoot-'em-up video games for kids. If your kid's daily diet doesn't extend beyond how many different ways you can annihilate other 'human beings', then it is unlikely that there is no correlation between your diet, and how your relationships with other people develop. It's an old adage, but an apposite one here: **** in, **** out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Scholl Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Here's an interesting article on gun ownership rates and political affiliation in the US. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 By definition, mass shootings can and do happen randomly - so by your model the US would have to become a completely militarised society (indeed more so than it already is), just on the off-chance that they didn't get a predictably metronomic visit from the next tooled-up loon having a bad hair day. Your plans are both unworkable and unpragmatic - and they'd lead to more deaths. They do not happen randomly at all. If they did then we would see an equal number taking place (or at least attempted) in places where people were likely to be armed. They take place in areas which are very confined with limitedf access like schools, collages, churches, and military bases and where the perpetrator can be sure of a high probability of meeting no resistance until such time as he had done what he wanted to do. How many people have tried this at a shooting range, a police station, a gun shop, a gun show, a hunting convention or an NRA meeting? How many have tried it in a street in somewhere like Arizona, Texas, Nevada or other state with significant numbers of carry permit holders? I would fancy that if you looked at the figures then probably 90%+ of all mass shooting incidents (if not all of them) took place where people were actually prohibited in one form or another from possessing firearms. All of the school ones were, most and probably all of the church ones were. I think that all of the shopping mall ones were as they have private bans in place. The one where the congresswoman was shot was as there is a prohibition on carrying on state/federal property. There was once a tendency to shoot up places like fast food joints but not since lots of concealed carry permits started being issued. Has there even been a mass-shooting in the last 20 years in a place which did not prohibit the carriage of firearms? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Here's an interesting article on gun ownership rates and political affiliation in the US. http://fivethirtyeig...ivide-is-sharp/ Nice find and a lucid article Doc,. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 They [mass shootings] do not happen randomly at all. Ah, yes, I was forgetting: every time it happens, the non-random loon-with-the-gun-in-question calls the local TV station and warns them that he's about to go on a killing spree. Then there's the fact that both the FBI and the local police keep a list of which loon is going to go off next, and on what date - just in case the loon forgets to call the TV station. But just because the police are good sports, they opt not to intervene and stop the loon's fun. How could I be so stupid to overlook these two facts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Any political party that tries to implement change in the states will commit suicide .simple as. Obama is the worst president for being both anti gun and anti America. Think they need to look into the use of violent video games . As has been pointed out on this thread; he doesn't seem to be remotely anti-gun. He has not introduced a single anti-gn measure as far as I'm aware in over 4 years of his presidency. He has even said that he believes in the Second Amendment, I think. He has presided over one of the most shocking cases of mass child murder in recent American history and, so far, has not jumped on the 'banned wagon' which would have been a very, very easy populist move, especially given that he cannot be elected again and has nothing to lose. He seems to have a lot more intelligence and respect for due process than many people give him credit for. J. Edited December 18, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Ah, yes, I was forgetting: every time it happens, the non-random loon-with-the-gun-in-question calls the local TV station and warns them that he's about to go on a killing spree. Then there's the fact that both the FBI and the local police keep a list of which loon is going to go off next, and on what date - just in case the loon forgets to call the TV station. But just because the police are good sports, they opt not to intervene and stop the loon's fun. How could I be so stupid to overlook these two facts... I utterly fail to see your point. I was resonding to your statement that mass-shootings are random; meaning that they can happen at any particular point in the USA with the same chance as anywhere else which is the definition of 'random'. This is not true. They almost always happen in places where the shooter will face the least resistance. J. Edited December 18, 2012 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) I utterly fail to see your point. That much is clear. I was responding to your statement that mass-shootings are random; meaning that they can happen at any particular point in the USA with the same chance as anywhere else which is the definition of 'random'. This is not true. They almost always happen in places where the shooter will face the least resistance. J. No they don't - they happen in places which and/or against people whom the shooter has the most pent-up desire to destroy them (for whatever reason that might be) - this could be a shopping mall (and you'd struggle to find one in the US that doesn't have armed guards somewhere within its precincts); university campuses (ditto); federal buildings (ditto) - the list goes on. And random pertains to the timing and the target, and not how well 'defended' the place might be - and it is random to everyone except the shooter - ergo, it is random. Edited December 18, 2012 by Lock Stock & Barrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 As has been pointed out on this thread; he doesn't seem to be remotely anti-gun. He has not introduced a single anti-gn measure as far as I'm aware in over 4 years of his presidency. He has even said that he believes in the Second Amendment, I think. He has presided over one of the most shocking cases of mass child murder in recent American history and, so far, has not jumped on the 'banned wagon' which would have been a very, very easy populist move, especially given that he cannot be elected again and has nothing to lose. He seems to have a lot more intelligence and respect for due process than many people give him credit for. J. That's a telling phrase. ONE on the most shocking. There have been so many to choose from. I wouldn't say he presided over it though.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 That's a telling phrase. ONE on the most shocking. There have been so many to choose from. I wouldn't say he presided over it though.... Possibly, but you see what I'm getting at. It happend 'on his watch' as it were. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Just dawned on me, when 7/7 happened, we didn't blame the rucksacks did we? We blamed the terrorist. When the Barcelona bombings happened, we blamed neither the bombs nor the trains in which they went off. When 9/11 happened, we didn't blame the planes did we? We blamed the terrorists. Any yet whenever there's a mass shooting, some clown always wanders out with the same idiotic line: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Perhaps now we can put this stupid myth to bed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Just dawned on me, when 7/7 happened, we didn't blame the rucksacks did we? We blamed the terrorist. When the Barcelona bombings happened, we blamed neither the bombs nor the trains in which they went off. When 9/11 happened, we didn't blame the planes did we? We blamed the terrorists. Any yet whenever there's a mass shooting, some clown always wanders out with the same idiotic line: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Perhaps now we can put this stupid myth to bed... Just dawned on me, when 7/7 happened, we didn't blame the rucksacks did we? We blamed the terrorist. When the Barcelona bombings happened, we blamed neither the bombs nor the trains in which they went off. When 9/11 happened, we didn't blame the planes did we? We blamed the terrorists. Any yet whenever there's a mass shooting, some clown always wanders out with the same idiotic line: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Perhaps now we can put this stupid myth to bed... Now forgive me if I am suffering from a little late night 'unintelligence' but you would appear to have COMPLETELY contradicted yourself in that post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Now forgive me if I am suffering from a little late night 'unintelligence' but you would appear to have COMPLETELY contradicted yourself in that post! Care to explain how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One ! That was a very interesting watch.. good find Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) Care to explain how? Because in every other example you gave there you stated the same thing... Just dawned on me, when 7/7 happened, we didn't blame the rucksacks did we? We blamed the terrorist. - rucksacks don't kill people, terrorists (people) kill people When the Barcelona bombings happened, we blamed neither the bombs nor the trains in which they went off. Bombs & trains don't kill people, terrorists (people) kill people When 9/11 happened, we didn't blame the planes did we? We blamed the terrorists. Planes don't kill people, terrorists (people) kill people Therefore, the same goes with that argument..... guns don't kill people, people kill people If what you are saying were in the correct context then we WOULD be blaming the bombs, trains, rucksacks & planes and NOT the people who perpetrated the acts! Edited December 20, 2012 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Scholl Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One ! Seriously, dude, who's side are you on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxtond Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 This topic highlights why shooting will die in the uk. A AWB in the USA will do nothing other than kill practical rifle comps, just like it did here. If you love our sport some of you need to think before you post, dumblane and hunger ford might not have affected your chosen type of shooting, but I can promise you with what guns are left it won't be long before they target you. Shooters are a small group of people, we need to stand together before they take all the guns away and we are forced to play golf :-( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.