12 killed, 25 wounded in UK shooting rampage

[NBC]

Basic understanding and knowledge if firearms here is almost zero. People hear of a situation like this and the immediate reaction is to 'ban guns'. Statistics show that firearms are used in very few violent crimes here.
Knives on the other hand are the preferred weapon of choice for thugs, rapists, robbers, chavs, etc.

"Police figures show that there were 39 firearms-related deaths in 2008-09 and that seven of these involved a shotgun. That total was the lowest recorded by the police in 20 years. Guns play a role in just 0.3% of all recorded crimes - one in every 330 incidents."

A few years back there were a number of murders in South London, involving young people, mostly, but not all, were 16-20 year old black kids as both the killers and the victims. Some of the murders were totally random and indiscriminate. Unfortunately what came out of it was not a debate on violent youth crime or gang violence, but an insatiable desire to further ban guns and also knives. None of the firearms used in the murders were legally owned or registered, thereby making further attempts at gun control a pointless endeavor as it would not have prevented any of the killings from taking place.

I guess this is nothing arcane to the UK as the anti-gun lobby is strong in lots of places as well. What it does though is shift the debate away from the real issue(s) in an attempt to make a proverbial scapegoat out of something else. Even in a society devoid of legal gun ownership events like this will still occur. Crazy people and the criminal element will see to that. What needs to be improved upon is the management of the situation when it happens and making sure the right people are sufficiently empowered to deal with a crisis situation.

Oh and for the one eye-witness that claimed he saw a "huge sniper-rifle with a massive scope" - turns out it was a .22 LR and not some .308 Win Mag that was intimated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10220974.stm

[T@T]

Originally Posted by NBC

Basic understanding and knowledge if firearms here is almost zero.

I stopped reading after this..

[valo403]

Originally Posted by NBC

Basic understanding and knowledge if firearms here is almost zero. People hear of a situation like this and the immediate reaction is to 'ban guns'. Statistics show that firearms are used in very few violent crimes here.
Knives on the other hand are the preferred weapon of choice for thugs, rapists, robbers, chavs, etc.

"Police figures show that there were 39 firearms-related deaths in 2008-09 and that seven of these involved a shotgun. That total was the lowest recorded by the police in 20 years. Guns play a role in just 0.3% of all recorded crimes - one in every 330 incidents."

A few years back there were a number of murders in South London, involving young people, mostly, but not all, were 16-20 year old black kids as both the killers and the victims. Some of the murders were totally random and indiscriminate. Unfortunately what came out of it was not a debate on violent youth crime or gang violence, but an insatiable desire to further ban guns and also knives. None of the firearms used in the murders were legally owned or registered, thereby making further attempts at gun control a pointless endeavor as it would not have prevented any of the killings from taking place.

I guess this is nothing arcane to the UK as the anti-gun lobby is strong in lots of places as well. What it does though is shift the debate away from the real issue(s) in an attempt to make a proverbial scapegoat out of something else. Even in a society devoid of legal gun ownership events like this will still occur. Crazy people and the criminal element will see to that. What needs to be improved upon is the management of the situation when it happens and making sure the right people are sufficiently empowered to deal with a crisis situation.

Oh and for the one eye-witness that claimed he saw a "huge sniper-rifle with a massive scope" - turns out it was a .22 LR and not some .308 Win Mag that was intimated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10220974.stm

I agree with your third paragraph, often the "blame the weapon" movement takes precedent over looking at root causes, but I think the highlighted portion is a bit of a naive statement. Strict gun control measures mean less legitimate supply of weapons, and unless enforcement is nil this will undoubtedly reduce the overall number of available weapons. The fact that illegaly obtained wepons are used doesn't indicate that gun control isn't part of the solution, it simply indicates that things can still be stolen or smuggled into the nation.

Your own quoted stats support the fact that gun control has significantly reduced the number of firearm related homicides. Of course those who want to do violence will find a way, but where there is a limited supply of guns that option becomes increasingly more difficult. In many instances, and this one demonstrates it to a tee, other weapons would have had nowhere near the impact. If this guy was armed with a knife how many people does he kill? A couple maybe, but he's certainly not going to be able to go on an extended indiscriminate killing spree. I'm not calling for an outright ban on guns, but the stats you referenced indicate that strict gun control measures in the UK have been incredibly effective.

[NBC]

The vast majority of firearms used in homicides - especially in Canada - are illegally 'smuggled' in from the US. Last set of numbers I saw, from 2007-08, was 93%. I do agree that there needs to be a certain amount of regulation and control of the sale and possession of firearms, absolutely. But a total ban on personal ownership is surely not the answer, as some are suggesting here in the UK. I agree that gun control is part of the larger solution but it is not some sort of over-arching answer to a very complex set of problems.

The point to the statistics I quoted was merely to highlight that there isn't a gun violence problem in the UK and that the current amount of legislation regarding the regulation of personal ownership does work. So for special interest groups and the media to suggest that there is a gun problem is nonsense. But that is what they do here. When gang members stab each other with knives, people want to restrict the sale of pointed kitchen knives in favour of blunt-end types, thinking that this will prevent people from being stabbed, whereas they will end up getting slashed instead. It is the ultimate in nanny-state control.

There will always be an element of society that wants to harm others, of that there is no question. This person could have got in his car and driven into a crowded shopping arcade on the high street repeatedly if he so chose. But I don't think that people would be clamoring for the banning or restriction of cars like they are now. This is why the 'banning guns' debate is so pointless right now. Legislation is effective and it is very difficult to own most types of firearms. Instead of looking at the root causes of youth gang violence or indiscriminate examples like this, time, energy and effort is spent in a less-constructive manner.

[Azure]

I think there is a point to proper control of guns, along with a mandatory background check and safety course.

But I think gun control laws only tend to affect law abiding citizens, and they also provide a quick 'talking point' fix to a problem, or set of problems nobody wants to talk about.

As in gang violence, youth violence, hate crimes, etc, etc. Its easier for the crap for brains politician to start beating the dead horse about guns being evil instead of actually having the balls to come up with a solution to a gang violence problem that probably affects every single city in every single country.

Law abiding citizens should not be punished for legally owning firearms. Of course there is a certain degree of 'common sense' that should be involved, as in nobody should be able to own a rocket launcher, but for personal protection, as well hobbyists or hunters even, restrictions should be rather lenient.

I think society has come to the point where the majority of the people think the government(police, military)...will protect us.

A strong society is one that is personally responsible for not only their health, financial status, etc, etc, but also for their own protection. Meaning there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning a shotgun for personal protection. There are many documented cases of home-owners defending their family or home from often violent criminals with the usage of firearms.

Its a sad place we live in when we can't even defend what we love.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think there is a point to proper control of guns, along with a mandatory background check and safety course.

But I think gun control laws only tend to affect law abiding citizens, and they also provide a quick 'talking point' fix to a problem, or set of problems nobody wants to talk about.

As in gang violence, youth violence, hate crimes, etc, etc. Its easier for the crap for brains politician to start beating the dead horse about guns being evil instead of actually having the balls to come up with a solution to a gang violence problem that probably affects every single city in every single country.

Law abiding citizens should not be punished for legally owning firearms. Of course there is a certain degree of 'common sense' that should be involved, as in nobody should be able to own a rocket launcher, but for personal protection, as well hobbyists or hunters even, restrictions should be rather lenient.

I think society has come to the point where the majority of the people think the government(police, military)...will protect us.

A strong society is one that is personally responsible for not only their health, financial status, etc, etc, but also for their own protection. Meaning there is absolutely nothing wrong with owning a shotgun for personal protection. There are many documented cases of home-owners defending their family or home from often violent criminals with the usage of firearms.

Its a sad place we live in when we can't even defend what we love.

My observation would be that societies where everyone is armed to the teeth will have a higher incidence of violent death than those societies that are largely disarmed or armed with less lethality.

Basically, if I have road rage or someone else has road rage relative to me, the odds of both of us walking away with only black eyes are a lot better than if one or both of us has a gun in the glove box.

My uncle was calling this guy a hero the other day. Basically, the hero is a guy who's shot up people twice while defending property:

http://www.albertalocalnews.com/redd..._94943099.html

In the second case, he clearly shot a guy fleeing the scene, someone who did not represent a physical danger to him at the moment.

Our sense of justice in a case like that would scream out the guy was right . . . . . but the law says he needs to be arrested.

Cowperson