school shootings

[Mr.S.Marbo]

Originally posted by airhead
@Dr. E, several countries other than Japan have banned guns. Currently, they are banned in the UK where gun crime is on the rise. Australia recently banned several classes of guns (I am not sure, but I do not believe it was a complete ban?). Canada has almost completely banned pistols.

Although guns in the UK are highly restricted they are not totally banned. Generally the only legal firearms civilians can have are shotguns that meet specific conditions such as for use by a vet, or for use in hunting / clay pigeon shooting (these require a licence and are strictly controlled). They are restricted in terms of calibre, barrel length (anything \"too short\" such as a \"sawn off shotgun\", anything that has \"pump action\" / \"easy reload\" or holds more than 2 cartridges at once are all illegal. Possession of an illegal firearm carries a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment.

Airhead you are right in that UK gun crime has been increasing. The number of firearm offences has risen every year in the UK since 1997/1998. 2004/2005 saw an increase of about 6% in terms of gun crime since 2003/2004. However UK gun crime statistics include offences including imitation and replica firearms. In 2004/2005 crime committed using immitation forearms increased 55% since 2003/2004.

2003/2004 saw a decrease of -15% in gun related crimes resulting in death. In 2004/2005: 73 deaths resulted from the illegal use of firearms (an increase of 5), and 412 serious injuries were caused by the criminal use of firearms (a decrease of 6%). While gun crime has been increasing, the big increases are seen in the use of immitation firearms, and recently deaths and serious injuries have reduced.

Gun crime has recently gone up (fueled by an increased use of immitation firearms), while serious injury through firearms has been decreasing. Homicide using firearms has remained fairly stable (or decreased some years). I believe that the fact guns are not generally available to the majority of the population in the UK is the reason for low and decreasing rates of serious injury and death resulting from firearms. I will not go through my reasons again (for fear of boredom) but what I posted in an earlier thread explains my position:
http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=15006&page=4

I do not believe that Americans are stupid and / or gun nuts. I also appreciate that a lot of Americans do not have guns. I believe that the majority of guns in the US are held and used responsibly. I do believe that when you give a population (any population - I am not saying the US population is different to others) the chance to own a product which is lethal you can expect a minority to use it incorrectly thus increasing murder, injury and death.

By the way having never fired a gun in my life what is it like?

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by Mr.S.Marbo
By the way having never fired a gun in my life what is it like?

Much like mini painting or golf in that it actually takes a bit of skill and lots of practice to get correct. Very enjoyable to group a set of shots very close together on a target. Recoil varies - the little .22 on the right is negligable while a good shotgun or large hunting rifle will let you know you\'ve released some energy. The big .50 is not much worse than a magnum shotgun load thanks to lots of porting and a huge muzzel brake. The bolt action kicks a bit worse as none of the recoil is bled off for working the reload.

One of the fastest growing sports/hobbies here is the Cowboy Action Shooting sponsered by the Single Action Shooters Society ( www.sass.com ). Spend all day dressed in cowboy gear and shoot at steel targets.

 

[spazzy]

@ Petey - A weapon used for hunting is just as dangerous to a human as it is to an animal. I do admit that there are some guns on the market that have no business being there, as their only possible hunting application would be the wooly mammoth, and you\'re better off hunting one of those with a team of scientists.

@Marbo - Please explain what you mean by an immitation gun?

@Mod - Choosing the proper rifle or shotgun for the animal you are hunting means choosing the weapon that has the best chances of killing the animal with one shot and yet not destroying a large amount of the body. This is more humane than chasing the thing down, jumping on its back, and slicing it\'s throat open. Even Native Americans used some form of projectile for hunting the buffalo, using arrows or spears. If that was not an option, they would try to herd the buffalo off a cliff, which could result in the deaths of more animals than they could use in a reasonable time frame. I\'d like to think that our hunting practices have evolved for the better. Also to consider is the safety of approaching so closely to a live wild animal. It\'s obvious that if you\'re going to hunt a bear that taking a knife would be an attempt at a very painful suicide, however less obvious to many would be that the story would end the same if you were to try that with deer, elk, or moose.

 

[finn17]

Originally posted by Mr.S.Marbo
They are restricted in terms of calibre, barrel length (anything \"too short\" such as a \"sawn off shotgun\", anything that has \"pump action\" / \"easy reload\" or holds more than 2 cartridges at once are all illegal.

Not quite...calibre of shotguns is unrestricted as far as I know, some people use seriously large guages for wildfowling...and \"pump action\" / \"easy reload\" are also legal. I have a pump action 12 guage and a gas-operated 12 guage. They are both now restricted to two shot magazines however.

Talking of seriously large guages...this thing is a punt gun, also used for wildfowling...

 

[Modderrhu]

Originally posted by spazzy
@Mod - Choosing the proper rifle or shotgun for the animal you are hunting means choosing the weapon that has the best chances of killing the animal with one shot and yet not destroying a large amount of the body. This is more humane than chasing the thing down, jumping on its back, and slicing it\'s throat open.

Okay, so it\'s a matter of pragmatics, and a more humane death, fair enough and accepted. But I still wonder how many hunters would balk at seeing their prey live and close-up. At seeing that whole fear-in-the-eye thing.

BTW I doubt that I\'d ever be able to hunt, but I have nothing against those who do. Just genuinely interested in how other people deal with issues that I would not be able to deal with.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by Modderrhu

Originally posted by airhead
It is the one on the left.

I rest my case, airhead, that is one Big F\'ing Gun.

I\'ve fired both the M2 .50 and the Barrett sniper rifle .50 (bolt action of course). Both produced in me the same reaction.....\"God Bless America\"

 

[spazzy]

Mod, unfortunately, the shot that takes the animal to the ground does not always kill it, which is part of the reason why hunters slit the throat when they approach the animal. In that case, you do see an animal dying and in pain. If the hunter can\'t handle dealing with that situation, then he or she probably shouldn\'t be hunting.

 

[Talion]

I\'ve never understood hunting.

Let\'s see killing an innocent animal just for the sheer fun........sounds sad, and a bit psychotic to me.

If you hunt to eat the animal fair enough, and I know some species need to be controlled for what ever reason.

But to take joy in killing something, is very wrong, and is no different in my eye\'s to killing another person.

I hope no-one takes offence, but I personally would like to shoot anyone who kills another animal, just cause they want too. See how they like it.

 

[spazzy]

Talion, in my state something sensible must be done with the animal carcass. Otherwise, it\'s considered an unlawful waste of a game animal. Some people enjoy hunting, but don\'t like or need the meat, so after it\'s all said and done they give the meat to friends, family members, or make arrangements for donation to a local food bank.

That\'s what I do when I go fishing, because I like to fish, but I\'m not particularly fond of eating fish.

 

[Modderrhu]

Originally posted by spazzy
In that case, you do see an animal dying and in pain. If the hunter can\'t handle dealing with that situation, then he or she probably shouldn\'t be hunting.

So it\'s either hunting (from range or close-up) or not at all. Thanks, that\'s my question answered. Also why I cannot imagine myself ever hunting.

(one of those who has far more sympathy for animals than humans)

 

[paintingploddy]

@ Airhead - There are several studies that say sentencing doesn\'t have any effect. Recently we were given a presentation which basically concluded that sentencing had no effect on crime rates or recidivism. The factor that most people seemed to consider was the potential of getting caught. My day to day experience suggests he has it right.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by paintingploddy
@ Airhead - There are several studies that say sentencing doesn\'t have any effect. Recently we were given a presentation which basically concluded that sentencing had no effect on crime rates or recidivism. The factor that most people seemed to consider was the potential of getting caught. My day to day experience suggests he has it right.

Thats a good point. Increasing the penalty does nothing if they truly believe they will never get busted.

 

[finn18]

Aha!

Originally posted by Mr.S.Marbo
Anyways...Finn... Whoop\'s I was a bit wrong there I read it again and a prohibited firearm is:
\"any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun
other than one which is chambered for
.22 rimfire cartridges.\"
\"any self-loading or pump-action smoothbore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges and
either has a barrel less than 24 inches
in length... or less than 40 inches overall.\"

I take it then your gun is \"chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges\" (whatever that means lol) and is over 40 inches long and has a barrell of over 24 inches... I was totally wroing about the calibre too

I see now...Firearms and shotguns are two distinct categories...and the restrictions have more to do with size than mechanism. Small, easily concealed guns are prohibited for obvious reasons...it is illegal to shorten the barrel of a shotgun in the UK. My guns have barrels over 24\" and are longer than 40\" overall, although they are 12 bore shotguns and not firearms. A 22 rimfire would only be used with a firearm.

 

[StarFyre]

Imagine if law worked liked China...

A recent show on China, with interviews with doctors there, showed that many rich people go to China for organ donations, and these are given by patients who the government has killed for their organs.

Now imagine this in north america?

If you are proven to be guilty (ie. it\'s obvious...you are on film, 1000000 people saw you do it in the middle of a street, etc), then you ARE killed, regardless of the crime (from robbery, shooting, rape, or sabotage, etc).

Would that help?

Sanjay

 

[Orb]

Originally posted by StarFyre
A recent show on China, with interviews with doctors there, showed that many rich people go to China for organ donations, and these are given by patients who the government has killed for their organs.

Now imagine this in north america?

If you are proven to be guilty (ie. it\'s obvious...you are on film, 1000000 people saw you do it in the middle of a street, etc), then you ARE killed, regardless of the crime (from robbery, shooting, rape, or sabotage, etc).

Would that help?

Sanjay

Hardly \"donations\". The prisoners are not killed for their organs. The organs are simply a bi-product of the death sentence (68 offences can lead to death - including tax fraud.......)

IMO, the death sentence is simply wrong.

 

[paintingploddy]

Anyone for a spot of GW bashing?

 

[philologus]

The arguement about firearms protecting citizens from govt. is about more than just revolution. We must protect ourselves from the results of an inept \"justice system\" when the govt. fails to make a case against a violent criminal or releases them from incarceration they are free to become recidivists at our individual peril. Police don\'t prevent crime, they react after the commission of a crime. So, who prevents crime? Armed citizens fill some of the gap. As far as a deterrent goes. I KNOW that private ownership of firearms is a deterrent. If I kill a would-be assailant, he has been permanently deterred from violence. If details (i.e. statistics) are sketchy on rates of recidivism they are even more sketchy on rehabilitation, a convicted criminal can\'t be considered a rehabilitation success until he has died (and not committed any further crimes). Not much of a comfort to the rest of us.

 

[paintingploddy]

The number if people in US prisons for breaking the law would suggest the deterrant isn\'t particularly effective.

 

[Orb]

Originally posted by philologus
We must protect ourselves from the results of an inept \"justice system\" when the govt. fails to make a case against a violent criminal or releases them from incarceration they are free to become recidivists at our individual peril. Police don\'t prevent crime, they react after the commission of a crime. So, who prevents crime? Armed citizens fill some of the gap. As far as a deterrent goes. I KNOW that private ownership of firearms is a deterrent. If I kill a would-be assailant, he has been permanently deterred from violence. , a convicted criminal can\'t be considered a rehabilitation success until he has died (and not committed any further crimes). Not much of a comfort to the rest of us.

Very scary indeed. So the deterrent is permanently carrying a gun, just in case. Don\'t try to commit a crime on me or I\'ll kill you. Nice.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by Orb

Originally posted by philologus
We must protect ourselves from the results of an inept \"justice system\" when the govt. fails to make a case against a violent criminal or releases them from incarceration they are free to become recidivists at our individual peril. Police don\'t prevent crime, they react after the commission of a crime. So, who prevents crime? Armed citizens fill some of the gap. As far as a deterrent goes. I KNOW that private ownership of firearms is a deterrent. If I kill a would-be assailant, he has been permanently deterred from violence. , a convicted criminal can\'t be considered a rehabilitation success until he has died (and not committed any further crimes). Not much of a comfort to the rest of us.

Very scary indeed. So the deterrent is permanently carrying a gun, just in case. Don\'t try to commit a crime on me or I\'ll kill you. Nice.

The alternative is: \"You know I can\'t legally be armed so chances are you can get away with taking my money, beating me, or killing me and might not even have to serve your entire sentence, if convicted.\" Nice.