vortexring

How many did we have before it? Dunblane was pretty much a stand alone event in British history. I don't think the ban had any impact on a recurrence. Also its easy enough to circumvent the hand gun ban while remaining in the law. Long barrels, extended stock, black powder revolvers make handgun ownership still legal. Criminals still have access to SAPs the only ones the ban has caused problems for are those who obey the law. Change 'and' with 'or' and that might be a solution. If we look at the Bird and Moat shootings you mention on another thread, we can see they used shotguns that aren't banned. How many more innocent people would be dead if they'd used semi-automatic weapon systems that *are* banned? I think this is quite a significant point that can't be ignored. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ya But I have had my turns at it too This is an emotional event Some want to make is stop They see guns as the issue Remove the guns this will stop Thats what happened here in the UK... It didn't work. Skyrad, maybe I'm reading this out of context, if so I'll apologise, but... if you're on about the UK ban on gun possession, when was the last time an individual massacred an amount of innocent people with a firearm here? Would it have been Hungerford with Michael Ryan and an AK-47, and then Dunblane, *before* the weapon ban? With nothing on such a scale afterwards?? Despite the UK having a completely different attitude towards gun ownership than America...the ban did work. Gun laws won't ever completely eradicate gun crime; but a huge reduction in their proliferation through banning them will certainly make a very significant difference. Other than Hungerford and Dunblane there wasn't any massacres involving guns in the UK (not including terrorist events) so to say that they stopped because of the ban is simply not correct. In the last couple of years we've had Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat not to mention the crimes involving illegal handguns which the ban has not stopped. Its still legal to own rim fire semi automatic rifles which are lethal at the ranges typically discussed in these cases, still legal to own 5.56 straight pulls, section 1 shotguns etc. Yet we still haven't had a school shooting like Dunblane if guns were the problem we would have. Like you said culture is the problem, until the USA sorts out its cultural and social issues these school attacks will keep happening. I think you're missing a very important point. Bird and Moat used twin barrelled shotguns which aren't banned. Imagine the death toll if they'd used semi-automatic weapon systems that *are* banned? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

With my agenda there'd be less massacres; but that's not as important as the right to carry a gun is it? Ah yes Now we see the arrogance and future seeing abilities of a gun o phobe Gun bans are working well in Chicago, dont you think? What exactly is a 'gun-o-phobe'? As it happens, on my next trip to the US I intend to visit a range to blat off lots of 9 milly. My grouping these days at 25m is wank. :) I don't believe Chicago is a good example to compare; it'd have to be national, and I'm also aware of how insanely difficult a national ban would be...but a massive reduction and shift in cultural attitudes towards guns is the only genuine solution I can envisage. It'll take generations. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Since prolific gun ownership is not the problem, you have no point What is the problem then please? You mentioned a few things earlier, yet other developed nations suffer exactly the same problems you described, as I pointed out, but without frequent massacres. I believe the other poster proved you incorrect in regards to frequency I believe the other poster has yet to provide the evidence. Whether he does or not, it doesn't detract from the simple fact the high frequency of US massacres. You've still to address my earlier question. Please do so; I'm all ears. You start from a flawed premise. Guns are not the issue Not that you care Well, could you be so kind as to tell me what you believe is the issue then? I actually do care; don't be like that...

Since prolific gun ownership is not the problem, you have no point What is the problem then please? You mentioned a few things earlier, yet other developed nations suffer exactly the same problems you described, as I pointed out, but without frequent massacres. I believe the other poster proved you incorrect in regards to frequency I believe the other poster has yet to provide the evidence. Whether he does or not, it doesn't detract from the simple fact the high frequency of US massacres. You've still to address my earlier question. Please do so; I'm all ears. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

With my agenda there'd be less massacres; but that's not as important as the right to carry a gun is it? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Nothing, look up my previous post in this thread. In fact I messed up the numbers for Finland as I forgot once incident. So for Finland its actually 4 / 54,22 which is about 0,0737 mass shootings per 100,000 people vs. US's 0,00868 mass shootings per 100,000 people. So per capita, Finland has almost 9 times as many mass shootings as US. Also the first modern mass killing was done by chemistry student who built a bomb from ammonium nitrate, nitromethane and gun pellets. He took the bomb to a shopping center, killed 7 and wounded 166 people. The US doesn't have exclusivity on people with mental health issues. Thanks for the numbers Kind of takes the wind out the argument the US is soooooooooo much worse It doesn't mitigate the existing problem, whether Finland has a higher rate of massacres or not. Fucks sake. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Since prolific gun ownership is not the problem, you have no point What is the problem then please? You mentioned a few things earlier, yet other developed nations suffer exactly the same problems you described, as I pointed out, but without frequent massacres. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Nothing, look up my previous post in this thread. In fact I messed up the numbers for Finland as I forgot once incident. So for Finland its actually 4 / 54,22 which is about 0,0737 mass shootings per 100,000 people vs. US's 0,00868 mass shootings per 100,000 people. So per capita, Finland has almost 9 times as many mass shootings as US. Also the first modern mass killing was done by chemistry student who built a bomb from ammonium nitrate, nitromethane and gun pellets. He took the bomb to a shopping center, killed 7 and wounded 166 people. The US doesn't have exclusivity on people with mental health issues. Eh? Could you provide some evidence to your claims regarding Finland please? If indeed you're correct, then we'll add Finland along with the USA then; it doesn't mitigate the problem, does it? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

What's the point if prolific gun ownership is the crux of the problem? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sorry, can you explain yourself better? Sure, the other countries you refer to have governments that oppress individual rights and freedoms to make them more secure. What we in the US call trading freedom for security. One of the founding philosophies addresses this issue. That's a pathetic example using one country and one controversial law. I've worked in both France and the USA; in my experience American people in their day to day lives are far more oppressed than the French. And you have a higher percentage of your population incarcerated than France, or any other nation on the planet for that matter. There are less massacres conducted by individuals in France too, because French people don't have a gun culture like American gun culture. It really is quite simple. It is, but GM's eyes are blinded by his love of guns. Anyone in the USA who thinks they live in the world's free-est society needs to take a trip to the Netherlands or Scandinavia. Are them near Arkansas?

Once teachers are known to be armed, who do you think will be the first target for a loony with a gun entering a classroom? I am a teacher and I have no wish to set myself up as the primary target of a nutter with a gun. Arming teachers just perpetuates an existing problem. Ban guns. Banning guns won't work here. What is needed is to stop it being trivially easy for anyone, even a crazy person, to get a semi-auto weapon. We have a so-called background check that is so easy to circumvent it may as well not exist. I think a manned space mission to the nearest star would be easier to achieve than successfully banning guns in the USA...but what you describe is only part of the solution. I have the honest belief that America needs to wake up and realise prolific ownership is the crux of the problem; along with ease of access (Hey - I know mums access codes to the weapon safe...or: Hey - I know Dad has a Sig 226 in the bedside drawer...) and the fact Hollywood macho gun influence has a stronger effect on an already gullible society than people care to admit. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Until we eliminate our nuclear arsenals we are in no position to criticize others on their nuclear ambitions. Nuclear armed nations may not be in a moral position to dictate, but what other choice do they have? I'm all for the reduction of nuclear weapon proliferation; and you are too, moral high ground or not. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Once teachers are known to be armed, who do you think will be the first target for a loony with a gun entering a classroom? I am a teacher and I have no wish to set myself up as the primary target of a nutter with a gun. Arming teachers just perpetuates an existing problem. Ban guns. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Christ. What makes America so unique as to suffer such a frequency of disturbed individuals massacring innocents? No more disturbed people here than anywhere else. The difference is that here the loonies can get hold of semi automatic weapons incredibly easily, and people like gravitymaster, rushmc and lawrocket see no problem with that. Bullshit. Nobody wants to see a looney get a gun. How do you propose making it more difficult without trampling on the rights of the 99% of responsible gun owners, again? Ban guns. Your children and their children will thank you for your sacrifice; along with the fact their schools will be safer. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sorry, can you explain yourself better? Sure, the other countries you refer to have governments that oppress individual rights and freedoms to make them more secure. What we in the US call trading freedom for security. One of the founding philosophies addresses this issue. That's a pathetic example using one country and one controversial law. I've worked in both France and the USA; in my experience American people in their day to day lives are far more oppressed than the French. And you have a higher percentage of your population incarcerated than France, or any other nation on the planet for that matter. There are less massacres conducted by individuals in France too, because French people don't have a gun culture like American gun culture. It really is quite simple. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Christ. What makes America so unique as to suffer such a frequency of disturbed individuals massacring innocents? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ya But I have had my turns at it too This is an emotional event Some want to make is stop They see guns as the issue Remove the guns this will stop Thats what happened here in the UK... It didn't work. Skyrad, maybe I'm reading this out of context, if so I'll apologise, but... if you're on about the UK ban on gun possession, when was the last time an individual massacred an amount of innocent people with a firearm here? Would it have been Hungerford with Michael Ryan and an AK-47, and then Dunblane, *before* the weapon ban? With nothing on such a scale afterwards?? Despite the UK having a completely different attitude towards gun ownership than America...the ban did work. Gun laws won't ever completely eradicate gun crime; but a huge reduction in their proliferation through banning them will certainly make a very significant difference. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sorry, can you explain yourself better? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'll tell you what's wrong with your culture: massive gun proliferation, and with that ease of availability, and too much macho influence from TV reflecting onto your society. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Ya But I have had my turns at it too This is an emotional event Some want to make is stop They see guns as the issue Remove the guns this will stop Thats what happened here in the UK... It didn't work. Exactly And it will not work here either Violent video games, violent movies, parents not parenting, government removing responsibilities for immoral behaviors, government saying more of what I have is theirs and therefore taking away my personal incentive to work hard and take responsibility for may actions and being taught that if someone made something of themselves, they didnt do that alone. It all plays a part. the only winners in this situation will be hip dr's and bone crackers Why? It is going to take a lot to fix all the injuries from the violent knee jerking going on related to what the left see's as an opportunity to my political hay out of a tragedy These are problems faced by other developed nations; where individuals are not massacring other people with firearms. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

As far as I'm aware the perpetrators of school massacres have yet to use ANFO type improvised devices, transported in vans, to murder their victims. Might be an idea to keep tabs on who is buying fertiliser though... I doubt the body counts would be so high if nut-cases attacked their victims with dope plants, powder and various pills... But through them being outlawed they'll be harder to access; whether you're planning murdering children or simply just a criminal. If 30 years in jail is the result of illegal firearm possession, less criminals will be willing to risk carrying. Criminals carry guns in the UK too; despite them being illegal, but generally use them to attack other criminal gang members than to randomly shoot innocent citizens. There's nobody in the UK demanding rights to protect themselves with firearms because to be honest, they aren't necessary. Maybe gun culture and proliferation isn't the primary reasons for more frequent US school massacres; but if not, what are the reasons? What makes the US so unique in regards to the frequency of these massacres? I genuinely see it as being the desire to be armed; an armed society perpetuates the crazies amongst it having easier access to firearms to commit their atrocities. Along with a Hollywood culture of firearms and being adept in their use being seen as something that's positive and attractive. Guns and their proliferation, and the associated culture, are indeed the problem...'crazy sicko freaks' aren't committing these atrocities with anything else on a regular basis. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

In the US, teachers arming themselves as a means to protect themselves and their children from lunatic, murdering gun-nuts only exaggerates an already self-perpetuating problem. A change of culture is what's required, beginning with draconian laws banning personal gun possession. Unrealistic? Perhaps, but I'm sure future generations will appreciate a culture with less guns proliferated through-out it. And therefore less massacres. Lunatics may well still find means of arming themselves; but I'm pretty certain with such laws the frequency of massacres in the US would reduce. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It may be hypocritical but preferable to any sovereign state arming itself with nukes whenever it has the capability. Would you really wish to live on a planet in the not too distant future where most nations have ICBM's? I'd assert such a future would increase the chances of nuclear conflict, not reduce it. So yeah, it's hypocritical, deal with it. Edit: Just so we're clear; nuclear armed nations should make every effort to prevent other nations becoming similarly armed, whilst making committed efforts to reduce their own over-stocked arsenals. Better that way. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The US is one of the largest countries in the world, along with being one of the ones with the highest rate of guns in circulation. But the number of events is such a small number that it makes comparison difficult. Norway, with its singular event, dominates them all from a simple rate calculation. England's one Dunblame also puts it pretty high given the smaller population. But like shark attacks, these aren't the biggest threats children face in life, or even close. But they strike much more fear than the possibility of getting run over in a driveway or drowning in the pool. Dunblane is in Scotland, the United Kingdom, which is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. After the Dunblane shootings: "public debate subsequent to these events centred on gun-control laws, including media-driven public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official enquiry, the Cullen Report. In response to this debate, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 were enacted, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom." Wikipedia. Concealed carry is at best a short-term solution (?) to a self-perpetuating problem; gun proliferation. Arming oneself to protect oneself against gun-nuts, or lunatic murderers who utilise guns as a means to achieve their aims, isn't going to solve this ever-more frequent problem. But what will??? How do you achieve a shift in cultural beliefs? The UK hasn't suffered a school-shooting (as far as I'm aware) to the extent of Dunblane since personal handgun possession was banned. But then the UK never had anything like the gun culture as America has. I think the same laws should be applied in the USA. A massive draconian ban. Unrealistic? Or course; but that's through an insane gun-culture that should've went along the way of modernisation as the West stopped being so Wild, as culture progressed and advanced. Of course lunatics and criminals will still find means to arm themselves with guns and other weapon systems... But I'd expect with such draconian measures in place the frequency of school shootings and other such massacres would reduce, primarily based on less easy access, and an enormous reduction in gun proliferation. But more importantly; a reduction in gun massacres through a change in gun culture. Either give up your guns and change your culture or suffer more frequent massacres, or classroom/ campus firefights if the solution only goes so far as to allow teachers concealed carry rights in the classroom. Heart-breaking. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'