New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Rebel]

You didnt address much of mine either. You pretty much just put words into my mouth to feed your ego, pally pal pal.

What point of yours did I not address?

[Rapscallion]

------Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[36] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06

As addressed previously, we're in a different legal jurisdiction and what gets counted has changed. If a gun is present and not used, yet someone is injured, it's now counted as a gun crime.

I suggest you look at previous discussions on this topic for information.

------However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths.

Please supply link to this. I'll see if it's the same link we were able to point out was inaccurate last time.

------Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture.

OMGWTFBBQ! An opposition spokesman saying that the people he's opposing aren't doing a good job? Summon the pale horses!

Not exactly factual. It's opinion.

------Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80

We have a different legal system over here. Different levels of discerning what is a crime. Try factor that in.

-------The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. (it didnt plunge after 1997 legislation????)

I'm trying to work out if you have a point here. Please clarify if you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

Gun politics in the United Kingdom generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. Despite its largely urbanised population, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world

Did you even read that piece you linked?

I did.

By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[31] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.[32] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[33]

Bear in mind that Northern Ireland has gang violence left over from the sectarian violence (IRA etc), and suicides to get away from kilts and bagpipes.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Guns should always be a last resort, pal, not the first thing you think of, pal. There are thousands of other ways of keeping yourself safe without needing a gun, pal.

You didnt address much of mine either. You pretty much just put words into my mouth to feed your ego, pally pal pal.

Knock this shit off, please. Its getting a little tense, and more than a little annoying for the rest of us.

[protege]

Here's something else to think about. I seem to recall that Washington DC banned handguns in 1975. Yet, they still have a huge problem with gang violence...including crimes committed with handguns. That ban, was overturned in 2008, because it was found to violate the Second Amendment. Logically, if handguns were banned, how are these crimes still happening? Simple...the guns are coming in from other areas. Another example of how guns are being taken from lawful owners...and how only criminals have them.

[Rapscallion]

As covered in other threads as nauseum, there's a far easier availability of guns in the US than the UK. Hop over the state or county border and just bring it in.

Then you've also got a culture that demands guns, so they'll go to greater lengths than people over here would use.

Rapscallion

[Rebel]

Knock this shit off, please. Its getting a little tense, and more than a little annoying for the rest of us.

I do apologize. I hate people who use pet names for me and I let it get to me. Won't happen again.

I am still confused as to why it doesn't seen like a good idea to bring in legislation to limit the possibility of people who are seriously mentally ill, and those who have shown themselves to be a danger to the public (convicted criminals), from acquiring a gun.
Granted your 2nd Amendment allows all citizens from the ability to 'bear arms', but surely it would be a lot safer for the rest of society if people like those I've mentioned were disqualified from this right?

[protege]

People like this douchebag? What about the rest of the nuts? Right now, I don't think there's anything to stop someone, even a crazed someone...from getting a firearm, and doing harm to the rest of us. Baumhammers himself...had a pretty easy time getting a gun. Drive down to the store near Washington, PA, pick one out, wait a few months, then start the body count.

[Rapscallion]

What's coming out of this debate for me is that the US isn't really in need of gun control, but people control.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

What's coming out of this debate for me is that the US isn't really in need of gun control, but people control.

Rapscallion

Heh. >.>

Are we having the Gun Debate(tm) again? Glee! Really, should just keep all the links and references on file so you can just copy paste them all again in any new thread. <cough>

[Mikkel]

Really, should just keep all the links and references on file so you can just copy paste them all again in any new thread. <cough>

No need, the last 16 page thread is here. Pick your side and start copying .
I probably won't understand why people would feel safer when everyone wear guns this time either.

[Rapscallion]

Are we having the Gun Debate(tm) again?

Thread title suggests so, but generally speaking I feel along the same lines of this old chestnut again.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The only reason this guy was taken down as quickly as he was is his own ineptitude. That and the fact that a number of people simultaneously recognized an opening and jumped on it all at once. Neither of which are things that can be counted on to occur or really work at all.

There are plenty of instances where physical attempts were made to stop gunman and very, very few of those ended successfully. Fact of the matter being that your average nut on a killing spree is far more methodical and substantially less fazed by a whack on the head than this guy was.

Something that's worked a hell of a lot more reliably has been the implementation of firearms, either using the threat of death as a means of garnering submission or just killing the shooter.

And in more mundane self-defense situations a firearms is one of the two ultimate tools, the other being a tazer representing less than lethal force. And while lot's of people like to sit there and parrot out 'a gun is the last resort' as if it's a catch-all rebuttal, they seem to forget that there's more to a gun than killing people.

Lethal Force is the last resort, and that in no way means it's not the first thing you turn to in a given situation. If anyone's life and limb is under direct threat and submission or flight have either failed or aren't options the very next step is resistance and there's no reason why that shouldn't be armed resistance.

[Gravekeeper]

Something that's worked a hell of a lot more reliably has been the implementation of firearms, either using the threat of death as a means of garnering submission or just killing the shooter.

Your average wing nut shooter fully intends to take his own life after he's done, or commit suicide via police. Lethal force isn't much of a threat to them to be honest.

Lethal Force is the last resort, and that in no way means it's not the first thing you turn to in a given situation. If anyone's life and limb is under direct threat and submission or flight have either failed or aren't options the very next step is resistance and there's no reason why that shouldn't be armed resistance.

The problem, again, is two fold. Problem number one is crossfire. If there's a guy in any sort of crowd or populated area shooting people, anyone shooting back risks doing just as much damage. The human body is extremely poor at stopping bullets. They go *through* soft tissue like butter. Even if all of your shots are on the target, if anyone is behind him, you've just shot innocent bystanders yourself. And thats if all your shots are on target. Which is unlikely. If everyone as armed as such, all of a sudden you're in a warzone.

Second of all, and I can't stress this enough, I do not trust the judgement of every random jackass to know when or when not to threaten or use lethal force. Police officers are trained in the proper use of lethal force. Gun owners aren't.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Your average wing nut shooter fully intends to take his own life after he's done, or commit suicide via police. Lethal force isn't much of a threat to them to be honest.

Some, but not all. There have been numerous instances of shooters giving up when confronted with armed resistance. People are complicated and while a shooting spree seems like the sort of thing that no one would expect to come out of alive there's often a lot more to it.

Besides, if they really didn't care about dying in the process they wouldn't go to so much trouble to find places where no one can fight back.

The problem, again, is two fold. Problem number one is crossfire. If there's a guy in any sort of crowd or populated area shooting people, anyone shooting back risks doing just as much damage. The human body is extremely poor at stopping bullets. They go *through* soft tissue like butter. Even if all of your shots are on the target, if anyone is behind him, you've just shot innocent bystanders yourself. And thats if all your shots are on target. Which is unlikely. If everyone as armed as such, all of a sudden you're in a warzone.

First of all, I very much doubt that a few over penetrating shots, which will have dumped a substantial amount of their energy and are rapidly dropping off trajectory could possibly do 'as much damage' as deliberate fire aimed towards bystanders.
Second, that's exactly why practical shooting courses, the very same that are often but sadly not always utilized by law enforcement agencies as well as civilians, emphasizes awareness of your target's backstop as well as potential courses of action to remedy problems (which all boil down to creating a new angle). LE faces all the same problems and short of a SWAT team it's almost as much of a dice roll as to whether or not a given officer is trained to deal with these sorts of situations as a civilian.
Third, to minimize the problem, if not eliminate it altogether, it's important to use hollow point or better yet, fragmenting ammunition, the former of which won't make it through most bodies with much punch and the latter of which won't make it through in less than a few dozen pieces (I.e. far from lethal at that point.)
Which is why it's all the more retarded that some jurisdictions ban those types of ammo.

Second of all, and I can't stress this enough, I do not trust the judgement of every random jackass to know when or when not to threaten or use lethal force. Police officers are trained in the proper use of lethal force. Gun owners aren't.

Outlining the applications of lethal force is a very small part of law enforcement training and is dwarfed in volume by general knowledge of arrest and legal procedure. The hard and fasts are quick to communicate, easy to understand and remarkably simple to apply. It's really only when you get into the arena of tactics and strategy that things get particularly complicated, and even then it's really just icing on the cake.

Believe it or not the average person is very much capable of making reasonable decisions even under stress and above all: know when they're in over their head. While basic law enforcement training isn't a bad thing, it doesn't go nearly as far to root out bad lemons or ensure high levels of competency in extreme situations as you seem to imply. When you average it all out concealed carriers are on par if not advanced ahead of basic security just below uniform cops. To get up into the "Ideal for situation" area you need U.S. Marshals, Tactical Response Teams or SWAT. Problem being that those are all arriving in 10 minutes at the very, very best. If wishes were horses they'd be everywhere at once, but here in real people land you've got to make do with what you've got.

[Gravekeeper]

Besides, if they really didn't care about dying in the process they wouldn't go to so much trouble to find places where no one can fight back.

Unless your goal was maximum damage, which it would be if you had reached such a point of no turning back. In which case yes, you're going to go for a place with the easiest targets.

First of all, I very much doubt that a few over penetrating shots, which will have dumped a substantial amount of their energy and are rapidly dropping off trajectory could possibly do 'as much damage' as deliberate fire aimed towards bystanders.

The Arizona shooter only had a 9mm. It still went clean through Gifford's, and in fact over penetration is what ironically saved her life. Had the round dumped more of its energy passing through her brain, she would be dead. And thats through the skull, which takes quite a bit of force to penetrate.

Even just the standard 9mm round has an average penetration of 13-14 inchs into soft tissues. Thats enough to go through me quite soundly. Unless your plan is to dive behind someone portly whenever you hear gun fire.

Second, that's exactly why practical shooting courses-

-are totally irrelevant unless they are being legally mandated. Which they are not. Arizona does not even require a training course unless you want a conceal carry permit.

Third, to minimize the problem, if not eliminate it altogether, it's important to use hollow point or better yet, fragmenting ammunition, the former of which won't make it through most bodies with much punch and the latter of which won't make it through in less than a few dozen pieces (I.e. far from lethal at that point.)

Both of which are more lethal as well and would have killed Gifford outright. You're basically trading 10 victims hit by direct and indirect fire with a chance of survival, for 5 victims being killed with no chance of survival. Or worse case scenario, the shooter aware of his ammunition type and measures his shots accordingly, racking up an even higher count.

Both ammunition types make a mess internally.

Outlining the applications of lethal force is a very small part of law enforcement training and is dwarfed in volume by general knowledge of arrest and legal procedure.

US police sound woefully undertrained if this is the case. >.>

Believe it or not the average person is very much capable of making reasonable decisions even under stress and above all: know when they're in over their head.

No, I don't believe it. I work in customer service. I don't trust the average person to open a bag of chips. I've seen the sort of ape men that are most fervant about gun rights and I would not trust them with a god damn butter knife. Sure they're not the norm, but it doesn't matter, because they're out there WITH the norm. And probably more heavily armed.

When you average it all out concealed carriers are on par if not advanced ahead of basic security just below uniform cops.

Ugh, not this argument again. You're not special because you can carry a gun under your jacket rather than outside of it. Nor does you carrying a gun under your jacket negate the guy just walking around with one for the fuck of it because thats perfectly legal too.

If wishes were horses they'd be everywhere at once, but here in real people land you've got to make do with what you've got.

Here in real people land I don't have to worry about being shot in the street because every random asshole can buy a gun at Walmart with little more than a 3 day grace period. Here in real people land I can rest assured that if some guy is wandering around with a gun he's going to end up dealing with the cops regardless of what he's doing with said gun. Here in real people land I can rest assured no one's bringing an assault rifle to a political rally just to prove a point.

Here in real people land I feel safe. Because we don't all fucking have guns. >.>