U.K. Police Say Gunman Kills 12 People in Cumbria

[Red Panda]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update4-.html

Looks like that gun ban is working out well. They should really continue to work on banning pointy knives since banning weapons prevents people from committing crimes

[Greenday]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update4-.html

Looks like that gun ban is working out well. They should really continue to work on banning pointy knives since banning weapons prevents people from committing crimes

It's the worst shooting in England since 1987 and you think this proves the gun ban ISN'T working? You really need to work on your logic.

[The Shadow]

Actually, it's the worst mass killing in the U.K since Dunblane in 1996, which was the catalyst for the ban on handguns.

My understanding is the killer in this case used a long gun, many of which are still legal in Britain (for now anyway). This will probably breathe new life into the UK gun debate. But this time I hope they'll wise up and realize that while banning or restricting something may have merits, there are its limits to its effectiveness and shouldn't be considered a cure-all solution.

[jackfaire]

It's the worst shooting in England since 1987 and you think this proves the gun ban ISN'T working? You really need to work on your logic.

Actually the only way it proves that the ban is working is if it was the first shooting in England since 1987.

That there are still shootings period or that this was the worst since 1987 don't actually prove anything one way or the other.

The only data that would is if there was a decrease in gun violence and there were no other evident factors that could have contributed to such.

And by gun violence I mean all crimes committed with a gun.

For example law abiding citizen has a gun. Person with gun tries to rob them they shoot the robber.

Boom that is recorded as a shooting.

Same situation person being robbed doesn't have a gun and is robbed of their car, their wallet everything. No shooting was involved but the crime was successful.

These are things that need to be taken into account before one can know if a gun ban is succeeding or failing.

[HEMI6point1]

I feel for the families of the victims who died at the hands of this scum.

That said, even with this tragedy the U.K still has far less gun deaths each year than the U.S. Other than some war-torn countries, we're among the highest each year for gun deaths.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Screw gun deaths, we've got just plain more deaths. (meaning homicides) than most everyone else. If you ask me it's largely due to the fact that those areas that are violent are extremely violent despite the country at large being relatively safe. People are killing each other a lot and what or indeed if they're armed seems to be secondary.

And as Jackfaire pointed out, the self-defense shootings and even deaths as a result of LE action are often counted in with the homicides as shootings, distorting the picture even more. And we're not even talking illegally owned vs legally owned.

Although little or none of that probably matters to the families in question, and they have me sympathy.

[Greenday]

Screw gun deaths, we've got just plain more deaths. (meaning homicides) than most everyone else. If you ask me it's largely due to the fact that those areas that are violent are extremely violent despite the country at large being relatively safe. People are killing each other a lot and what or indeed if they're armed seems to be secondary.

You sure us having the third highest population doesn't also increase how much it happens? The UK has 62+ million people. USA is closing in on 310 million. With five times as many people, you have to expect more crime.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You sure us having the third highest population doesn't also increase how much it happens? The UK has 62+ million people. USA is closing in on 310 million. With five times as many people, you have to expect more crime.

This only applies to stats that don't measure in terms of per 100 or per 1000.

[crazylegs]

This only applies to stats that don't measure in terms of per 100 or per 1000.

As I proved in this thread I can show you that for every murder with a firearm in the UK there are 43 comparable offences in the US.

Now, back to the meat of the topic.

The weapons that Derrick BIRD used were not controlled under the legislation brought in after the Dunblane shooting. He used a .22 rifle and a shotgun. He drove around in his vehicle and shot indiscriminately. He initially shot his solicitor and his brother, then shot a collegue at a taxi rank. It was only after the 3rd death that people (and the police) became aware that he was doing this. Dut to the roads, and small villages in that part of the country (and that he was a taxi driver and had exceptionally good local knowledge of the roads in that area) it was incredibly dificult to track him in his vehicle. If he were on foot then it would have been a lot easier to contain him.

For those who are about to state that if the UK civillians were armed and would therefore be able to defend themselves I will counter argue that anyone firing from a moving vehicle is extremely difficult to counter - especially if they're using a weapon with a longer range than yours (if the civillian population were armed then they would naturally be carrying a handgun of some type - he was using a rifle with a scope).

The firearms ban *is* working - if it weren't he would have used a pistol/revolver or even a semi/fully automatic weapon (second set of weapons banned after the Hungerford incident) and there would be an even greater list of casualties.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The United States is also many times larger than the UK, and, as has been stated, more violent overall. There is little convincing evidence that the presence of firearms makes people more violent.

Moreover, that retaliation may have been difficult does not make it impossible. First among many is that the nature of the weapons he was using meant that he would likely have to stop his vehicle to operate them with any accuracy (which would be true for semi-automatics as well) and it's therefore probable that he did. This would have allowed any armed opponent an opening to engage with better accuracy then if he was moving. Furthermore, given that the handguns those armed opponents would have had would be revolvers or semi-automatics, they would have the capability of making follow-up shots giving them a decent chance of hitting their target compared to the shooter's manual weapons. Nowhere does it indicate at what exact range he generally engaged at, and until we do we cannot rule out the possibility that some if not all of his targets were within handgun range.

It appears that the targets were also isolated from one another meaning that the potential advantage of a semi-automatic to engage multiple targets in a sequence would have been minimal. We also do not know if he purchased these weapons for the express purpose of this shooting spree, in the event that they were simply his hunting weapons (likely given their nature) than he wouldn't have had a semi-automatic anyway.

Killing sprees happen, it's basically impossible to stop them and difficult to try and limit them. Even if one or two people would have survived (basically impossible to prove outright) does that really outweigh the rights of an entire nation?

[smileyeagle1021]

Furthermore, given that the handguns those armed opponents would have had would be revolvers or semi-automatics, they would have the capability of making follow-up shots

On the flip side of that, it also gives them more chances to miss their target and cause even more collateral damage. An untrained person with good intentions can be just as dangerous as a trained person with bad intentions.
That doesn't mean that any armed citizen is going to be incompetent and dangerous, but it does mean that just slapping a gun in everyone's hand isn't going to solve anything.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

On the flip side of that, it also gives them more chances to miss their target and cause even more collateral damage. An untrained person with good intentions can be just as dangerous as a trained person with bad intentions.
That doesn't mean that any armed citizen is going to be incompetent and dangerous, but it does mean that just slapping a gun in everyone's hand isn't going to solve anything.

That would be a valid observation if that's in any way what's been proposed. We're not talking about arming people at random, were talking about allowing competent, motivated citizens to arm themselves.

And even if we were talking about incompetents, stray bullets, while obviously dangerous compared to nothing, aren't very dangerous to bystanders. The danger posed by a few stray rounds (that may or may not actually occur) is nothing compared to the value in stopping or slowing the shooter in question, who, if left unopposed, can methodically execute people with ease.

[smileyeagle1021]

I know that is not what is being proposed, merely taking what is proposed to the extreme (from give everyone open access to guns to give everyone guns). Even at the more modest level, if left unchecked with some form of control (in this case, mandatory training) then it is quite possible for the situation to only get worse.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I know that is not what is being proposed, merely taking what is proposed to the extreme (from give everyone open access to guns to give everyone guns). Even at the more modest level, if left unchecked with some form of control (in this case, mandatory training) then it is quite possible for the situation to only get worse.

Thing being that we're all for that measure of control (on top of the usual restrictions on firearm ownership, background checks etc.) and there's no reason to believe that it will go out of control if allowed (it hasn't where it is allowed). It's teetering if not diving straight into the straw-man fallacy to argue that a more extreme version of our proposal might be dangerous. I once again link to this page which, though focused on college, is still a good resource for general concealed carry.

Nevertheless, it still stands tactically speaking that armed resistance is more likely to improve or resolve the situation than it does to worsen it. Anythings possible, but that doesn't detract from the benefits evident in the big picture. In fact, Kleck proved quite convincingly that overall, the better armed the resistance the better off a victim and bystanders come out in cases of violent crime (with no resistance leading to the most injuries and firearms resistance leading to the least)