Oregon School shooting

[GuidoLS]

Britain and France were at war and the US was trading with the French, France, Britain and the US were all declaring trade embargoes against each other. The US invaded Canada very quickly after declaring war, the reason for invading is still argued about but many in Congress were in favour of a land grab either to force Britain to stop a trade embargo, or as permanent expansion.
To quote General Alexander Smyth "You will enter a country that is to become one of the United States. You will arrive among a people who are to become your fellow citizens"

You seem to think that the situation in America was the main thing concerning the British government, far from it they were more concerned with the continued Napoleonic war in Europe and Britain's continued survival.
In Britain the war of 1812 is a small part of the Napoleonic wars.
In the US its seen as the second war of independence
In Canada its seen as defining the country's independence from the US.


As to using the history channel, would you prefer wiki or on of the Canadian history networks? At least the history channel gets the correct year for the burning of Washington.

I'd prefer an attempted detour to push a preferred side of history not derail the topic at hand. Someone asked a question. An answer not necessarily considered was offered. As it relates to this topic, I couldn't give a rat's hind end to any part of the war of 1812 except as how it relates to the 2nd Amendment and the fact that the British, without dispute, burned down the White House and most of Washington, DC, as an act of war, which is when the nutters started pushing for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have a gun, because our well regulated, Federal militia didn't exist at the time.

And anything but History Channel, which has all the credibility of the National Enquirer, aka none.

[HalloweenJack]

sp who then if not the history channel? cite your sources....

[peterb]

Ive broken this out as separate thread as it was taking the other off topic.

[shaithis]

You'll never hear me argue in favor of the average citizen owning military grade firearms - as in fully automatic long guns, uzi's and the like, etc. I *am* a hunter - I will shoot a duck, goose or deer, as permit, season and need dictate. And that used to be the vast majority of firearms owners.

And therein lies the issue they have with legislation changes.

I am sure it would be considerably easier for change if it was a blanket firearms ban but when everyone wants to be treated separately, you have no chance.

[Ttaskmaster]

It's in our Constitution, and that's just not something you can mess with lightly.

But you can mess with it.... that's why they're called Amendments and if it is decided that the general populace can no longer be trusted to responsibly own firearms, what'cha gonna do...
My question is how many such incidents are required before the scales tip? At what point are the continual losses too much?

Having fired a considerable variety of weaponry, from dinky Beretta Tomcats right up to belt-fed MGs and 60mm mortars, I have unsurprisingly found friendship with a number of firearm-owning US peeps... but even they are starting to feel like it's getting too much. Case in point:

Few other countries where gun ownership is allowed have mass shooting s that could almost be described as routine.

It's that routine that they all seem to have a problem with. To have mass shootings in double figures on an annual basis, which people consider to be fairly normal - Something is clearly not right with that and this is what some homewgrown US gun owners are telling me.

what good it is to learn how to defend yourself with a sword/spear/staff if it is not something you would / can carry in the streets

You can still carry an umbrella, walking stick, crutch, and indeed all manner of things to which the exact same principles and techniques apply.
There's a whole history/heritage thing that goes with it as well, but that's a separate thing.

I could sympathise with that. The problem is that it seems that America routinely have people who use guns to vent their anger at society. It is really sad that those people, on top of the lives they take, also ruining it for people who are using guns responsibly.

You could say similar things about car drivers.
But whenever enough people do something else stupid in cars, they just legislate the hell out of that - I'd have expected even greater control over something that can kill dozens of people in a very short space of time!

McDonalds kills more people ever year than guns do.
Should we control that too?

YES!!!!!
Good God, YES!!!
I think it'd be safer to sell hand grenades in Toys R Us!

[Gerrard]

As the saying goes "Guns don't kill people, people do". Guns are very good catalysts for underlying problems. As Peter eluded to, I firmly believe that if the UK had similar gun ownership as the US, we would see similar incidents (is Dunblane the last mass school killing in the UK?). Instead we have issues with knife crime, but it is more difficult to go on a mass killing with a knife although stabbing individuals is still effective (Leeds teacher last year).

But guns are also fairly good "equalisers". Probably the best way to combat someone with a gun is with a gun. However, that leads to problems of esculation and more chances of colateral damage. For example, a couple of years ago there was that news article of the old guy shooting at two robbers. Whilst he was trained and was successful in chasing them off, he could have injured someone else and since it was a robbery, the chances were that no-one was necessarily going to get hurt anyway.

From an outsider point of view, I think the US has gone past the point of no return on firearms. Even if you somehow stopped selling firearms altogether, there are still many in circulation and there is no way to reclaim all of those, so I would guess it would still be relatively easy to get hold of one if need be. However, it probably would still be easier to do than to address any underlying cultural or political issues mentioned in the Huffington Post article Peter linked to...

[Zak33]

Any one remember Hungerford? I certainly remember it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2534669.stm

In 1987 a bloke called Michael Ryan in Hungerford, England shot lots of people. It was horrible. Truly.. epic levels of horror.

Why do I recall it so well when I was just a lad? Because I was a shooting boy. My friend was too and his dad had JUST that very week, bought an automatic .22 rabbit rifle.
He had to get it engineered to not be automatic.

From Hungerford onward, the rules have become tighter over that time. Every cloud HAS to have a silver lining. If people are LEGALLY to be armed there MUST be a reason. Not just a desire to be armed.

Handguns in the UK? Unless it's a target pistol, you have zero chance of getting one on your FAC.

Shotguns with more than 2 shots? 3 is your maximum on a normal shotgun licence.... pump or semi auto, thats one in the breach and two in the tube. No more

Rifles ? Fire Arm Certificate.. with officers tracking the shooting grounds and the amount ofg ammo you use. Do you even NEED a rifle is their first, legit question.

So.. I myself also like to shoot Duck, Pheasant, Rabbit, Pigeon, and recently Squirrel. That's now a requirement for me, not a sport. I hunt grey's. I have a shotgun license, and currently one 12g and soon a 410 (smaller bore shotgun)
I have 2 air rifles.. both under 12ftlb.. I have them tested yearly.

Do I fancy a rifle? Yup...

Will the Officer likely grant me one on the woodland I shoot? Nope! It's not big enough. So when I go deer stalking I go with Dakky who is licenced and also does it professionally. I use his gun, with him next to me, on vast tracts of land.

Would I change the UK laws to the US laws? Where people could wander around with a .22 pistol in their handbag?


no... I ... would....not

Somehow.. whether it's in your constitution or not.. you US guys are going to have to curb gun ownership and licence it more heavily.

A good friend of mine who has a shotgun license for 10 years and taguht me much about shooting, got into a fight in a town centre with a lad who was molesting a girl. He pushed the lad away and then ended up in a tussle. The other lad was mildly hurt. Walked home mind you.

My friend eneded up, quite rightly in court over it. He was rather unfairly lumped with ABH. But he also lost his shotgun licence. Shotguns are tightly licensed, and more so fire arms (rifles), and as I said a pistol is a no go.

[GuidoLS]

But you can mess with it.... that's why they're called Amendments and if it is decided that the general populace can no longer be trusted to responsibly own firearms, what'cha gonna do...

You left the operative word out - and it was just the next word in the sentence - LIGHTLY. And you're really not arguing against anything I've posted - except the McDonalds thing... that's as much a matter of personal responsibility as it is anything. If you go to the counter and buy 3 Big Macs, a large fry and a diet soda, who are you really trying to fool?

[HalloweenJack]

Zak33 - what annoys me of the a certain `type` who sell high powered air rifles (and pistols) and also gas powered airsoft - on facebook of all places

[Ttaskmaster]

is Dunblane the last mass school killing in the UK?

School, yes.
However, we also had the Cumbria incident more recently and I believe those were legally owned weapons.

What is more worrying is that we don't just hear about mass shootings, but that it happens so often there's now a *separate* 'school shootings' category to differentiate them!

But guns are also fairly good "equalisers". Probably the best way to combat someone with a gun is with a gun.

Based on the experiences of myself and those I know who have grown up in areas where firearms were prevalent (South Africa, mainly), I'd say firearms are an escalator, not an equalizer.
As a robber, if I think you're armed, I won't waste time intimidating you - I'll just prison-rush you and have you dead before you knew I was there, let alone have time to draw. That, or get my own gun and kill you outright.
It becomes a continual oneupmanship series of plays - The more people are typically armed and the more police are armed, the more the criminals will be armed.

Even if you somehow stopped selling firearms altogether, there are still many in circulation and there is no way to reclaim all of those, so I would guess it would still be relatively easy to get hold of one if need be.

I would suggest perhaps otherwise.
All the UK bans have really done is prevent people from legally obtaining firearms. Illegal ones are still to be had from the same illegal sources and the illegal owners are still illegaly doing the same illegal things with them.
What it has done is stop the legally owned ones from causing problems - I believe most of the UK's notable shootings have been comitted by persons who were in fully licenced possession (according to laws at the time) of their weapons.

You left the operative word out - and it was just the next word in the sentence - LIGHTLY.

Perhaps I should rephrase - "But you *still can* mess with it".
In other words, when it's no longer good enough and/or being abused, perhaps it's time to amend the Amendment...

And you're really not arguing against anything I've posted

I wasn't really trying to argue against, just nattering, mainly.
I am personally a BIG fan of firearms and deeply regret the circumstances that have prevented us from enjoying them over here, but still believe the majority of people in general are too irresponsible to be allowed them, especially to carry as a form of personal defence.
I feel the temptation to use them as a first resort is far too great and based on how people behave when they have other weapons, I've not seen much to dissuade me from that belief.

except the McDonalds thing... that's as much a matter of personal responsibility as it is anything.

Hey, any chance I get to rib McDonalds!!
I do it partly in jest, but it is pretty disgusting stuff...

[Andy3536]

Handguns in the UK? Unless it's a target pistol, you have zero chance of getting one on your FAC.

Target pistols arn't allowed. There are a few clubs that hold them, very few. But the only reason for holding a pistol legally now is for 'humane dispatch' So vets, yes. Target shooting... no ...
There are some long handles pistols (possibly only in 33 special??) and air pistols...
Then there's black powder pistols, but that also requires an extra license for the black powder aswell as a firearms license for the pistol.....

[peterb]

Of course you can always sign up for the Army, or apply to become a police officer in the MoD police, which is the only UK police force where every officer is routinely firearms trained, or the Civil Nuclear Constabulary where the majority of Officers are firearms trained.

[DDY]

Target pistols arn't allowed. There are a few clubs that hold them, very few. But the only reason for holding a pistol legally now is for 'humane dispatch' So vets, yes. Target shooting... no ...
There are some long handles pistols (possibly only in 33 special??) and air pistols...
Then there's black powder pistols, but that also requires an extra license for the black powder aswell as a firearms license for the pistol.....

Well, pistols are as you say are generally a no-no. But, a 'pistol' that has a barrel length of over 12" and overall length of over 24" is considered a rifle, so provided that it's not self loading or .22lr if it is, it can be held with a section 1 FAC.

Target pistols in the form of 12" barrelled 22LRs are not uncommon, I've seen a few 12" barrelled revolvers too.

[GuidoLS]

sp who then if not the history channel? cite your sources....

My sources are actual history books - I'm sure some people remember those - and NOT an entertainment channel (at least in the US) that has gone as far as doing documentaries on the authenticity of ninjas and swamp people, amongst other things. There was a time when the US version was a decent place for some information, but they swapped to a more entertaining, and often 'fictional historical' types of things... kind of like romance novels, with moving pictures and sound...

[TeePee]

So Assault Weapons, or fully automatic weapons, have been banned from civilian sales since the 1980's. If you told me the last crimes committed with legally owned fully automatic weapons were Bonnie and Clyde, I might believe you. Crimes of any kind using that kind of weapon have always been rare to non-existent. Criminals use semi-automatic firearms, mostly pistols and the the occasional sporting rifle. For some reason, these are thought by gun control groups to be more deadly if they are black in colour, or have a pistol grip, or a shoulder thing, that goes up. In short, it's simply nonsense.

These killings, which represent a very small number of the murders in the US, happen for a lot of reasons. Healthcare, or lack of it, is probably first on the list. Followed by a media that delights in reporting the details of the gunman's life, making him an instant celebrity ready to be emulated by others. The first and best thing which can be done to stop these crimes is simply to stop celebrating the life of the killers. Refer to them as 'Zero', never report their real names and post-trial leave them alone to quietly rot in a cell somewhere.

As for gun control, remember, More Guns = Less Crime.

[TooNice]

Interesting comment here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonath...b_8062870.html

Intereresting indeed. It -might- explain general gun crime rates (not sure, haven't tried looking further), but it still doesn't seem to explain many of the school mass shootings in recent years. I don't recall an instance where job security or financial difficulty is quoted as the motive.