By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Another Shooting, Another Gun Free Zone

sc94597 on 18 July 2015
MikeRox said:
sc94597 said:
Conina said:
sc94597 said:
Scoobes said:

No, we're just next to Russia and have the issues in Ukraine. Then there's Libya and the short hop across the Mediterranean sea to Italy, Greece and Turkey. Oh, let's not forget the border with Iraq and Syria, those two countries where we're fighting ISIS.

But no, we've got nothing on the US/Mexican border...

Most of Western Europe is not next to Russia. If you want to make that comparison, I might as well throw in all of Central and South America. The distances between England and Russia is something like 3,000 miles. Meanwhile the distance from Pennsylvania and Columbia is 2,500 miles.

And most of the USA is not next to Mexico by your logic. London - Moskow is 1.550 miles, Berlin - Moskow is 1.000 miles

The question that next needs to be made, is - how many national borders must you cross between Moskow and London, and how many between  Mexico and the U.S? Using this logic, then we should also include much of South and Central America besides Mexico.


Um, cross into the Ukraine and you're in the EU. Pretty much free movement through to France so your next check would be the UK border. However for the rest of Western Europe pretty much, that is the only border where passport checks are required.

Have you not seen the scenes in Calais? They are African migrants that have got through the entirity of Europe to come live in the UK as illegal immigrants.

When I said in an earlier post about the US  geography cushioning it from a lot of the spillback of it's actions, I was referring to the Middle East, not the Cartel drug trade. It's pretty much a fact that there will be a lot more Western Blowback for the events in Syria/Iraq etc in Europe than there will be in the US. Gun control will have no impact on such attacks. If people are intent on killing, no amount of legal framework will stop this. However reducing access to guns will naturally have the result of there being less availability in order for people to be able to carry out such attacks.

The shootings in Europe have been of a very different type to most in the US. They are also a lot more frequent in the US. I don't really see why this is so hard to see.

I'm not saying ban guns, I'm saying if you did restrict the availability of guns you'd find it would reduce the number of incidents involving them. Historical evidence backs this up. It is a choice the US needs to make however continuing with the current gun framework will inevitibly mean that further tragedies will happen. If that is a price worth paying for the "freedom" that's for the US and the US alone to decide.

In the UK handguns are outright banned due to how easy they are to conceal. However, you can buy rifles and shot guns legally, there is a gun shop in my local town. It's just that you are heavily vetted and undergo a lot of security checks before you are granted a permit for it. You also have to demonstrate you are able to keep the gun secured safely so that nobody else would be easily able to obtain it. Once you have your license and permit for the weapon, you are free to use it how you please on private land. There are a few shooting clubs and ranges. I've been to one and it was a lot of fun.

 

See my other post about borders. Borders aren't just the extent of their controls.

Alright, but you can't ignore the Cartel drug trade. It is much more contributive to gun crime than the wars in the Middle East (at least in the U.S) and I'd argue it is more significantly contributive than the Middle East with respect to Europe. Most gun crimes are not mass-shootings. So while Europe has a greater risk of Middle Eastern terrorists, the U.S has gangs fighting in inner cities killing 20 out of 100,000 people per year. Remove that, and you have European homicide rates (see low-crime U.S cities and states.)

Also please substantiate your claim of how historical evidence backs this up with some study. Most studies have shown no strong correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership.



Around the Network
Naum on 18 July 2015

Can't say it better then this guy.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

MikeRox on 18 July 2015
sc94597 said:

Also please substantiate your claim of how historical evidence backs this up with some study. Most studies have shown no strong correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership.


What does gun control and homicide rates have to do with each other? We're talking about for the mass shootings etc.

If someone wants to kill someone they will do with or without guns. Guns did not invent this, therefore controlling them will not get rid of it.

However as per Video above, the places that do introduce gun controls generally tend not to have further continued massacres. Dunblane was the last UK one, this was the point when gun controls were increased and handguns banned. Of course the gangs in the streets (this is not a US exclusive thing) still go around killing each other. Yes we get incidents involving guns, because at the end of the day they still exist. However GUN RELATED incidents decrease with GUN CONTROL. It's really not rocket science.

As I said, I'm not saying ban them, I'm just saying you're accepting gun massacres as the cost of the freedoms.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Barozi on 18 July 2015
sc94597 said:
Barozi said:
sc94597 said:

The issue is that the people who do these crimes are the ones with access to the black market. The other portion would be happy using some other effective means like a bomb or a fire. I wonder how many people would've gotten shot by Breivik if at least five percent of the hundred or so on that island had a weapon. I think while gun bans help decrease the number of mass shootings they also increase the  number of deaths per incident.

It was a youth summer camp organised by a political party on an island. How could you expect ANYONE to carry a gun there?

There were no adults at said camp? Are not political desitinations like these ripe for attacks?

not more than any other congregation of people really. Adults were present of course, just not that many. Why would they need to carry guns? To defend themselves from teenagers or other adult colleagues that share the same political view?
Even more, the island is privately owned, so you wouldn't even allowed to set foot on it without invitation. Which is exactly the reason why Breivik had to disguise himself as a policeman.
He then could've just called all adults together and mow them down with his assault rifle. (and he did kill the security officer first).



sc94597 on 18 July 2015
MikeRox said:
sc94597 said:

Also please substantiate your claim of how historical evidence backs this up with some study. Most studies have shown no strong correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership.


What does gun control and homicide rates have to do with each other? We're talking about for the mass shootings etc.

If someone wants to kill someone they will do with or without guns. Guns did not invent this, therefore controlling them will not get rid of it.

However as per Video above, the places that do introduce gun controls generally tend not to have further continued massacres. Dunblane was the last UK one, this was the point when gun controls were increased and handguns banned. Of course the gangs in the streets (this is not a US exclusive thing) still go around killing each other. Yes we get incidents involving guns, because at the end of the day they still exist. However GUN RELATED incidents decrease with GUN CONTROL. It's really not rocket science.

As I said, I'm not saying ban them, I'm just saying you're accepting gun massacres as the cost of the freedoms.

Mass shootings make up something like 1% of people murdered by guns in the U.S, yearly. There needs to be a more compelling argument for gun control than mass-shootings.

Instead of gun killings though, you have bombings. Is that any better? And the UK is just one example. I still hear about three or four European shootings per year and that makes sense since we must consider that a larger population will allow for an unlikely event - such as a mass shooting - to occur more frequently. In the U.S this number is probably triple that, but that is because the country has many more internal political problems than Europe (for example the church shooting was fueled by racism.) There are two possibilities here: reducing the number of guns will translate to a decrease in gun incidents as a proportion. Or, reducing the number of guns will not show any noticeable decrease in gun incidents as a proportion of population, because the people commiting the crimes get their guns elsewhere. And then there is the question of the number who are injured and killed because there is nobody to prevent a murderer from killing dozens of people if they don't have a suitable weapon themselves, as we see with the European shootings vs. the American ones. Unless you can reduce the number of guns in all markets, you are not going to stop the majority of gun incidents.

Lastly;

Why should I care about "gun related" incidents and not the total number of homicides? Why does it matter if somebody is killed with a gun or by arsonry, chemical bombs, etc? Like you said, people will find a way to kill. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to put time and resources in reducing the motivations for killing rather than the ability to kill?



Around the Network
sc94597 on 18 July 2015
Barozi said:
sc94597 said:
Barozi said:
sc94597 said:

The issue is that the people who do these crimes are the ones with access to the black market. The other portion would be happy using some other effective means like a bomb or a fire. I wonder how many people would've gotten shot by Breivik if at least five percent of the hundred or so on that island had a weapon. I think while gun bans help decrease the number of mass shootings they also increase the  number of deaths per incident.

It was a youth summer camp organised by a political party on an island. How could you expect ANYONE to carry a gun there?

There were no adults at said camp? Are not political desitinations like these ripe for attacks?

not more than any other congregation of people really. Adults were present of course, just not that many. Why would they need to carry guns? To defend themselves from teenagers or other adult colleagues that share the same political view?
Even more, the island is privately owned, so you wouldn't even allowed to set foot on it without invitation. Which is exactly the reason why Breivik had to disguise himself as a policeman.
He then could've just called all adults together and mow them down with his assault rifle. (and he did kill the security officer first).

"Why would they need to carry guns?" To prevent one guy from killing 69 people. Such a thing would not happen in the U.S in any place where guns are legal and freely available to both individuals and the police. The largest mass-shooting in the U.S was Virginia Tech (likely a gun-free zone) and 32 people died there.



sc94597 on 18 July 2015

For those interested in Mass Shootings prevented by gun-owners (by the way Buzzfeed is generally a liberal site.)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.bdNX8jQD8



Conina on 18 July 2015
sc94597 said:

"Why would they need to carry guns?" To prevent one guy from killing 69 people. Such a thing would not happen in the U.S in any place where guns are legal and freely available to both individuals and the police. The largest mass-shooting in the U.S was Virginia Tech (likely a gun-free zone) and 32 people died there.

So the brave American civilians with their guns saved the day in these mass shootings and prevented further killings by incapacitating the perpetrator(s)?

Or did the police force had to do it?



sc94597 on 18 July 2015
Conina said:
sc94597 said:

"Why would they need to carry guns?" To prevent one guy from killing 69 people. Such a thing would not happen in the U.S in any place where guns are legal and freely available to both individuals and the police. The largest mass-shooting in the U.S was Virginia Tech (likely a gun-free zone) and 32 people died there.

So the brave American civilians with their guns saved the day in these mass shootings and prevented further killings by incapacitating the perpetrator(s)?

Or did the police force had to do it?

Both.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.bdNX8jQD8

Isn't a sizable portion of police in Europe unarmed?



Barozi on 18 July 2015
sc94597 said:
Barozi said:

not more than any other congregation of people really. Adults were present of course, just not that many. Why would they need to carry guns? To defend themselves from teenagers or other adult colleagues that share the same political view?
Even more, the island is privately owned, so you wouldn't even allowed to set foot on it without invitation. Which is exactly the reason why Breivik had to disguise himself as a policeman.
He then could've just called all adults together and mow them down with his assault rifle. (and he did kill the security officer first).

"Why would they need to carry guns?" To prevent one guy from killing 69 people. Such a thing would not happen in the U.S in any place where guns are legal and freely available to both individuals and the police. The largest mass-shooting in the U.S was Virginia Tech (likely a gun-free zone) and 32 people died there.

maybe you should read the bolded parts again.

Would you let strangers (or people you barely know) with guns on your property ?