Uhh...heres and idea alot of people are seemingly overlooking, gun control and More treatment of disturbed/metally ill people.
Uhh...heres and idea alot of people are seemingly overlooking, gun control and More treatment of disturbed/metally ill people.
But it does show that just because there are a lot of guns in a society, it doesn't mean that there will be a lot of murders.
Doesn't matter... they can still make someone just as dead as with an automatic.From what I can see they can own small calibre rifles that do not contain a magazine (single shot)
Won't work immediately? How long have guns been abolished in the U.K.?Because criminals still have them and people still have them . A buy back or ban or whatever won’t work immediately. Guns will have to slowly go out of circulation. It is a slow process but one that can’t work unless it has a starting point.
It may not, but potential victims can at least protect themselves.How would England’s current circumstances be helped by giving everyone access to more guns? There is no logic in that.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
Bizarre.
Police Say NBC Got A Package From Cho
April 18, 2007 04:57 PM
Authorities say the Virginia Tech gunman sent photographs, videos and writings to NBC in New York before he died in the massacre that left 33 people dead.
NBC said it turned the package to authorities today. Virginia State Police say the information may be a very new, critical component of the investigation. Authorities are in the process of attempting to analyze and evaluate its worth.
NBC said that a time stamp on the package indicated the material was mailed in the two-hour window between the first burst of gunfire and the second. It contained what the network described as a "lengthy diatribe."
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp...4&nav=ZolHbyvj
This whole thing is just twisted and sick.
I suppose it was too much to hope that this wouldn't turn into a frivolous discussion of gun policy, it's a shame that anyone want's to use a tragedy like this push their views on something so stupid. I have heard so many debates exactly like this one in the past two days it's nauseating. A firearms ban in the US would work just about as well as prohibition did. It doesn't even make sense to suggest such a thing, and this isn't really the appropriate thread to do so. That's just my opinion; I'm sure it will be ignored.
Go n-ithe an cat thu, is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat
When you go Home, Tell them for us and say 'For your tommorrow, We Gave Our Today.'
Sorry that I haven't anything to contribute to the full 10 or so pages because I haven't read most of this thread, but this relates to it too.
I'm not sure if it was talked about before (as I said, I haven't had time to read the entire thread), but the gunman is Korean and they're now afraid of a backlash to Asians in general. People often jump to conclusions and it's not fair to just generalize all Asians as "uncontrollable freaks that shoot everyone".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18178194/site/newsweek/
I saw this coming
Violent video games blamed for Virginia Tech slayings
Originally Posted by theinquirer.net
In the vids he sent to NBC he's posing with guns and going into incoherent diatribes. Blaming someone, but he doesn't say who, drove him to do it...be cause he 'had to'. Angrily ranting and using alot of profanity in most of the clips.
He also mentioned the two main shooters in the Columbine tragedy.
He was one sick dude.
I suppose the problem is still that once someone has a gun and has bought it legitimately and sat out a waiting period etc he has it. A waiting period of three weeks may not have been an issue for the guy in Virginia as he appeared to have planned this. Conversely a waiting period is also of no use where someone is prone to mental problems or violence but they have not manifested themselves in an extreme way as yet. They have a legal gun and are a legal owner. They them may at some stage find themselves in a situation where these problems do manifest themselves in an extreme way.
In effect I am not sure there are a great many situations where waiting three weeks is of much use at all. I would rather someone show a justifiable reason that they need a gun or a particular type.
Done and finished. They are cops after all.
This is a problem that is at the root. I am against gun proliferation only because it avails a terribly effective method for these people to use when they go off. But mental illness and the stigma of it are being recognised more by the wider community as an illness as opposed to dismissing it as weakness or a character flaw. The difficult part comes with dealing with these people who can be identified as carrying this trait to the extent it can manifest itself in such a devastating way.
How do you test everyone?
What are the levels acceptable and when is a level deemed to be dangerous or potentially so?
What can you do to these people before they have actually done anything without impinging on their human rights?
When is the good of the many put above the good of the few?
Restricting availability of guns to those who actually need them is an order of magnitude more rational than controlling bathtubs. You need to take your own medicine.
Yes but what does that in turn show?
I was merely responding to this quote you made.
Originally Posted by Fleet 500
In the U.K., private ownership of firearms has been nearly abolished.
Not debating the lethality despite the fact a half trained monkey could work out more bullets and more bullets per minute can result in more carnage and quicker.
They aren’t.
They may be able to in certain circumstances to varying degrees. That is all.
They are also open to all of the rest of the threats associated with gun proliferation.
"A string is approximately nine long."
Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM
But then why didn't these come up in a background check?
That's all good and well, but if the same thing had've happened after Port Arthur here in Australia, people would still have assault weapons. Unfortunately it takes tragedies like this to force people to change their ways.
The figures I got were quoted from a study from Harvard University.
"Crime involving firearm" is a fairly loose term, which I'm guessing in this case involves people being held-up in armed robberies adn threatened etc more than anything else. In the UK we currently have a problem with imitation firearms, which at the moment have relatively weak restrictions on purchase. The majority of hold-ups and the like are done with these imitation firearms. Sadly there is also a growing problem of organised criminals being able to convert certain legally bought imitation handguns into proper live firearms. There are gun control campaigners currently lobbying to get the restrictions on imitation firearms tightened too.
I was not trying to suggest that in the UK we live in some happy-clappy utopia where we all love each other etc, we have problems with violent crime (and increasingly gang crime) just as any country does. However, I guarantee that things would be much, much worse if gun laws were relaxed to let any old guy off the street legally buy a firearm. Tightening gun laws is not going to immediately stop shootings, but it will make the access to firearms for criminals, potential criminals and the mentally unstable severely limited. How can that NOT be a good thing?
Due in no small part to the lax gun laws in Virginia a dangerously mentally ill person was allowed to walk into a store, hand over his credit card and walk out with the guns and bullets that he would then use to slaughter over 30 innocent people. I'd hardly call the gun control issue "frivolous", would you?
I still can't see why people are saying that it doesn't make sense to try and limit access to firearms. Surely everyone, especially at this tragic time, would be wanting the government to be doing anything and everything within their power to keep lethal firearms out of the hands of dangerous people? The arguments against tightening gun laws just don't make a damn bit of sense to me.
Indeed, the handgun ban that came into force in the UK came within a year of the awful Dunblane school massacre in Scotland. The tragedy highlighted a serious flaw in the existing gun regulations, and the flaws were swiftly remedied to try and prevent it ever happening again.
With regards to the matter of mental illness there's no doubting that it is every bit as important a factor as the gun contol issue. In this particular case it seems that pretty much everyone who came into contact with Cho was deeply worried about his behaviour, and it's hugely disappointing that the concerns and complaints of fellow students and teachers didn't lead to concrete action, like being referred for serious psychiatric assessment and treatment.
However, it is a sad fact of life that serious mental disturbance is something that will always affect a small percentage of people. There is really very little that can be done about this, especially those out in the wider world and not in a more closed environment like a college campus where they will come into contact with people who may be able to help them. There will then be a small percentage of these mentally disturbed individuals who will inevitably turn to violence of some kind. It's not nice, but it's a reality of life. This is as strong an argument as any for the tightening of gun laws IMO. Everything that can reasonably be done to keep dangerously mentally ill people from getting their hands on firearms (not to mention the criminals wanting to get their hands on guns) should be done. Even just stronger profiling of people wanting to buy guns would have helped in this case. If background checks had been forced to dig a little deeper then they were there's no way a guy with serious question marks over his mental stability would have been able to walk out of that store with those guns.
Does anyone else find it quite disturbing that news agencies are openly broadcasting his rantings and pictures all over TV and the internet? I think it's in extreme bad taste, especially for the families of the victims to have those images and words plastered all over the news. I can't even imagine what they're thinking watching that. Surely NBC should have passed the information straight to the police and washed their hands of it. This guy posted this stuff to NBC with intention of it sealing his legacy and his notoriety in the realm of infamous serial killers. By broadcasting it they are granting the guy his final wish, giving him exactly what he wanted. It's just chilling and wrong IMO.
uәʞoɹq spɹɐoqʎәʞ ʎɯ
Switzerland has more relaxed gun laws (compared to the U.K.) and the number of people killed there (per 100,000) is less than in the U.K. How do you explain that?
Instead of keeping lethal firearm out of the hands of dangerous people, I would rather the dangerous people be kept off the streets. That guy in Virginia was determined to be a threat to himself and others and should have never been out in public. It can't be blamed on guns.I still can't see why people are saying that it doesn't make sense to try and limit access to firearms. Surely everyone, especially at this tragic time, would be wanting the government to be doing anything and everything within their power to keep lethal firearms out of the hands of dangerous people? The arguments against tightening gun laws just don't make a damn bit of sense to me.
Wait a minute... Crisis says that handguns were banned in the U.K. You say they were. Which is it?Indeed, the handgun ban that came into force in the UK came within a year of the awful Dunblane school massacre in Scotland. The tragedy highlighted a serious flaw in the existing gun regulations, and the flaws were swiftly remedied to try and prevent it ever happening again.
'76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)