Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Or maybe because Europe has better social services to begin with.

But even Europe has "psycho with guns kills people" happening at least once a year.

MrMerlin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:I don't think banning guns in the US would help anyone, because as pointed out many times before, there are just too many guns around.
However, if there is a country with very stict gun control laws, it should definetly stay that way. Take germany for example. Its very hard to get a gun here, and hence there are less nutjobs gunning down dozens of people. Of course we have nutjobs too, but they usually have to contend with axes and air pistols, and do waaaay less damage.

Chicago has intensive gun laws. it also is fast becoming the murder capital of the US.

Yeah, but I think its a lot easier to buy illegal weapons in Chicago because there are so many guns around. The point I was trying to make was if there are no guns to begin with, you'll have less trouble with psycopaths shooting people, even if their guns were aquired illegally.

One thing I was thinking is that due to the nature of the U.S., restrictve gun laws in a place won't work because someone can just go to the next state over and buy a gun then bring it back home. Just look at how many fireworks places are on the border of states where fireworks are illegal.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, although drugs and liquor are much more likely to cause permanate damage then guns. And of course all 3 problems are often interrelated.

Death from gunshot is pretty permanent.

Wussies. Zombie up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:It doesn't strike you as a bad idea to allow people to purchase fully armed and operational tanks?

Clearly, you've not been stuck in LA rush hour. Oh how I longed to be in an M4 or M60, kick on a little Hank Williams or Ride of the Valkyrie, and just go "offroadin."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrMerlin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:I don't think banning guns in the US would help anyone, because as pointed out many times before, there are just too many guns around.
However, if there is a country with very stict gun control laws, it should definetly stay that way. Take germany for example. Its very hard to get a gun here, and hence there are less nutjobs gunning down dozens of people. Of course we have nutjobs too, but they usually have to contend with axes and air pistols, and do waaaay less damage.

Chicago has intensive gun laws. it also is fast becoming the murder capital of the US.

Yeah, but I think its a lot easier to buy illegal weapons in Chicago because there are so many guns around. The point I was trying to make was if there are no guns to begin with, you'll have less trouble with psycopaths shooting people, even if their guns were aquired illegally.
Here in Europe, it's rather hard to get hold of a gun, so many of these nutjobs have to use less dangerous weapons like axes, and they only kill one or two people, if any. Now there was this one guy whose father legally owned a gun, which is rather rare. He killed 15 people with it. Now if anyone can somehow get a gun (even illegally) there'll be more people shot.

I'm agreeing with you. Plus our southern neighbor has severe restrictions, but is awash in full auto machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers.

http://driveatank.com/

Incase those that are planning on buying a tank. Might as well get some driver training in before purchase

Jihadin wrote:http://driveatank.com/

Incase those that are planning on buying a tank. Might as well get some driver training in before purchase

In celebration of one of my decade's the wife had identified a place to drive tanks and was in the midst of setting that up when they closed.

I think I'll jump out of an airplane once Genghis Connie graduates. I tried before on a birthday but she asked me not to, so now we wait...

"You should go. I'll pack the chute."
-She Who Must Be Obeyed, preplanning her soon to be insurance funded trip with Sven the Poolboy to Europe.

Lynata

You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

Hence, only 8% of firearms actually fired with the intent to hit the attacker--excluding the brandishing or warning shots. So no, there are not 200,000 people shot a year in the US.

You also said:

"I think there might still be potential in stricter gun control, just that it might take many years, perhaps even decades to show. Weapons are being confiscated from criminal elements by the police every day, so logically their existence should drop considerably should they no longer be easily available"

Didn't' work during Prohibition, Organized crime flourish providing something people wanted. The war on drugs is a colossal and expensive failure notwithstanding Zero tolerance laws, property forfeiture, No-knock warrants by militarized SWAT teams, to outright war declared against the Cartels by Mexican government resulting in 50,000 deaths. What stricter gun controls do you suggest to that might a difference before returning diminishing returns? Besides, like it or not, the US is awash with as many if not more guns than people. It would go broke (Not that it isn't already) trying to buy them all back.

No one seemed to take my up concern on advocating gun control for governments.

The Iran-Contra Affair. We are familiar with that shenanigans that went on with drugs traded for guns vouchsafed by the US government, right?

And this:

"According to the July 31 report, the military "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces" Yeah, that went well. Thousands of radical insurgents and criminal elements armed with US supplied arms paid by our tax dollars. Same thing happened in Vietnam, where the VC obtained arms and deadly daisy cutter mines from compromised ARVN troops.

Then you have the ATF directing legal gun store owners to break federal and state laws to sell 2,000 or more US firearms that knowingly would end up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. Which resulted in the death of a ATF agent killed by one of said guns, and no doubt are killing Mexican civilians and law enforcement as we speak. One might ask why its the President's business to claim execute privilege to block obtaining evidence on a subordinate held under contempt by Congress for his connection in the Fast and Furious fiasco?

We could stretch it even further, where unbeknownst to the civilian passengers the Lusitania, both the US and the UK colluded to ship arms and munitions on a commercial passenger ship, indirectly justifying the German U-boat's commander decision to sink her for transporting munitions in a clearly advertised war zone.

Lots more of examples, but you get the picture. Governments are the biggest gun dealers in the world. Save maybe someone not getting re-elected their next term, no accountability at all. So how can we expect government to be a paragon of virtue to prescribe gun control of its citizens, when it cannot even police itself ? Like trusting the fox to guard the hen house.

If anyone here that says gun control is needed to prevent killing uses illegal drugs, chances are better than average they are enabling people that kill others in order to protect their business.
If anyone here who touts stronger gun laws has driven impaired, they put themselves in the same position as someone irresponsibly firing a gun and not knowing where the bullets go.

Brushfire wrote:Lynata

You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

Hence, only 8% of firearms actually fired with the intent to hit the attacker--excluding the brandishing or warning shots. So no, there are not 200,000 people shot a year in the US.

...

8% of 2.5 million is 200,000 -- that is, 200,000 people a year are shot.

I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a thing.

Supported broadly by these figures:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9183471

which took me 1.75 seconds to research on Google.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Brushfire wrote:Lynata

You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

Hence, only 8% of firearms actually fired with the intent to hit the attacker--excluding the brandishing or warning shots. So no, there are not 200,000 people shot a year in the US.

...

8% of 2.5 million is 200,000 -- that is, 200,000 people a year are shot.

I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a thing.

Supported broadly by these figures:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9183471

which took me 1.75 seconds to research on Google.

Well if you had a semi automatic instead of single shot, it would have only taken .35 seconds, and you wouldn't have had to reload!

Ok that joke was way more funny in my head. I need more coffee.
On the positive I found out that, if you put a young wiener dog on a retractable leash, and they charge at another dog and hit the end of that leash, that snap back and spin through the air like a furry sausage yoyo. . .

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.

My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.

Of course it doesn't. It was the worst point ever! Carry out the cinema assault that injured and killed 71 people with a wrench?!

The only thing that you said that stands is yes, the hardcore criminal will always be able to get a gun. This is obvious.

Hardcore criminals in England and France and Japan can all get a firearm, this is obviously true.

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals! Gangsters and smugglers.. they hardly ever even shoot cops these days because they know how much gak it brings them do they?

Was the shy, introverted killer in this incident likely to be able to get a gun if he lived in the UK?

No chance.

If he went to Edinburgh university, where the feth would he get guns from? He doesnt know any hardcore criminals, he doesnt even know a drug dealer or a burglar let alone a gun runner because he is shy and doesnt talk to many people, so where is he going to get tooled up?

Same with the Columbine kids, the Virginia tech guy, that mad fether that went into LA fitness in Pitsburgh a couple years back and shot all those women.. this gak happens often, and 99 times out of a 100 Its a weird, introverted mad fether that snaps, goes and buys some guns and ammo and then shoots every fether.

Gangsters and bangers and human traffickers and smugglers are motivated by money, not a desire to slay random people. What possible reason would Tony Soprano have to enter a cinema and kill strangers?!

So yes, your point was an awful one.

mattyrm wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.

My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.

Of course it doesn't. It was the worst point ever! Carry out the cinema assault that injured and killed 71 people with a wrench?!

The only thing that you said that stands is yes, the hardcore criminal will always be able to get a gun. This is obvious.

Hardcore criminals in England and France and Japan can all get a firearm, this is obviously true.

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals! Gangsters and smugglers.. they hardly ever even shoot cops these days because they know how much gak it brings them do they?

Was the shy, introverted killer in this incident likely to be able to get a gun if he lived in the UK?

No chance.

If he went to Edinburgh university, where the feth would he get guns from? He doesnt know any hardcore criminals, he doesnt even know a drug dealer or a burglar let alone a gun runner because he is shy and doesnt talk to many people, so where is he going to get tooled up?

Same with the Columbine kids, the Virginia tech guy, that mad fether that went into LA fitness in Pitsburgh a couple years back and shot all those women.. this gak happens often, and 99 times out of a 100 Its a weird, introverted mad fether that snaps, goes and buys some guns and ammo and then shoots every fether.

Gangsters and bangers and human traffickers and smugglers are motivated by money, not a desire to slay random people. What possible reason would Tony Soprano have to enter a cinema and kill strangers?!

So yes, your point was an awful one.

You probably understand this one better than many. Just drive up in a car full of explosives. Run it into the lobby. Watch the world burn.

Why are we not having a discussion on the public mental health system in this country now? We might not have detected this guy (maybe, I bet evidence comes out ina bit on that) but the VMI dude was a known nutjob.

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!

That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.

Perhaps a comparison with some astronomical body of sorts....

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I want my tank, and I have the right to own it, granted by the bill of rights, 2nd Ammendment, and it shall not be infringed.

Tanks aren't "arms" they're vehicles that carry arms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:Lynata

You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

Hence, only 8% of firearms actually fired with the intent to hit the attacker--excluding the brandishing or warning shots. So no, there are not 200,000 people shot a year in the US.

No, you're wrong. The quoted piece specifically states that less than 8% of the time a citizen will kill or wound the attacker. That's not based on the intent to kill or wound, but the act of killing or wounding.

Brushfire wrote:
Didn't' work during Prohibition, Organized crime flourish providing something people wanted.

Of course guns are not like alcohol in that they are nowhere near as widely used or possessed, nor are they addictive.

Brushfire wrote:
No one seemed to take my up concern on advocating gun control for governments.

Why is that a concern at all? Any government trafficking in weapons doesn't generally involve killing people we care about. Maybe some soldiers, but that's part of their job description.

This is just personal opinion.

I feel that Americans have the right to own shotguns, long rifles, handguns(with proper permitting and possibly mental evaluation at the owners expense). All of these can be used for hunting, personal defense, and recreation. Do i think that people need automatic rifles? no, but i believe it is an Americans right to own firearms.

even if some crazy wacko's are out there, there will always be crazy wacko's. Do guns make it easier for them to accomplish their evil ends, yes, but i feel they have uses that should keep most of them legal.

Melissia wrote:

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!

That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.

Its not THAT wrong is it?

Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.

But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.

What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?

They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!

As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.

Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.

Brushfire wrote:Lynata
You misinterpreted the info from the link. Reread this statement again, and notice the line in bold.

I did not. Actually, my argument targeted that very part you bolded - that "merely brandishing or firing a warning shot" already counts as +1 legitimate self defence, regardless of the event in which this happened.

I still think sebster - who was the actual poster mentioning this bit about the 200.000 lawful shootings you are criticizing here - has a very good point. I did not realize this before, but according to the CDC:
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

If you add the numbers up to account for these 8%, it's clear that they are nowhere near the stats used in that article.

broodstar wrote:

How many homes are actively protected by the use of guns each year?

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
Gary Kleck ph.d. Florida State University College of Criminology

And the stats in that article came from this guy.

I won't say that he has an agenda, but when conducting interviews with gun owners, I suppose it's safe to say that the accuracy of their statements about "self defence" may be questionable. Or at the very least, this guy's ~4k strong target group was way out of line with the national average when he scaled the percentage up to reflect the national populace.
Maybe he only interviewed people from Texas. *ducks into cover before Frazzled gets his gun*

Brushfire wrote:Didn't' work during Prohibition, Organized crime flourish providing something people wanted.

Whilst that is true, one could say that booze and drugs are needed by the people already addicted to them. Guns aren't, it's just a mixture of them being considered cool to have one, and a culture that seems to distrust the government to do its job and keep the peace. Plus you can't really manufacture guns and ammunition in your home the way you can cook up booze. Well, you sorta can for ammo, but even that takes way more specialized equipment and you still need to get your hands on the chemicals and cast your own bullets as well. How many people would learn and buy all of this just to have a single clip or magazine of rounds to "feel safe"?

Brushfire wrote:Governments are the biggest gun dealers in the world. Save maybe someone not getting re-elected their next term, no accountability at all. So how can we expect government to be a paragon of virtue to prescribe gun control of its citizens, when it cannot even police itself ?

Whilst there is sadly a lot of truth to that argument, the government probably accounts for the least amount of innocent citizens (its own citizens) killed by guns. Unless you presume that the US will turn into Syria over the next couple decades, it just seems like an excuse to hold on to tradition. And even then, as someone pointed out before, that puny gun won't protect you from the U.S. Army with its tanks and helicopters. Or a drone strike.

Governments break the laws they proscribe to their citizens all across the globe, and in spite of Cold War propaganda it is not just the KGB etc who pull off "evil" stuff. Yet somebody has to make some laws and enforce them, that's a principle of modern civilization. If you don't like how the government deals with this, vote for a change. Democracy does give you that option. Unfortunately, way too many people just don't seem to care enough to do so, or perhaps they allow themselves to be manipulated by the various politicians' campaigns. If person A campaigns for "greater government accountability" and person B campaigns for "tax cuts", guess who will be voted into office, even though that person is known to have lied about their agenda in the past? Most humans do not look past their very own and immediate situation and fears. It's one of the biggest weak points of democracy compared to a type of government that lends greater authority to whoever is in power.
I would also agree with the assessment that the situation has become somewhat deadlocked, though. I have a feeling that the longer a specific form of government is in place, the more corruption you have, simply because those in power tend to "breed" their own successors for various posts. You may still get to vote on some of them, but at some point, you're only going to have the choice of the lesser evil, if at all, as many of those people who would do the most awesome job in office are kept out of it by those "threatened" by their idealism. I got a taste of how this works in the city council, and I have no illusions about the German Bundestag being different.

Frazzled wrote:

You probably understand this one better than many. Just drive up in a car full of explosives. Run it into the lobby. Watch the world burn.

Why are we not having a discussion on the public mental health system in this country now? We might not have detected this guy (maybe, I bet evidence comes out ina bit on that) but the VMI dude was a known nutjob.

A very fair point, I think surely people need to notice the fact that the US has FAR more people on meds, and 31% of the populous have been treated for psychological conditions.. its like 7% higher than anywhere else in the world. I think only New Zealand was close, and they were on 25% of something. I read a big article about it last week.

But regardless, I love guns and I would buy one if I moved over. But I seriously think the USA would be a better place if it was more like the UK in this regard.

There are just too many freaks for guns to be easy to get. Go for a walk down the street in any town in America. We used to walk down the high street in Santa Barbara and I used to laugh my ass off at all the weirdos! fethers talking to themselves, general crazies.. people twiddling their ears and shouting at their feet. The worlds full of fething freaks.. and say only one in a thousand has murderous tendencies.. thats a fething gakload of people in a big city.

I just think its a really bad idea having easily accessible firearms for Joe Public. I can see both sides of the argument, but my kids have less chance of getting their faces blown off at random in England than in California, and that can only be a good thing whichever way you slice it.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!

That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.

Its not THAT wrong is it?

Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.

But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.

What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?

They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!

As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.

Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.

Gangsters arn't the dangerous ones. Its the wannabe gangsters that are dangerous.

A real Gangster is a business kinda guy. He is predictable and isn't going to shoot people off hand, because its bad for business. Sure, the threat is there of course, but unless you are an actual threat to his business, rather then a revenue stream, he isn't going to hurt you(seriously anyway)

Wannabe Gangsters are exactly that. Young punks with the tools, but not the business sense. They will happily shoot you off hand for the slightest provocation. They bust into liquor stores and gas stations, steal a few bucks, and shoot the place up. Criminals and Lawabiders alike are in equal danger from these guys.

Both are hardcore criminals. Unfortunantly, the dangerous ones are the most common. There are certaintly hundreds of thousands of Wannabe Gangsters in various places.

Grey Templar wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!

That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.

Its not THAT wrong is it?

Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.

But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.

What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?

They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!

As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.

Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.

Gangsters arn't the dangerous ones. Its the wannabe gangsters that are dangerous.

A real Gangster is a business kinda guy. He is predictable and isn't going to shoot people off hand, because its bad for business. Sure, the threat is there of course, but unless you are an actual threat to his business, rather then a revenue stream, he isn't going to hurt you(seriously anyway)

Wannabe Gangsters are exactly that. Young punks with the tools, but not the business sense. They will happily shoot you off hand for the slightest provocation. They bust into liquor stores and gas stations, steal a few bucks, and shoot the place up. Criminals and Lawabiders alike are in equal danger from these guys.

Both are hardcore criminals. Unfortunantly, the dangerous ones are the most common. There are certaintly hundreds of thousands of Wannabe Gangsters in various places.

Yes exactly. And a wannabe gangsta, some ghetto dude who rocks up to a liquor store with a piece is no "hardcore criminal" he is a moron.

Which is the point I was making, and Mel incorrectly said I was totally wrong.

mattyrm wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!

That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.

Its not THAT wrong is it?

Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.

But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.

What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?

They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!

As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.

Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.

Gangsters arn't the dangerous ones. Its the wannabe gangsters that are dangerous.

A real Gangster is a business kinda guy. He is predictable and isn't going to shoot people off hand, because its bad for business. Sure, the threat is there of course, but unless you are an actual threat to his business, rather then a revenue stream, he isn't going to hurt you(seriously anyway)

Wannabe Gangsters are exactly that. Young punks with the tools, but not the business sense. They will happily shoot you off hand for the slightest provocation. They bust into liquor stores and gas stations, steal a few bucks, and shoot the place up. Criminals and Lawabiders alike are in equal danger from these guys.

Both are hardcore criminals. Unfortunantly, the dangerous ones are the most common. There are certaintly hundreds of thousands of Wannabe Gangsters in various places.

Yes exactly. And a wannabe gangsta, some ghetto dude who rocks up to a liquor store with a piece is no "hardcore criminal" he is a moron.

Which is the point I was making, and Mel incorrectly said I was totally wrong.

No, they are Hardcore criminals. They do that sort of thing all the time. They are ticking time bombs.

They account for the vast bulk of shooting in the US.


First they start with robbing convenience stores(after a hefty stint as shoplifters), then muggings, maybe some burgleries, until it becomes a regular thing for them. All the while, the clock is ticking till someone gets hurt.

Definitly hardcore criminals. less hardcore then some, but hardcore regardless.

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals!

That is wrong in so many ways that I am at a loss for how to express its wrongness.

Its not THAT wrong is it?

Maybe you and I are defining hardcore criminals differently, Im not talking about blokes who rob banks or hold up liquor stores. Clearly they shoot randoms.

But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters. They hardly ever shoot cops either. That's why not as many cops as you would think get killed in the line of duty.

What money is there to be made killing Joe Public or Police officers?

They most certainly dont walk into public places to massacre people, whats the bloody point?!

As I said, you wouldnt see Scarface or Tony Soprano walking into a cinema to shoot people. Hardcore criminal organisations exist to make money, and aside from maybe some racketeering (again, they usually kneecap you not kill you, because dead people dont pay anymore) they really don't kill many people, and they most certainly don't butcher people at random at Batman showings because they are off their teeny tits.

Ergo, its not wrong, and its certainly not an epic wrongun on a planetary scale.

Thats how it used to be. Mexican cartels are a different animal altogether now. They are turning Mexico into a charnal house.

Frazzled wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:

Yeah, but I think its a lot easier to buy illegal weapons in Chicago because there are so many guns around. The point I was trying to make was if there are no guns to begin with, you'll have less trouble with psycopaths shooting people, even if their guns were aquired illegally.
Here in Europe, it's rather hard to get hold of a gun, so many of these nutjobs have to use less dangerous weapons like axes, and they only kill one or two people, if any. Now there was this one guy whose father legally owned a gun, which is rather rare. He killed 15 people with it. Now if anyone can somehow get a gun (even illegally) there'll be more people shot.

I'm agreeing with you. Plus our southern neighbor has severe restrictions, but is awash in full auto machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers.

I bet the severe restrictions are the very cause for the abundance of guns in Mexico

mattyrm wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, maybe he couldn't have wounded that many people, but he could certaintly have killed as many as he did.

My point still stands. The law really only effects those who act within the law, those who operate outside the law will be uneffected.

Of course it doesn't. It was the worst point ever! Carry out the cinema assault that injured and killed 71 people with a wrench?!

The only thing that you said that stands is yes, the hardcore criminal will always be able to get a gun. This is obvious.

Hardcore criminals in England and France and Japan can all get a firearm, this is obviously true.

But hardcore criminals generally only shoot other hardcore criminals! Gangsters and smugglers.. they hardly ever even shoot cops these days because they know how much gak it brings them do they?

Was the shy, introverted killer in this incident likely to be able to get a gun if he lived in the UK [other country with similar laws]?

No chance.

If he went to Edinburgh university, where the feth would he get guns from? He doesnt know any hardcore criminals, he doesnt even know a drug dealer or a burglar let alone a gun runner because he is shy and doesnt talk to many people, so where is he going to get tooled up?

Same with the Columbine kids, the Virginia tech guy, that mad fether that went into LA fitness in Pitsburgh a couple years back and shot all those women.. this gak happens often, and 99 times out of a 100 Its a weird, introverted mad fether that snaps, goes and buys some guns and ammo and then shoots every fether.

Gangsters and bangers and human traffickers and smugglers are motivated by money, not a desire to slay random people. What possible reason would Tony Soprano have to enter a cinema and kill strangers?!

So yes, your point was an awful one.

Totally agree with this

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

You probably understand this one better than many. Just drive up in a car full of explosives. Run it into the lobby. Watch the world burn.

Why are we not having a discussion on the public mental health system in this country now? We might not have detected this guy (maybe, I bet evidence comes out ina bit on that) but the VMI dude was a known nutjob.

A very fair point, I think surely people need to notice the fact that the US has FAR more people on meds, and 31% of the populous have been treated for psychological conditions.. its like 7% higher than anywhere else in the world. I think only New Zealand was close, and they were on 25% of something. I read a big article about it last week.

But regardless, I love guns and I would buy one if I moved over. But I seriously think the USA would be a better place if it was more like the UK in this regard.

There are just too many freaks for guns to be easy to get. Go for a walk down the street in any town in America. We used to walk down the high street in Santa Barbara and I used to laugh my ass off at all the weirdos! fethers talking to themselves, general crazies.. people twiddling their ears and shouting at their feet. The worlds full of fething freaks.. and say only one in a thousand has murderous tendencies.. thats a fething gakload of people in a big city.

I just think its a really bad idea having easily accessible firearms for Joe Public. I can see both sides of the argument, but my kids have less chance of getting their faces blown off at random in England than in California, and that can only be a good thing whichever way you slice it.

Evidently we have the wrong people on the wrong meds methinks.

mattyrm wrote: But proper full blown gangsters, mostly they shoot other gangsters.

No, they don't. Especially not in the Texas/Mexico border.

Gangsters there? They execute people in broad daylight, gun down people for tweeting about them, kill journalists, etc.

Mind you I'm all for gun rights. Handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc-- even semi-automatic versions of fully automatic rifles can be good for hunting or (in the case of SMGs/PDWs) self-defense if you're trained and comfortable with them (and you should need training to own them, provided at a discount for those of lower incomes).

I kinda say no at the fully automatic thing, mind you, because it's a danger to society.

Those with mental issues really can't have their medical records checked due to HIPPA

Grey Templar, I do beleive your math is impeccable.

Jihadin wrote:Those with mental issues really can't have their medical records checked due to HIPPA

And thats a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I bet the severe restrictions are the very cause for the abundance of guns in Mexico

The post is heavy restrictions don't seem to mean .

There's also the problem that a large number of men* don't seek help for their mental problems to begin with.

*(And a smaller number of women, as well. But men, due to cultural reasons (IE Machismo), are less likely to get help for mental problems, and more likely to develop violent mental issues as a result. The actual rate of mental illness between the two genders is about the same, but the rate of reporting is quite different.)

True that.