Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

You mean island nations that aren't bordered by active drug war zones don't have the same crime issues we do?

I never would have guessed that...

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

You mean island nations that aren't bordered by active drug war zones don't have the same crime issues we do?

I never would have guessed that...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

You mean island nations that aren't bordered by active drug war zones don't have the same crime issues we do?

I never would have guessed that...

You know perfectly well almost none of the mass shootings are anything to do with Mexico.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

The question is... why aren't we have MORE mass shootings in the states?

We got huge population, major gang crimes, drug crimes and gun-walking by the feds...

We have issues... but outright banning guns (or more strict gun control) won't simply solve all of this.

EDIT: dang... ninja'ed

 djones520 wrote:
The second part of your post didn't really have anything to do with my response, hence the cutting it out.

Your pointing out that people won't always be able to "respond", I'm just agreeing.

So do you agree that the gun free zones just help to create victims then?

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

The question is... why aren't we have MORE mass shootings in the states?

We got huge population, major gang crimes, drug crimes and gun-walking by the feds...

We have issues... but outright banning guns (or more strict gun control) won't simply solve all of this.

EDIT: dang... ninja'ed

I'm a big "split the baby" kind of guy on this. I say allow for more guns in more places, but only with licensure. With the exception of bonafide hunting and target shooting pieces, all other weapons must be registered to an owner licensed to carry them. Only those with a CCW can purchase a handgun at all. Allow for licenses for all forms of firearm, including full auto pieces.

So people can have whatever they feel they need to protect themselves, they simply need to be trained and registered. Weapons are registered just like cars, for theft and the like. Yes, people will be upset that there is a gun owner database, but in practice gun ownership will be freer and more secure.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Historically speaking, registration always leads to confiscation. Always.

As to security via registration, criminals never register firearms, so again the failure of registration.....

 Spacemanvic wrote:

I'm a big "split the baby" kind of guy on this. I say allow for more guns in more places, but only with licensure. With the exception of bonafide hunting and target shooting pieces, all other weapons must be registered to an owner licensed to carry them. Only those with a CCW can purchase a handgun at all. Allow for licenses for all forms of firearm, including full auto pieces.

So people can have whatever they feel they need to protect themselves, they simply need to be trained and registered. Weapons are registered just like cars, for theft and the like. Yes, people will be upset that there is a gun owner database, but in practice gun ownership will be freer and more secure.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Historically speaking, registration always leads to confiscation. Always.

My family's car is registered. Nobody has confiscated it.

 Forar wrote:

Like, yes, the right to bear arms is important. So is restricting the availability of weapons to those who might misuse them, and similarly the solutions are likely to be a lot more complex than simply "guns for everyone!" or "no guns for anyone!"
.

 whitedragon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Historically speaking, registration always leads to confiscation. Always.

My family's car is registered. Nobody has confiscated it.

Kan beat me to it.

There isn't a huge push to confiscate expensive sports cars across the nation the second they are purchased.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

 Polonius wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

You mean island nations that aren't bordered by active drug war zones don't have the same crime issues we do?

I never would have guessed that...

I'm not sure how a border with anything is relevant to school shootings, but whatever.

 Kanluwen wrote:
But criminals are generally not the ones performing these mass shootings. They are being done using legally obtained guns by people who had no business whatsoever owning firearms.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.

You mean island nations that aren't bordered by active drug war zones don't have the same crime issues we do?

I never would have guessed that...

You know perfectly well almost none of the mass shootings are anything to do with Mexico.

But criminals are generally not the ones performing these mass shootings. They are being done using legally obtained guns by people who had no business whatsoever owning firearms.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Historically speaking, registration always leads to confiscation. Always.

My family's car is registered. Nobody has confiscated it.

As to security via registration, criminals never register firearms, so again the failure of registration.....

But criminals are generally not the ones performing these mass shootings. They are being done using legally obtained guns by people who had no business whatsoever owning firearms.

 cincydooley wrote:
I wonder if the people that complain about requiring photo IDs to vote (yes, I think you should be required to have one) would be as up in arms about people being disenfranchised when required to own a firearm if you had to pay to take a safe firearms handling class. Hmmmm.....

 cincydooley wrote:

3. I completely agree that people with mental health issues should have a much harder time getting firearms. However, the onus on identifying those issues is not with the gun sellers. That has to come from somewhere else, and thats a whole different bag of potatoes.

 cincydooley wrote:

Well.... they sort of are..... by nature of the whole, you know, mass shooting thing being a criminal act....

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Criminals perform the daily shootings that go under reported because they dont benefit the cause of the gun grabbers.

 Polonius wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I wonder if the people that complain about requiring photo IDs to vote (yes, I think you should be required to have one) would be as up in arms about people being disenfranchised when required to own a firearm if you had to pay to take a safe firearms handling class. Hmmmm.....

That's actually a really good point.

There are a couple of distinctions, such as the fact that voter ID laws seem to address a problem that doesn't exist, while gun accidents and violence is very much a problem that exists. Voter ID laws are pretty blatantly partisan, although gun control has increasingly become so as well.

What if we allowed gun clubs, stores, ranges, and any other interested party give the basic classes free, as a way to recruit more shooters?

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Historically speaking, registration always leads to confiscation. Always.

My family's car is registered. Nobody has confiscated it.

As to security via registration, criminals never register firearms, so again the failure of registration.....

But criminals are generally not the ones performing these mass shootings. They are being done using legally obtained guns by people who had no business whatsoever owning firearms.

Your car doesnt represent a direct threat to the state.

Criminals perform the daily shootings that go under reported because they don't benefit the cause of the gun grabbers.

Of the 12,664 murder victims in 2011 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.6 percent) were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 1.)
Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 50.0 percent were black, 46.0 percent were white, and 2.6 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 175 victims. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.)

Single victim/single offender situations accounted for 48.4 percent of all murders for which the UCR Program received supplemental data. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 4.)

Of the offenders for whom gender was known, 89.3 percent were males. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)

Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black, 45.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,077 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)

Of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data, most (67.8 percent) involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.)

In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.1 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

Of the female murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were known, 36.5 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Tables 2 and 10.)

Of the murders for which the circumstance surrounding the murder was known,
42.9 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2011. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 23.1 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 38.0 percent of reported homicides. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 11.)

Law enforcement reported 653 justifiable homicides in 2011. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 393 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 260 people during the commission of a crime. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 14 and 15.)

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Historically speaking, registration always leads to confiscation. Always.

My family's car is registered. Nobody has confiscated it.

 Frazzled wrote:

Violent crime is higher in the UK then the US.

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.