European reaction to the VT shootings

[Gan]

Across the continent on Tuesday, European media rubber-neck at Monday's massacre in the United States. Most seem to agree about one thing: The shooting at Virginia Tech is the result of America's woeful lack of serious gun control laws. In the strongest editorialized image of the day, German cable news broadcaster NTV flashed an image of the former head of the National Rifle Association, the US gun lobby: In other words, blame rifle-wielding Charlton Heston for the 33 dead.

Papers reserve their sharpest criticism for the 2004 expiration of a 10-year ban on semi-automatic weapons under the then Republican-controlled Congress. Others comment on the pro-gun lobbying activities of Heston's NRA. Some papers also draw analogies between school shootings and Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers.

British daily The Independent writes:
"The passionate feelings of the gun lobby may be traced to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, enshrining 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. Although the provision stems from the times when 'well regulated militias' were deemed necessary to protect against a British attempt to regain the lost colonies, it is the default position of any argument against greater gun control here."

"As such, it has trumped every other consideration, not least the fact that on any given day about 80 people are killed by firearms, the vast majority by murder or suicide. Gun violence may cost $2.3 billion each year in medical expenses, but it is a price, gun supporters believe, that is worth paying to protect a fundamental freedom ..."

"There is no sign of attitudes hardening. Despite the opposition of every police force in the land, Congress in 2004 allowed to lapse a 10-year federal ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, a particular favorite of violent criminals. The reaction was not exactly deafening. Even amid yesterday's shock, the initial calls were for stricter security measures on campuses -- not serious moves to reduce gun ownership."

The Times of London writes:
"The trauma of the death of the students at Virginia Tech that will spread across the university and the whole country will be magnified by the feelings of so many people who feel that they should have been able to prevent it."

"Doubtless there will be a call to review the availability of firearms. The National Rifle Association's (NRA) response is predictable too. They will point out that events such as this are not carried out by a rifle-wielding member of a weekend militia. There is no doubt that access to rapid-action shotguns makes these events even more destructive but as we have seen with suicide bombers, who are closer to spree killers than is often realized, if a person really wants to take their own life and kill others in doing so it is exceptionally difficult to prevent it."

French daily Le Monde writes:
"The shooting at Virginia Tech ... is a dramatic episode of school violence that fits into a long series of such episodes, a series topped by the drama at Columbine, the school attacked by two adolescents in 1999 ..."

"If Columbine left such a strong impression, that was because it was one of the first dramas of school violence that received broad coverage in the media. Americans were informed of what was happening in real time, via TV and the radio. The students called their families or CNN even as the killers were still roaming the corridors of the schools. ..."

"This new tragedy presents a new opportunity for American public opinion to interrogate itself about a society which, as one of the students who survived Columbine said at the time, is very much responsible for what has happened."

French conservative daily Le Figaro writes:
"It was all too easy easy for the elected representatives of the United States, from the White House to the Congress, to express their sadness yesterday; America's problem with fire-arms represents a political issue for which they share responsibility. Here is a country that represents the vanguard of development and democracy while it is legal to carry a gun in 45 of 50 states, as long as the gun is not loaded. ... At the end of 2004, the Republican-controlled Congress allowed a law to expire that prohibited the sale of semi-automatic and military weapons. Thereafter, legal changes were made to protect the producers and vendors of fire-arms from being held responsible for the actions of gun owners."

"Contrary to what one would imagine, this backward stance is not something left over from the Wild West. It goes back to the creation of the United States and the War of Independence against the English. ...

While most states have issued laws designed to control the sale of arms, the NRA ensures they remain inefficient or are not applied. Strongly linked to the conservative fringe of the Republican Party, the NRA spent $400,000 a day to prevent the election of the Democratic candidate John Kerry during the 2004 presidential elections ..."

"Yesterday's massacre will surely revive the debate in the United States, but within the federal system, the question is ultimately settled by each individual state. Going back on the lapsing of the law issued by Washington could provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take a stance on the issue for the first time since 1939."

Italian daily Il Corriere della Sera writes:
"Shocked psychologists and sociologists ask themselves how gun violence is to be explained. Some speak of the repressed violence of a country that goes back to generations of pioneers habituated to achieve justice on their own and which is forced to face the powerful tensions within a multiracial society. Others criticize the spread of violent video games (which are, however, a phenomenon that has only emerged in recent years). In any case, gun violence is becoming a common phenomenon in the United States, one that is no longer surprising. In major cities such as New York, the extension of surveillance measures, a tough approach to crime and measures to rebuild the urban fabric have led to a drop in crime and especially in the number of homicides. But in suburban areas and smaller cities, episodes of 'ordinary violence' are on the rise. In the poorest neighborhoods, people are getting used to the use of fire-arms -- a phenomenon that is linked to the growing tendency among many young people to resort to violence to settle even minor disputes and to the ease with which weapons can be acquired."

Italian daily Il Messaggero writes:
"The bloodbath on the university campus is the work of a suicide killer -- an American suicide killer who, differently from Muslim killers, did not act out of religious motives but was driven instead by the unrest affecting broad layers of US society. America is a nation that has for some years been in danger of becoming more and more unloved in the world, especially in the poorest countries. During the period following World War II, America was seen as the guardian of democracy and was equated with the defense of liberty; today, America is a superpower that begins wars and lives with the constant necessity of having to defend itself against the enemy -- whether this enemy be called Islam or whether it bears the face of the neighbor who has done you wrong."

Spanish daily El Pais writes:
"The president of Virginia Tech called it a tragedy of monumental proportions. But similar comments could already be heard following previous tragedies of this kind. The shooting spree at the Columbine high school in Colorado, for instance, revived the debate on the necessity of better controlling access to weapons. This led to some laws being toughened and security at schools being improved. But the measures are decided by the individual states and are constantly side-stepped by means of an exaggerated interpretation of the US constitution."

German daily Bild writes:
"Now we will probably begin discussing the overly lax gun laws in the United States. There, buying a machine gun is often easier than getting a driver's license. And a new ban on violent games and killer videos will also be put back on the agenda. But in the end, nothing is likely to happen. And the next killer already lives somewhere among us. But we have little reason to point an accusing finger at the Americans. Despite strict gun legislation, we (in Germany) have experienced the school shootings in Erfurt and Emsdetten. We have to consider the problems in our society. And we have to take care of our fellow humans."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,477686,00.html

____________________________________________

Interesting thoughts indeed.

[Bobmuhthol]

Europe needs to shut the fuck up, seriously.

[Parkbandit]

I'm extremely shocked and somewhat disappointed that none of you crazy ass liberals blamed the 2nd amendment.. global warming.. or Bush for this tragedy.

Europe today.. US libs tomorrow. At least they had the 'decency' to give it a day before turning this political.

[Nieninque]

German cable news broadcaster NTV flashed an image of the former head of the National Rifle Association, the US gun lobby: In other words, blame rifle-wielding Charlton Heston for the 33 dead.

Now, I'm no fan of the Germans, but this is kind of a stretch in logic.

Do they not associate the heads of organisations with the organisations they are talking about in the US? I have to say that it is not uncommon, when watching the news, to hear mention of so-and-so organisation and see a photo of someone prominent within that organisation put on the screen.

Now, applying it to this case, if there was mention of the NRA, does it not stand to reason that Charlton Heston is likely to be associated with them? Thus, his picture is likely to screened. That hardly means they are blaming him for the killings...and even implying such is a ridiculous argument.

Are they saying that because pictures of George Bush were also shown during news reports of this tragedy that people are blaming George Bush?


Europe needs to shut the fuck up, seriously.

Right...you can poke your oar in anyone's business anywhere in the world, but if anyone mentions anything about your fucking stupid archaic right to bear arms it's "ZOMG STFU ALREADY".

[Bobmuhthol]

Our fucking stupid archaic right to bear arms? You have a fucking awesome right to remain silent.

[Artha]

Right...you can poke your oar in anyone's business anywhere in the world, but if anyone mentions anything about your fucking stupid archaic right to bear arms it's "ZOMG STFU ALREADY".

America: Fuck yeah.

[Nieninque]

Our fucking stupid archaic right to bear arms? You have a fucking awesome right to remain silent.

I pass up on my right to remain silent and exercise my right to call you on your silly little paddy.

[StrayRogue]

Hardly archaic Nein. They are a baby country remember.

[Parkbandit]

Hardly archaic Nein. They are a baby country remember.


Yea.. how does it feel like to get your asses handed to you by a baby country twice... then beg the baby country to help save you.. twice.

Just remember.. pal... without this baby country, you'd be speaking German still.

[Hulkein]

Yea.. how does it feel like to get your asses handed to you by a baby country twice... then beg the baby country to help save you.. twice.

Just remember.. pal... without this baby country, you'd be speaking German still.

:medieval:

As for the articles... They didn't bother me. Some of them made good points. Some went a little too far (as Nein pointed out). Interesting reading their perspective either way.

[StrayRogue]

I suggest PB reads some real history books.

[Artha]

Hardly archaic Nein. They are a baby country remember.

Ethiopia's ancient.

A country's age is meaningless.

[Apathy]

I suggest PB reads some real history books.

What did he say that was false?

[Drew]

Interesting read, it's amusing/scary how little the European papers know about US law e.g.,


There, buying a machine gun is often easier than getting a driver's license.

Is totally untrue, you have to get a federal license, you have to agree that the ATF can search your home at anytime without probable cause, and the cheapest machine gun you can buy is several thousand dollars.


At the end of 2004, the Republican-controlled Congress allowed a law to expire that prohibited the sale of semi-automatic and military weapons

Another complete mistruth. You could buy semi-automatic weapon before, during, and after the ban. The weapon ban simply banned weapons that "looked" evil, you could buy functionally the exact same weapon as long as it didn't look bad.


This is the perfect example of why I feel European society and especially governance is so ineffective. For thousands of years they lived in a society where the rulers would pass mis-information and make token laws of no consequence to appease the mob. Now the rulers are elected but they do the same thing, foolish laws that look good at a glance. When we let our foolish law that looks good a glance expire the euros, predictably, go into a fit over it.

[Back]

I agree, there is hype on the European side, but then again, some words of wisdom.

Hopefully they understand the same on our side.

(ie. idiots like PB do not speak for all of America)

[Sean of the Thread]

I suggest PB reads some real history books.

Without USA to bail you fruits out you'd either be speaking German or Russian. Every history book printed will tell you that. (Except maybe your own)

[Alfster]

I'll take the 1 in 1000000000 chance of being shot over no dental care any fuckin' day

[SpunGirl]

I *still* wouldn't live anywhere else in the world. I seriously doubt that this media bashing of the US would be this loud if it weren't for the world's general sentiment towards the US at this moment. Tragedies like this are, sadly, not exclusive to North America.

-K, just got her concealed weapon permit

[Parkbandit]

I *still* wouldn't live anywhere else in the world. I seriously doubt that this media bashing of the US would be this loud if it weren't for the world's general sentiment towards the US at this moment. Tragedies like this are, sadly, not exclusive to North America.

-K, just got her concealed weapon permit


SO IT IS GEORGE W BUSH'S FAULT! BINGO!

[Fallen]

Wait... The machine guns have what to do with this shooting? Wasn't the kid using hand guns?

[Jolena]

Wait... The machine guns have what to do with this shooting? Wasn't the kid using hand guns?



DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

[Tsa`ah]

If this kid had been unable to get hand guns legally, he would have obtained them illegally.

Had he not been able to obtain a gun by any means, he would have resorted to another way to kill ... be it making bombs all the way down to stabbing.

This isn't a gun control issue.

[Back]

If this kid had been unable to get hand guns legally, he would have obtained them illegally.

Had he not been able to obtain a gun by any means, he would have resorted to another way to kill ... be it making bombs all the way down to stabbing.

This isn't a gun control issue.

Well established already. Thats why people are questioning the school’s policy of “just another bomb threat and domestic murder” apathy.

[Bartlett]

I agree that it shouldn't be a gun control issue, but to think that the anti-gun folks will not say that if we made it so this guy had to break 5 more laws, then he wouldn't have been able to break the 5 laws he did, is most likely not the case. I tend to think more along the lines of the pro-gun folks who may come to the logical conclusion that if one person in that school had not been stripped of their right to bear arms for furthering their education, this could have been prevented before 0800.

[TheEschaton]

Italian daily Il Messaggero writes:
"The bloodbath on the university campus is the work of a suicide killer -- an American suicide killer who, differently from Muslim killers, did not act out of religious motives but was driven instead by the unrest affecting broad layers of US society. America is a nation that has for some years been in danger of becoming more and more unloved in the world, especially in the poorest countries. During the period following World War II, America was seen as the guardian of democracy and was equated with the defense of liberty; today, America is a superpower that begins wars and lives with the constant necessity of having to defend itself against the enemy -- whether this enemy be called Islam or whether it bears the face of the neighbor who has done you wrong."


I actually like this quote, and think a good thread about the malaise spreading in our society is warranted.

And LOLzers at Drew saying Europe is the land of leaders who make token laws of no consequence to appease the mobs, and spread mis-information.

Gay marriage ban amendment? Tony Snow and Karl Rove?

Pot, meet fucking Kettle.

-TheE-

[Miss X]

Without USA to bail you fruits out you'd either be speaking German or Russian. Every history book printed will tell you that. (Except maybe your own)

It's actually quite disturbing that people still believe this. America joining was of course a factor in the victory, but it was by FAR not the most significant factor involved.

As for the gun thing.... Since the handgun ban was introduced in the UK, rates of gun crime have dropped quite significantly. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to suggest that lax gun control laws in the US are entirely to blame for this tragedy. A psycho intent on killing will find a way to kill, but we can make it harder for that person, therefore reducing the chances of his success.

[Nieninque]

If this kid had been unable to get hand guns legally, he would have obtained them illegally.

Had he not been able to obtain a gun by any means, he would have resorted to another way to kill ... be it making bombs all the way down to stabbing.

This isn't a gun control issue.

No, it's an issue of someone wanting to kill.

The ability to get hold of guns just gave him the opportunity to be that much more devastating.

As for getting hold of guns illegally, it's just not that easy if every man and their dog doesnt have them.

I really wouldnt know where to begin getting hold of a gun here.

There will always be people who resort to killing. Anywhere and everywhere. Giving them the ability to just blow people away as easily as happened here is frightening though.

[StrayRogue]

It's actually quite disturbing that people still believe this. America joining was of course a factor in the victory, but it was by FAR not the most significant factor involved.

As for the gun thing.... Since the handgun ban was introduced in the UK, rates of gun crime have dropped quite significantly. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to suggest that lax gun control laws in the US are entirely to blame for this tragedy. A psycho intent on killing will find a way to kill, but we can make it harder for that person, therefore reducing the chances of his success.


Ignore them. Considering their own history spans like half a chapter compared to the rest of Europe, I doubt they'd take an objective view to anything. It also amuses me how they forget that they aided the Nazi's during WW1 with money and arms sales. It's also worth noting that these super hero's didn't bother getting involved until someone attacked them. I'm proud to say that we fought for what was right in the great wars, not because we were attacked, but because it was for the greater good in the long run. America can never say that.

And if there is one country who I'd thank above all else for their help, it would be the Russians. Anyone with sense would do the same.

As for this being a gun control thing: I don't know what it's like in the US but over here, it's not exactly easy to get a gun, unless you're already in that crowd. I know I can say I'd have a hard time finding a weapon simply because I am not associated with such people. It could be done, I guess, but with difficulty. Miss X would probably agree, as Nein does. Of course he could have used a knife or a fork or something, but I doubt he would have killed quite so many.

[Asha]

And if there is one country who I'd thank above all else for their help, it would be the Russians. Anyone with sense would do the same.

QTF.

Also there's seemingly no point arguing the fact that gun crime prevention MUST benefit to any degree with tighter laws against being allowed to carry a firearm.
I no longer bother trying to reason here since the typical response is the ''but it's our RIGHT'' mindset which most to nearly all Americans seems incredibly desperate to protect.
You love your guns, fine, carry on.

[Drew]

I'm proud to say that we fought for what was right in the great wars, not because we were attacked, but because it was for the greater good in the long run. America can never say that.

England was, at one point, a pretty noble country. The exact same thing can be said of what the US is doing in Iraq -I know that a lot of you don't agree, let's not make a debate out of it- but for those of us who do believe, we are sacrificing our blood, our money, (and for conservatives, our politicians) at the altar of freedom for a brighter and safer future. Not just for us, but for the entire middle-east (or Europe for those of you following my parallel).

Today's UK owes much to Neville Chamberlain and little-to-nothing to Winston Churchill.

[StrayRogue]

Exactly, and arguing anything else instantly results in a "my country is better than yours" rant.

[StrayRogue]

England was, at one point, a pretty noble country. The exact same thing can be said of what the US is doing in Iraq -I know that a lot of you don't agree, let's not make a debate out of it- but for those of us who do believe, we are sacrificing our blood, our money, (and for conservatives, our politicians) at the altar of freedom for a brighter and safer future. Not just for us, but for the entire middle-east (or Europe for those of you following my parallel).

Today's UK owes much to Neville Chamberlain and little-to-nothing to Winston Churchill.


While you know our opinion's differ, Drew, I would say that only time will tell how America (and England) are percieved on the Iraq situation. Right now it's too raw, with too many stark, opposing emotions on either side. Perhaps it will be that way forever.

[Asha]

Saying the United Kingdom owes 'little-to-nothing'' to Winston Churchill is utterly wrong.

[Drew]

You love your guns, fine, carry on.



We will. Continue getting mugged, violently attacked, and home invaded at increasing rates every year since your firearm ban. Certainly no cause and effect there.

[StrayRogue]

Enjoy your escalating, gun-related massacres.

[Drew]

While you know our opinion's differ, Drew, I would say that only time will tell how America (and England) are percieved on the Iraq situation. Right now it's too raw, with too many stark, opposing emotions on either side. Perhaps it will be that way forever.


I wholly agree. That's my personal reason why I like GW. He's willing to let history judge him. Clinton couldn't make a choice without seeing how the mob felt about it first. GW is getting raked over the coals but won't change, that's the sign of a good leader or a bad one, time will tell.

[Drew]

Saying the United Kingdom owes 'little-to-nothing'' to Winston Churchill is utterly wrong.

It owes plenty. But today's UK surely does not (in my opinion of course) follow a course that Churchill would have admired or espoused.

[Asha]

We will. Continue getting mugged, violently attacked, and home invaded at increasing rates every year since your firearm ban. Certainly no cause and effect there.

And you carry on fearing for your children in their schools. Which is definately made more likely and easier to acheive by your gun laws.

[DrZaius]

It also amuses me how they forget that they aided the Nazi's during WW1 with money and arms sales.

There were no Nazis in WWI. If you're going to make fun of someone for being historically inaccurate, you should try to avoid it yourself.

[StrayRogue]

Pardon me then, the Germans.

[Asha]

You'll have to excuse Strayrogue. In Manc they label anyone who's not white - British, a nazi or any other racially derogatory term which freely comes to hand.

[Asha]

:)

[StrayRogue]

Heh, the irony is we have such a multi-cultural pop now.

[Daniel]

And if there is one country who I'd thank above all else for their help, it would be the Russians. Anyone with sense would do the same.



I didn't know Russians landed at Normandy.

I mean, what do I know. I still think the U.S has 50 states.

[StrayRogue]

Normandy? You mean that attack you royaly fucked up and won purely by chance?

I suggest you read about Stalingradt.

[Daniel]

Stalingradt is in England now?

[DrZaius]

What about Dieppe, if you're talkin' messed up invasions.

[StrayRogue]

Stalingradt is in England now?

No, Russia. Are you fucking thick or something?

[DrZaius]

..Or anything Montgomery did after Africa.

[StrayRogue]

..Or anything Montgomery did after Africa.

Yes, but nowhere has anyone said the UK won the second world war single-handedly or "saved anyones ass".

But why argue with morons? Read some actual war history, Daniel. And stop being a prick.

[Asha]

With the percentage of Americans honestly believing they bailed every other country, mainly England, out of trouble in previous wars, it's no wonder the general English feelings over their involvement in Bush's 'War On Terror' is they wished they'd zipped their mouths and walked away.

[Daniel]

No, Russia. Are you fucking thick or something?

I'm curious as to why you would thank the Russians for defending their own country, and not the US who could have just flu fluxed Japan and left you to go fuck yourself. Which is what Russia would have done given the opportunity.


Oh right...you're an idiot.

[DrZaius]

With the percentage of Americans honestly believing they bailed every other country, mainly England, out of trouble in previous wars, it's no wonder the general English feelings over their involvement in Bush's 'War On Terror' is they wished they'd zipped their mouths and walked away.


I just find it curious that you think you got along fine without the U.S.

[StrayRogue]

I'm curious as to why you would thank the Russians for defending their own country, and not the US who could have just flu fluxed Japan and left you to go fuck yourself. Which is what Russia would have done given the opportunity.


Oh right...you're an idiot.

Simple. Because of Operation Barbosa's overconfidence, the Nazi's were forced into a war of attritrion they could not afford. Instead of a hasty invasion, they were drawn out for 2 years, proving that the Nazi War machine was indeed beatable, adding resolve to morale across the world. In addition, the sheer amount of resources (man and equipment) thrown at the conflict in Russia weakened them to such a degree to allow Normandy and other such deathblow attacks to be successful.

After the loss at Stalingrad, they effectively lost their Eastern Europe front, forcing them into long retreats.

It, alongside another Leningrad, was the bloodiest battle in human history. It cost the unprepared Russian's dearly, more than pretty much anyone else in the war. Had they broken, and Germany won Russia, Normandy wouldn't have mattered.

[DrZaius]

Simple. Because of Operation Barbosa's overconfidence...

Barbarossa. Like the Holy Roman Emperor.
The reason the Germans went to fight on the Eastern front was because they couldn't win the Atlantic. Despite huge losses, American shipping kept the lifeline to England and Russia intact, and because of the lend-lease act gave them fighting equipment long before the Americans officially entered the war.

[Daniel]

1. Stop copying shit from Wikipedia to make your point. If you're gonna steal someone else's works then at least have the decency to use these history books you keep throwing out.

2. The Soviets may not have even invaded Germany if they hadn't believed that not doing so would have put them at a severe disadvantage in post-war politics. The Russians didn't give a fuck about England and would have either let it fall, or taken it themselves.

I just find it hilarious that you downplay the US involvement in WWII because "they were attacked first" when they had no reason whatsoever to go into Europe (especially if the British had that shit taken care) and at the same time lauding the Russians when they were simply defending themselves.

Let's not forget that Germany and Russia were cool until Hitler turned Strayrogue stupid and decided to attack.

I guess it really does hurt to know that your "baby" kicked your ass twice and then bailed your ass out the same number of times.

[Nieninque]

Germany always intended to invade Russia.
The Russian land was what Hitler considered to be "Lebensraum" which was some kind of expansion to the German country so the Aryans could procreate in harmony.

Some historians believe that the reason Barbarossa failed is because Hitler invaded the Balkans out of spite, last minute due to something or other that happened (I cant remember what - been a while since I read up on all this) which delayed the advance into Russia by a couple of months and meant the Russian winter (which was the worst in a long time) stopped the German advance a couple of weeks away from Moscow.

It's true to say that the Russians involvement in beating the Germans was self motivated - they had an agreement of non-aggression prior to Hitler's attack in the east...it's also true to say that most other countries were out for themselves, including the Brits (who were beaten to the agreement with the Germans because they sent their rep by boat, rather than the Russians who sent theirs by air - but were still seeking to appease Hitler despite his annexation of Austria and invasion in Czechoslovakia (or whatever it was then) and including the Americans, who made a few bucks on the sly.

The bottom line is that it was a combination of events that led to the Germans being beaten, from monumental fuck-ups on the part of the Germans, to stirling work by an often unwitting and unwilling alliance of countries.

All this "nener nener my country saved your country's arse and you would be speaking swahili if it wasnt for me" shit is stupid.

[Daniel]

Funny how it's only the English who seem to think so.

[Nieninque]

I dont think that's true at all. I just think that a lot of the American people who express their opinions in this are into the one-upmanship shit that you seem to get into a lot.

It's childish, it's boring. Have fun with your delusions.

[Daniel]

Danke.

[Nieninque]

Bitte

[StrayRogue]

I dont think that's true at all. I just think that a lot of the American people who express their opinions in this are into the one-upmanship shit that you seem to get into a lot.

It's childish, it's boring. Have fun with your delusions.

Ding!

It's not that English people think or believe that America didn't "save them", it's more like us and the rest of the world. In all my travel's its only the American's who think they single-handedly won or saved WW2. This of course doesn't say anything about why they were too chicken-shit to get involved at the beginning of either war, but hey, they are Americans - "Lets JOIN TEAM WIN".

Nope, it's not from Wikipedia. It's from a HISTORY BOOK called, as I mentioned, Stalingrad. I suggest you pick it up and read it.

[Parkbandit]

Exactly, and arguing anything else instantly results in a "my country is better than yours" rant.

Hey dicksplash... didn't you start it?

You make Backlash's hypocrisy seem tame today. Grats.

[Parkbandit]

What about Dieppe, if you're talkin' messed up invasions.

Or Dunkirk.

[Parkbandit]

All this "nener nener my country saved your country's arse and you would be speaking swahili if it wasnt for me" shit is stupid.


It's only stupid if you live in "your country"..

[Skirmisher]

It only shows that someone is either ignorant or stubbornly ignoring the facts because they do not fit the argument they are advancing to imply that the US was somehow solely responsible for winning WWII.

It has nothing to do with the original topic and is a completely unoriginal pissing contest.

It is always a good idea to look at outside opinions to try to get a more well rounded view of a situation here at home.

It does not mean the US needs to take every opinion as some sort of directive from god but to become uber defensive and not even listen is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[Parkbandit]

Ding!

It's not that English people think or believe that America didn't "save them", it's more like us and the rest of the world. In all my travel's its only the American's who think they single-handedly won or saved WW2. This of course doesn't say anything about why they were too chicken-shit to get involved at the beginning of either war, but hey, they are Americans - "Lets JOIN TEAM WIN".

Nope, it's not from Wikipedia. It's from a HISTORY BOOK called, as I mentioned, Stalingrad. I suggest you pick it up and read it.

Hahah.. too fucking funny.

America is about "join Team Win" now? I guess Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II... yea, they do seem like we are just jumping into the fray after all the 'elder' European countries show us the way.

Uh huh.

[Gan]

Hey dicksplash... didn't you start it?

You make Backlash's hypocrisy seem tame today. Grats.


Hardly archaic Nein. They are a baby country remember.

Yep.

[Parkbandit]

It only shows that someone is either ignorant or stubbornly ignoring the facts because they do not fit the argument they are advancing to imply that the US was somehow solely responsible for winning WWII.

It has nothing to do with the original topic and is a completely unoriginal pissing contest.

It is always a good idea to look at outside opinions to try to get a more well rounded view of a situation here at home.

It does not mean the US needs to take every opinion as some sort of directive from god but to become uber defensive and not even listen is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Who said the US was somehow solely reponsible for winning WWII again? Oh, that was you taking one post, changing it.. then coming to an ignorant conclusion.

It's like that game of whispers.. you whisper something to one person, who whispers it to another.. until it gets back to you.. and you are whispered a completely different story.

Only this time, you can actually look at the posts.. so you don't have to rely on anyone but yourself.

Grats Queen Ignorance.

[Skirmisher]

Who said the US was somehow solely reponsible for winning WWII again? Oh, that was you taking one post, changing it.. then coming to an ignorant conclusion.

It's like that game of whispers.. you whisper something to one person, who whispers it to another.. until it gets back to you.. and you are whispered a completely different story.

Only this time, you can actually look at the posts.. so you don't have to rely on anyone but yourself.

Grats Queen Ignorance.

Yeesh PB, I didn't name ANYONE because i didn't wish to get in a little back and forth with you but yes it was your stupid old and tired post about the US saving the UK's ass that changed this from what should be an intelligent exchange of ideas into yet ANOTHER in a long line of similar threads that will only regurgitate the same old crap and bring nothing new to the discussion.

Congratulations.

[Parkbandit]

Yeesh PB, I didn't name ANYONE because i didn't wish to get in a little back and forth with you but yes it was your stupid old and tired post about the US saving the UK's ass that changed this from what should be an intelligent exchange of ideas into yet ANOTHER in a long line of similar threads that will only regurgitate the same old crap and bring nothing new to the discussion.

Congratulations.


You didn't name ANYONE because if you had, the first person here who posted anything to the likes would have been you. Maybe you enjoy calling yourself ignorant? Part of some self put down?

And please bitch.. take a look at the thread once again. One of your fellow libs initiated my wrath.. not vica versa. Maybe you could get Harmnone back to butcher this thread up for you?

[Nieninque]

It's only stupid if you live in "your country"..

No, regardless of where you live, it's stupid.

I guess some people are more likely to accept that.

P.S. Dunkirk was an evacuation, rather than an invasion.

[StrayRogue]

"Miss, miss, miss, I didn't start the argument, someone ELSE did. Wah wah wah."

Such a little whiner you are PB.

I don't think I've ever said the US were not instrumental in WW2's eventual victory. However this hamhanded attitude of "Yeah we saved your ass" implies that America completely saved everyone. No they didn't. My argument is that if anyone should be held responsible for "saving" us all, is that it was the Russians resolve that won out the day. They sacrificed more than the American's, or us, or anyone, ever did. Whether or not this was because Stalin was an egotistical freak, or just because the US was too chicken-shit to join the war against evil from the start doesn't matter.

When it comes down to it, and I'll bet the same goes for anyone else in this country, or Europe for that matter, is that no one here thinks or believes America "saved" us. Such a self-congratulory attitude can be left to you yanks. I'd much rather thank ALL those brave souls who fought and died saving us ALL.

But think what you like.

[Skirmisher]

You didn't name ANYONE because if you had, the first person here who posted anything to the likes would have been you. Maybe you enjoy calling yourself ignorant? Part of some self put down?

And please bitch.. take a look at the thread once again. One of your fellow libs initiated my wrath.. not vica versa. Maybe you could get Harmnone back to butcher this thread up for you?

You should pay more attention to who is who PB. Stray and I are far from best buddies. It's amusing how when someone is irked at a mod here they always bring up some sort of reference to a clique or something even when it makes no sense. Take a few seconds and go back and see some of the complaints that my "fellow lib" has made about me.

Now you are calling me a bitch and going back to HN bashing.

Well at least you are keeping things to your highbrow standard.

The word ignorant does not scare me as much as it seems to you. I readily acknowledge there are topics in which i am ignorant but WWII isn't one of them.

No matter what your view on gun control in the US there is no debating the fact that there are far greater numbers of murders here and unless we are able to admit that there is indeed a problem how on earth are we supposed to try to fix it?

Falling back on the good old hair trigger response of "ooooh we saved your ass so kneel before zod" is really helpful.

[Hulkein]

Would you Brits be happier if we said Japan bailed you out for attacking us?

[Asha]

No matter what your view on gun control in the US there is no debating the fact that there are far greater numbers of murders here and unless we are able to admit that there is indeed a problem how on earth are we supposed to try to fix it.
Jesus, I agree with you.
Now we wait for ''the ratio of people in America to those in the UK cancels out the fact we have far more gun related homicides'' card to be drawn.

[Ilvane]

You know, gun owners get so bent out of shape, but in reality, if you are a law-abiding, normal gun owner, the gun control laws wouldn't make for much of a change of how things would be for you.

Angela

[DeV]

You know, gun owners get so bent out of shape, but in reality, if you are a law-abiding, normal gun owner, the gun control laws wouldn't make for much of a change of how things would be for you.

AngelaThat's the kicker. I own a gun and am pro gun rights. I also happen to be pretty far from conversative, but not quite all the way liberal. Gun control initiatives don't bother me because I do understand that there is a serious problem in our country when it comes to easy access to firearms and their use to commit crimes against law abiding citizens as well as other criminals.

Regarding the debate that splits the two biggest political parties down the line I'd like to know:

What is so wrong with having stricter background checks at gun shows again?

What is so wrong with advocating for safety locks on firearms, a measure which some gun manufacturers have volunteered to support as well?

One of the issues is also the power that the NRA wields and the fact that their financial contributions go largely to Republicans. Along those same lines it's quite naive think that Democracts don't own guns and don't believe in gun rights similar to most Republicans. The issue is money. The NRA spends a shit ton more money lobbying their cause than gun control advocates. Gun control advocates don't have the financial means to compete on the same playing field as the NRA.

Also to note, criminals ignore gun control laws so the focus should be on strengthening laws to combat illegal gun ownership and those who ignore firearm laws, not laws to restrict ownership of law abiding citizens.

[Sean of the Thread]

Considering Angela didn't even know what a gun looked like until this week I will respect her outstanding opinion.

[CrystalTears]

She knew what they looked like, she just never was exposed to them live. Not many people are. Strange yes, but true.

I miss going to gun shows.

[DeV]

Sure, police officers wear them where we can see and they are depicted on television all the time. But lack of exposure in the home where no firearms are present is not strange at all.

[CrystalTears]

I don't have a gun in my home, but I personally can't imagine never seeing one live. You don't have to own one to be exposed to them.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

On the original topic -- sad things happen everywhere. To blame it solely on gun laws or the political environment of a location is a bit of a stretch. It's simply a person in an ever shrinking world not coping with some issue. Maybe he was abused as a child. Maybe he had some mental imbalance. Who knows, certainly not any countries press, including our own.

On the other topic of WWII and any other war and my country has the biggest penis (look at the US, tell me Florida isn't a penis!)... well seriously, history is important. But the bottom line is we are one planet, I've been to all the places mentioned save Eastern Europe, and I loved them all, and enjoyed the local population of each. It's great we argue over who saved the world from "evil", wouldn't it suck if evil had won?

Just seems pointless to argue over who has the better country, when everywhere you go, each place is unique and has it's own wonderful things and people. As I said at the top, it's a smaller world every day, we should learn to get alone. Rodney said it best!

[DeV]

You don't have to own one to be exposed to them.I was never exposed to a live firearm until I owned one.

It's really not strange at all, is my point.

[Ilvane]

I have seen some historical types, but not a handgun, or the kind use in the shooting.

I have no real desire to see one either.

I have a personal reason for feeling this way too, since a close childhood friend of mine shot himself to death. I really feel that if he hadn't had access to that gun, he would have gone to sleep and the next day things would have been better. Instead he found his mom's gun, shot himself, and died, all over something to do with being suspended from school for being a wise ass.(it wasn't even serious, he just was missing prom)

Do I think it was the guns fault? No. Do I think there should be safety locks, yes. Do I think that people should have waiting periods for guns? Yes. Backround checks, absolutely. Yearly renewals on these background checks, absolutely.

Bottom line here, lawful citizens who use guns don't have to worry about gun control. It's the ones with serious issues(criminal, psych, etc) that do.

Angela

[Landrion]

Im honestly a little perplexed by the one-upmanship between some people from Britain and some from the U.S. We're all a little ethnocentric, but lets say someone asked you to name your favorite 10 countries or cultures in the world and you werent allowed to mention your own. Id name Britain top 5 if not number one.

On the topic, I think that trying to restrict the technology (guns) is a losing battle. Many of the articles and posters said the same thing, if someone wants to hurt a lot people and is determined to do it, they can lay hands on an instrument.

[Daniel]

London Blows ass.

Spain, by far is my number 1.

[CrystalTears]

II have a personal reason for feeling this way too, since a close childhood friend of mine shot himself to death. I really feel that if he hadn't had access to that gun, he would have gone to sleep and the next day things would have been better. Instead he found his mom's gun, shot himself, and died, all over something to do with being suspended from school for being a wise ass.(it wasn't even serious, he just was missing prom)
You don't know that for sure. He may have taken lots of pills, or slit his throat, or something else as horrific. Don't assume that because the gun was accessible that it was the only viable solution at the time.


Do I think it was the guns fault? No. Do I think there should be safety locks, yes. Do I think that people should have waiting periods for guns? Yes. Backround checks, absolutely. Yearly renewals on these background checks, absolutely.
Unfortunately none of those would have stopped someone from using one.

Personally I feel that the more people who have one or have access to one, the less likely people will be prone to using them on others, simply with the knowledge that the victim may be armed. I say give them to every household.

[Trouble]

Do I think it was the guns fault? No. Do I think there should be safety locks, yes. Do I think that people should have waiting periods for guns? Yes. Backround checks, absolutely. Yearly renewals on these background checks, absolutely.

Bottom line here, lawful citizens who use guns don't have to worry about gun control. It's the ones with serious issues(criminal, psych, etc) that do.


Nice post. I more or less agree except I'd apply the yearly thing to handguns and 'assault rifles' only. I see no benefit of making Joe Farmer from BFE recertify his hunting rifle(s) or shotguns every year. Maybe every 5 or something, if at all.

The trouble comes when you have to find funding for the periodic checks. I have no idea how many (legal) handguns there are in the US but performing a background check every year on each one of their owners would be expensive I bet, not to mention the inevitable appeals processing that would follow.

On topic: the European reaction was predictable. Just like the average American has no idea what life is like in Europe, the average European has no idea what life is like in the US. All we get are processed views from the news media and entertainment industries.

[Gan]

What is so wrong with having stricter background checks at gun shows again?

I dont have anything against it. I support it actually. Background checks should be required for any purchase of a firearm, as well as restrictions for criminal records, mental health records, and age. I also think that (this is stretching my limits) pistol/handgun owners should be required to take a use/certification course (much like driving a car) when they are purchased. This last one will have difficult enforcement issues/logistics though.


What is so wrong with advocating for safety locks on firearms, a measure which some gun manufacturers have volunteered to support as well?
I never knew that 2nd Amendment supporters were against this.


One of the issues is also the power that the NRA wields and the fact that their financial contributions go largely to Republicans.
Because Republicans do not platform their campaigns on anti-gun owning establishments.


Along those same lines it's quite naive think that Democracts don't own guns and don't believe in gun rights similar to most Republicans.
I think its more hypocritical than naive. Democrats must stand on the issues where their supporters stand. And the majority of their supporters are anti-gun.


The issue is money. The NRA spends a shit ton more money lobbying their cause than gun control advocates. Gun control advocates don't have the financial means to compete on the same playing field as the NRA.
Replace NRA with Oil, Tobacco, Farmers, or any other well organized and well funded activist group... The issue is money AND politics. ;)


Also to note, criminals ignore gun control laws so the focus should be on strengthening laws to combat illegal gun ownership and those who ignore firearm laws, not laws to restrict ownership of law abiding citizens.
Exactly, thats why they are criminals, they do not obey the laws to begin with. Thats why making laws outlawing guns will affect law abiding citizens negatively; and conversely positively affect criminals who have less to fear from their victims who wish to defend themselves.

[DeV]

I never knew that 2nd Amendment supporters were against this.The NRA comes to mind. Perhaps they've changed their stance in recent years. There are organizations more conservative than them, if you can believe it, who staunchly lobbied against this for the longest. It's common sense to me.


Because Republicans do not platform their campaigns on anti-gun owning establishments.I understand the reasoning, but the fact remains.


And the majority of their supporters are anti-gun.The majority of their supporters are full of shit. This is why for the most part politics is nothing more than a pissing contest to see who can disagree with each others party the most and get away with being naive and/or hypocritical the longest.

The issue is money AND politics. ;)If politics is the brain of the operation, money is at the heart of the issue and that which keeps the issue alive.


Thats why making laws outlawing guns will affect law abiding citizens negatively; and conversely positively affect criminals who have less to fear from their victims who wish to defend themselves.My point has more to do with the prosecution of criminals found to be in possession of illegal firearms as well as tougher punishment for those cimrinals as well as those who use firearms to commit crimes. Obviously, I'm completely against against outlawing guns.

[Gan]

Dev,

Here's an interesting article postulating on your thoughts with the NRA.



The National Rifle Association has money, motivated members and powerful allies in Congress. But what puts the NRA in a separate class among interest groups is its track record of defeating incumbents.
In Washington, that is real power.
Thus, calls for new gun control measures after the Virginia Tech shootings are likely to face a difficult path on Capitol Hill -- even with Democrats now in charge.
"The NRA has pretty much set the agenda for the Congress, so we'll see," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a gun control advocate who represents an urban district near Chicago. "Even after Columbine, we didn't really make progress in moving forward."
In fact, the 2006 midterm elections actually may have enhanced the NRA's strength.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3563.html

[Parkbandit]

"Miss, miss, miss, I didn't start the argument, someone ELSE did. Wah wah wah."

Such a little whiner you are PB.


"Miss, miss, miss, I started the argument.. but only realized that after being called out... but even though I started it with my ignorant post.. I know he would have started it. Wah wah wah."

Such a little bitch you are SR.

[Parkbandit]

No, regardless of where you live, it's stupid.

I guess some people are more likely to accept that.

P.S. Dunkirk was an evacuation, rather than an invasion.


Oh.. so we can only talk about military blunders if they are invasions and/or if they are US mistakes.

Gotcha.

[Parkbandit]

On the original topic -- sad things happen everywhere. To blame it solely on gun laws or the political environment of a location is a bit of a stretch. It's simply a person in an ever shrinking world not coping with some issue. Maybe he was abused as a child. Maybe he had some mental imbalance. Who knows, certainly not any countries press, including our own.

On the other topic of WWII and any other war and my country has the biggest penis (look at the US, tell me Florida isn't a penis!)... well seriously, history is important. But the bottom line is we are one planet, I've been to all the places mentioned save Eastern Europe, and I loved them all, and enjoyed the local population of each. It's great we argue over who saved the world from "evil", wouldn't it suck if evil had won?

Just seems pointless to argue over who has the better country, when everywhere you go, each place is unique and has it's own wonderful things and people. As I said at the top, it's a smaller world every day, we should learn to get alone. Rodney said it best!

I agree.. but when someone sucker punches you.. my first reaction is to swing back and knock the fucker out.

Call it a character flaw.. even I have at least one.

[DrZaius]

London Blows ass.

Spain, by far is my number 1.

I was with you until this. If Spain were a person, they'd be wearing sweatpants 24/7.

Incidently, I highly reccomend looking up "the Raid on Dieppe". And I stand by my claim that the lifeline of supplies provided for the allies prior to the United States entry into WWII was the deciding factor. However, I'm willing to conceed that Stalin throwing 20 million guys at the front line, sometimes without rifles, helped in the East.

[Nieninque]

Oh.. so we can only talk about military blunders if they are invasions and/or if they are US mistakes.

Gotcha.

You can talk about what you like.

I just corrected you on a small part of what you posted.




What about Dieppe, if you're talkin' messed up invasions.

Or Dunkirk.

Dieppe was a mess, but it was predominantly Canadian, and it taught lessons that were implemented in the Normandy landings.

Dunkirk was actually a success rather than a mess. An outnumbered and ill-equipped "British Expeditionary Force" was evacuated in hugely greater numbers that would have been thought possible because people pulled together.

It could be argued that the reason that they were able to do that was because Goering had an over-inflated sense of his own self worth, but that's all good. So, I would counter that far from being a messed up invasion, Dunkirk was actually a successful evacuation.

[Xaerve]

This thread is awesome. Page one, near the bottom, is where it really took shape.

[Nieninque]

I get 100 posts per page, so we are still on page 1

[Xaerve]

I get 100 posts per page, so we are still on page 1

Isn't that hard to read? I use the page numbers to help me keep track of posts, etc. when I need to go back and read over something.

[CrystalTears]

I too have it 100 per page. Looking through 2-3 pages is easier than 10-15.

[Stanley Burrell]

MOTHERLAND!!!!!1111111one

That, and the ancient Buddha Monk technique of practicing the drunken monkey on desolate icy mountain peaks properly armed with the sacred ginseng Absolut.

[Back]

The French and the Italians working together to turn back the Turkish fleet at Naples was an unexpected surprise.

(Back to your regularly scheduled topic.)

[Drew]

100 posts per page ftw.

If you need to find something, ctrl+f.

[Gan]

The French and the Italians working together to turn back the Turkish fleet at Naples was an unexpected surprise.

(Back to your regularly scheduled topic.)


Yes, the French are quite known for their military might.

[Warriorbird]

I'd like to make the point Deathproof made. It might've been different if somebody had a gun.

[xtc]

This incident has caused the media in many countries to discuss gun control. It was a dead issue in Canada but has since been resurrected.

Outside of banning weapons what sort of gun control law(s) could have prevented this tragedy?

[Parkbandit]

Outside of banning weapons what sort of gun control law(s) could have prevented this tragedy?


Bingo.

[Nieninque]

Banning weapons might not have stopped it. But it would have made it a damn sight harder to carry out.

When I'm talking about changing gun laws, I generally mean banning them.

Guns are bad.

[Artha]

If somebody wants to hurt you, they're going to do it whether it's with a gun or half of a beer can.

I'll take getting shot in the thigh, thx.

[Warriorbird]

"Banning weapons might not have stopped it. But it would have made it a damn sight harder to carry out.

When I'm talking about changing gun laws, I generally mean banning them.

Guns are bad."

If somebody wants to get a gun in Britain...they can get a gun in Britain.

[Tolwynn]

Banning weapons might not have stopped it. But it would have made it a damn sight harder to carry out.

When I'm talking about changing gun laws, I generally mean banning them.

Guns are bad.

Banning guns wouldn't have stopped Oklahoma City or 9/11 or any other bombing where many, many more were killed, for that matter. Guess after the guns are banned we should go after aircraft, automobiles, fertilizer, gasoline, propellants, etc., just to be extra safe.

[Gan]

Banning guns wouldn't have stopped Oklahoma City or 9/11 or any other bombing where many, many more were killed, for that matter. Guess after the guns are banned we should go after aircraft, automobiles, fertilizer, gasoline, propellants, etc., just to be extra safe.

If we just chopped off everybody's hands then they couldnt use guns, knives, make bombs, or use fists to kill people. Feet are next. ;)

OK everyone, OFF WITH THE HANDS!!!

[Kranar]

It's not so much gun laws that I find troubling, it's so many peoples attitude in the U.S. over guns that I think is troubling.

This notion that guns are a God given right and that you need them to defend yourself because you live in such a dangerous and terrible environment that if you don't have the right to a gun you're going to be a victim.

That's an attitude that, in my opinion atleast, too many people in the US have and that has led to an irresponsible attitude and gun culture.

Forcefully banning guns is unlikely to change crime rates... and it's foolish to think otherwise.

[CrystalTears]

If we just chopped off everybody's hands then they couldnt use guns, knives, make bombs, or use fists to kill people. Feet are next. ;)

OK everyone, OFF WITH THE HANDS!!!

"The enemy can not press a button... if you have disabled his hand. Medic!"

[Nieninque]

"Banning weapons might not have stopped it. But it would have made it a damn sight harder to carry out.

When I'm talking about changing gun laws, I generally mean banning them.

Guns are bad."

If somebody wants to get a gun in Britain...they can get a gun in Britain.

And you know this how?

Dumbass.

[Asha]

"The enemy can not press a button... if you have disabled his hand. Medic!"

ROFL. Best scene!

[Gan]

"The enemy can not press a button... if you have disabled his hand. Medic!"

:lol:

Starship Troopers FTW!

[Gan]

And you know this how?

Dumbass.

Mail order from the US?

I'm betting anyone with a connection to the black market or underground supplies can get a weapon with the right amount of $$$. No matter where you live.

[Nieninque]

Yes, and of course everyone has a connection to the black market.

[xtc]

Bingo.

I get worried when we agree.

[Gan]

Yes, and of course everyone has a connection to the black market.

Money opens up all kinds of channels.

Of course we know you dont know that since you spend all your time in church. ;)

[Artha]

Drugs are strictly banned here, but if I spend half an hour out on the streets I guarantee you I can get anything you'd like except maybe meth (and that's only because I'm in a city and it's a rural drug).

Besides...


You can buy a strap. A keyring gun what you just put together will cost you £100. You can get Berettas for about a grand. You can get shotguns, everything really. If you’ve got money, you can get anything you want.

[Nieninque]

Drugs are strictly banned here, but if I spend half an hour out on the streets I guarantee you I can get anything you'd like except maybe meth (and that's only because I'm in a city and it's a rural drug).

Besides...

There is a huge difference between drugs and guns Artha. Youre smarter than that.

[Gan]

There is a huge difference between drugs and guns Artha. Youre smarter than that.

Usually where there's one, you'll find the other.

[xtc]

Has there been a reduction in gun crime in the U.K. since they banned hand guns?

[Nieninque]

Has there been a reduction in gun crime in the U.K. since they banned hand guns?

Yes.

[Sean of the Thread]

Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

[Nieninque]

Usually where there's one, you'll find the other.

Gimme a break.

So you are saying that guns are easily available.

But you need to be connected to the black market or the underground (not the London version) to be able to get one.

And have lots of money.

You lot have been watching too many Vinnie Jones films.

Yes there are guns. No they are not easy to get hold of.

[Nieninque]

Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

Right on cue...

[Sean of the Thread]

Love that movie.

[Gan]

Gimme a break.

So you are saying that guns are easily available.

But you need to be connected to the black market or the underground (not the London version) to be able to get one.

And have lots of money.

You lot have been watching too many Vinnie Jones films.

Yes there are guns. No they are not easy to get hold of.

No, I'm saying that if you have cash and you walk into the right place in the right part of town, and your wishes are made known to the right people, you can find a weapon. Sure there are complications involved, as there are with the procurement of any contraband. However, it can happen (if you dont get jacked first).

Thats how it is here in the US and I'm projecting that its very simliar in the UK since criminals arent that different based on country of origin.

I say this as a fact since I've seen it happen first hand, here in the US.

[Nieninque]

No, I'm saying that if you have cash and you walk into the right place in the right part of town, and your wishes are made known to the right people, you can find a weapon. Sure there are complications involved, as there are with the procurement of any contraband. However, it can happen (if you dont get jacked first).

Thats how it is here in the US and I'm projecting that its very simliar in the UK since criminals arent that different based on country of origin.

I say this as a fact since I've seen it happen first hand, here in the US.

I dont doubt that it could, can and probably does. But that is far from being easy. It also makes it out of reach of the vast majority of the population.

There is a huge difference between having to have a shit ton of money, go into the right place in the right town and find the right people without setting off alarms that someone is wandering around pubs asking to buy a shooter, than just going into mummy's handbag and going off on your little teenage killing spree.

You see that, right?

[Slark]

If you say that a violent person will still be violent even if guns aren't legal [so why not make guns legal], can't you say that someone who wants an abortion will have an abortion even if they're illegal?

People who are determined to do something will do it. So should everything be legal?

[Artha]

Guns do violence, but they can also protect and even stop it.

Abortions don't, unfortunately, have that ability.

[Slark]

I won't be a tool and suggest that abortions can lead to saving lives in the long run, along with lots of other social benefits, but someone else will, and that argument has a certain amount of weight.

Guns didn't stop 9-11, and I was a bit young during OK city...did guns help there?

We have speed limits, people still speed. That doesn't mean that enforcing the speed limit more strictly won't save lives.

I'm sure there are numbers that are readily available of the number of cases of premeditated murder vs lesser charges of murder - the premeditated ones you won't be able to stop by removing guns, no, but the others might lessen. Look at the rest of the world.

[Asha]

Guns do violence, but they can also protect and even stop it.

And at this predictable point in the discussion there's utterly no point arguing either sides benefits.
One country has a gun in most homes, one does not.
Which is easier to gain access to a gun? I think I can guess since it's obvious.

And what possible come back can there be? Oh yeah, the uncovering of Amercans' absolute belief that guns in purses and cabinets are the biggest protector from the guns which are available to everyone else in their country.
That is simply insane.

[Parkbandit]

Has there been a reduction in gun crime in the U.K. since they banned hand guns?


Yes.

Source? I know it was way up after guns were banned... perhaps it's declined since that time, but not reduced since pre-ban.

[Parkbandit]

And at this predictable point in the discussion there's utterly no point arguing either sides benefits.
One country has a gun in most homes, one does not.
Which is easier to gain access to a gun? I think I can guess since it's obvious.

And what possible come back can there be? Oh yeah, the uncovering of Amercans' absolute belief that guns in purses and cabinets are the biggest protector from the guns which are available to everyone else in their country.
That is simply insane.

What's insane is you believing that since you've banned guns, you've fixed the problems of violent crime in England.

[Parkbandit]

I won't be a tool and suggest that abortions can lead to saving lives in the long run, along with lots of other social benefits, but someone else will, and that argument has a certain amount of weight.

Guns didn't stop 9-11, and I was a bit young during OK city...did guns help there?

We have speed limits, people still speed. That doesn't mean that enforcing the speed limit more strictly won't save lives.

I'm sure there are numbers that are readily available of the number of cases of premeditated murder vs lesser charges of murder - the premeditated ones you won't be able to stop by removing guns, no, but the others might lessen. Look at the rest of the world.

With your flawed logic, we should ban vehicles since people speed.. which is against the law.

[Asha]

We're talking gun crime. And yes there's much less gun crime here than many other countries including yours.

[Gan]

If you say that a violent person will still be violent even if guns aren't legal [so why not make guns legal], can't you say that someone who wants an abortion will have an abortion even if they're illegal?

People who are determined to do something will do it. So should everything be legal?

Interesting.

The same argument is given for legalizing illicit drugs.

[Hulkein]

It also makes it out of reach of the vast majority of the population.

Yeah, a vast majority of that 'vast majority of the population' being harmless old women, old men, and women in general.

You don't have access to a gun, you admitted that yourself. Are you planning on robbing anyone? Selling drugs? Car-jacking anyone? If not, then it's ashame you can't have a gun. The only people who have easy access to guns in your country are people who have black market connections. These people tend to be drug dealers, thieves, violent criminals, etc. Sure sounds like an equitable system to me.........

[Artha]

We're talking gun crime. And yes there's much less gun crime here than many other countries including yours.

There's also a lot more robberies. Not sure about other violent crimes.

edit: And if you're just talking crime numbers, legalize guns totally and there will be zero gun crime.

[Artha]

Guns didn't stop 9-11, and I was a bit young during OK city...did guns help there?
I was also pretty young, but just because guns don't help in the most extreme cases doesn't mean they don't help ever. Guns also stopped Nazi Germany (literally, Hitler shot himself in the head) from gaining any sort of permanence. If you buy into the whole northern 'Civil War Over Slavery' mentality, guns stopped that too. It's a trade off, like everything in life.


We have speed limits, people still speed. That doesn't mean that enforcing the speed limit more strictly won't save lives.
I drive through speed trap towns every once in a while, and while I go the speed limit, I notice I get passed a lot more too. You can't arrest or ticket a populace into submission. Aside from that, speeding's not a good analogy because it doesn't kill so much as unsafe driving. Yes, I think it's absolutely safe to go 95 mph on some stretches of road where the speed limit's 55 or 65.


I'm sure there are numbers that are readily available of the number of cases of premeditated murder vs lesser charges of murder - the premeditated ones you won't be able to stop by removing guns, no, but the others might lessen. Look at the rest of the world.
What's the Colbert quote? "You look it up, because I'm not going to?"

[Apathy]

Goddamn this thread is on fire. I may be beating a dead horse with some of this because I couldn't read all of it.

1) People seem to keep talking about "gun crime." What the fuck is gun crime? Any crime that a gun is involved in, violent or not? Does that include self defense cases?

2) Might be a repost - but the shooter was found to be mentally deranged in 2005. He should have never passed a background check in the first place. Responsibility lies with the vendor in this case.

3) If you did not know already, the shooter sent a package to NBC IN BETWEEN SHOOTING. He was a certifiable wack job.

4) Do the English realize they're seen every bit as pompous and condescending as Americans are arrogant and loud-mouthed?

[Asha]

4) Do the English realize they're seen every bit as pompous and condescending as Americans are arrogant and loud-mouthed?

Yes. It's how we roll.

[Back]

Actually, if you want to really insult them, call them boring.

I don’t find them as pompous and condescending as some Americans can be. The French, maybe, but not on a national level, just personal.

[Bartlett]

Gun Show "loophole"

Where does this idea come from? Federal law that controls the buying and selling of guns is no different at a gun show than any other time. Background checks are still required for guns that require them

Locks for guns

I have no problem that the gun shop gives me a free trigger lock for my pistol. It saves me from having to buy one seperately so my kid won't somehow get at it


2) Might be a repost - but the shooter was found to be mentally deranged in 2005. He should have never passed a background check in the first place. Responsibility lies with the vendor in this case.

The responsibility only rests with the vendor if they didn't do the background check. The government gives the vendor a green light and said vendor has no reason to not sell the individual a gun. You want to see a real problem, look at the anti-gun "state" of Massachusetts, where, should you live in NH and get a speeding ticket, you will get points on your license in your state, but if you committed a violent felony, rape, murder, or whatever else prior to a year or so ago when this was uncovered, there is a good chance your crime was not nationally reported. If you then moved to a different state and attempted to purchase a firearm, you would be approved. Oddly enough, Mass blames NH, VT, and CT for their gun problems.

[Warriorbird]

"And you know this how?

Dumbass.
-Nien"

I've got English friends with gun access. Simple enough for you?

The English also tend to forget that their island is pretty damn tiny. Same can be said of a bunch of European countries, which tend to be the size of our states. Whole different ballgame...with sociology that they don't readily grasp.

[Back]

Hasen’t anyone ever seen Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels? C’mon.

[StrayRogue]

"And you know this how?

Dumbass.
-Nien"

I've got English friends with gun access. Simple enough for you?

The English also tend to forget that their island is pretty damn tiny. Same can be said of a bunch of European countries, which tend to be the size of our states. Whole different ballgame...with sociology that they don't readily grasp.

I don't see how the size difference matters considering we have, what 1/10th of your population, yet your country is many times that in size. We have sprawling urban landscapes and backwards-ass country idjits like you do.

As for the gun laws: the guy was declared mental. In this country, save him being a criminal (which is unlikely considering most students aren't), with such a record, he would not be able to get hold of a gun save he built one John Malkovich "In the Line of Fire" style. But yeah, it would be hard.

In America he could stroll into Walmart, go past the baby section, purchase a nice glock, go out into the street and begin a spree right there and then.

What it comes down to is that the harder it is to get hold of a weapon, the less likely there is to be murder's commited by that weapon.

[Drew]

This guy was never declared mental. He was committed. It's sort of like court, you have to be proven to be crazy, being committed doesn't cut the mustard.

[StrayRogue]

The dialogue from his video/essay would suggest he was pretty loopy.

[Drew]

Oh, I agree the guy was off the reservation bonkers, just that in any free society we wouldn't have known until it's too late.

[Nieninque]

"And you know this how?

Dumbass.
-Nien"

I've got English friends with gun access. Simple enough for you?

Over simplified.

On what basis have your friends managed to obtain "gun access"? Shooting club? Game keepers? Or is this a Tamralesque claim?

[Gan]

(CNN) -- When Cho Seung-Hui purchased two handguns this year, he apparently followed the letter of the law to get the weapons he eventually used in a shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus.

Some questions have been raised over Cho's mental health and whether that should have prevented him from being able to purchase the handguns.

A Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to court documents. (Watch campus shooting rekindle debate on gun control (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2007/04/18/romans.gun.control.cnn','2009/04/17');) http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/main/icon_video.gif (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2007/04/18/romans.gun.control.cnn','2009/04/17');))

Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

"Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday. (Read the judge's order - PDF (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/04/18/cho.pdf))

Virginia and federal law prohibit the sale of guns to anyone who has been sent unwillingly to a mental institution.

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html

[CrystalTears]

Oddly enough, Mass blames NH, VT, and CT for their gun problems.
With the way people in Mass drive, I can see why. They don't need to be more hazardous than they already are behind a wheel.

[Miss X]

Has there been a reduction in gun crime in the U.K. since they banned hand guns?



6% baybee!

This has been a hot topic today and so far no one I've spoken to has a clue where to start in terms of buying a gun. Of course gun crime still exists in the UK and people still manage to buy guns. It's a lot harder though

Also, at the risk of sounding pompous and condescending, I'll throw in some statistics:

Population of the UK is approx 60 million
Population of the US is approx 300 million

So, the US has approximately 5x the population of the UK.

In 2004 there were approximately 900 homicides in the UK. Five times this is 4500, so if our crime rates are similar you would expect there to be roughly 4500 homicides in the US in 2004. However, there were around 16000 and 66% of those by use of firearm.

Rates of homicide in the US are FAR higher than in the UK, based on population. I think our tougher gun laws have a part to play in that.

I suck at anything math related, so excuse me if I fluffed up a bit! I don't hate Americans or anything like that, I just support the tougher laws in the UK. :)

[Nieninque]

I don't hate Americans or anything like that, I just support the tougher laws in the UK. :)

Same

[Skirmisher]

American Haters!

[Apathy]

6% baybee!

This has been a hot topic today and so far no one I've spoken to has a clue where to start in terms of buying a gun. Of course gun crime still exists in the UK and people still manage to buy guns. It's a lot harder though

Also, at the risk of sounding pompous and condescending, I'll throw in some statistics:

Population of the UK is approx 60 million
Population of the US is approx 300 million

So, the US has approximately 5x the population of the UK.

In 2004 there were approximately 900 homicides in the UK. Five times this is 4500, so if our crime rates are similar you would expect there to be roughly 4500 homicides in the US in 2004. However, there were around 16000 and 66% of those by use of firearm.

Rates of homicide in the US are FAR higher than in the UK, based on population. I think our tougher gun laws have a part to play in that.

I suck at anything math related, so excuse me if I fluffed up a bit! I don't hate Americans or anything like that, I just support the tougher laws in the UK. :)

So we kill more people. We must just be better shots.


The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.

[StrayRogue]

Haha, I was reading the Sun that all Cho did was watch wrestling on TV, play violent video games (Counterstrike in particular), sleep for 10 hours a day, and listen to Nirvana and Led Zepplin.

They just encapsulated my entire three years of higher education in a single line.

[Hulkein]

The second I heard it was an Asian I knew he had to be a CS fan.

[Warriorbird]

"Over simplified.

On what basis have your friends managed to obtain "gun access"? Shooting club? Game keepers? Or is this a Tamralesque claim?"

Hunting related. None the less, Cho's off hand was a .22 pistol.