Shooting Spree in England.

[Loiterer]

A taxi driver drove his vehicle on a shooting spree across a tranquil stretch of northwest England on Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before shooting himself, officials said.

He should have called in his AC-130.

 

[Mcface]

12 people killed by one madman with a gun.

You see, if we legalised guns over here, this sort of thing would happen much more frequently.

EDIT: Yes, OK, if guns were legal over here, someone could have stopped him. But then there would be a lot more guns on the streets, and thugs with knives would become thugs with guns. You can outrun someone with a knife. Outrunning bullets is something much harder.

You act as if there are any less of these things in gun strict countries.
And before everyone says "What! there are way more gun releated crimes in America!"
Let us look at size of population.

England - Population = 49,138,831

America - Population = 528,720,588

 

[Sewblon]

To all of you saying that we need tighter gun control, I'd have to disagree. You see, if everyone has a pistol on their belt, only a truly mentally unwell person would dare fire at another human being. Mutually assured destruction, you see. Take rural Texas, for example. Gun laws are very lax, and there is almost no crime, as compared to a place like Baltimore, Maryland.

This logic is counter intuitive. You think that if everyone had guns, no one would use them. Surely if no one had guns, no one would use them?


This is why nuclear weapons are pointless. We wish to 'deter' others from using them by making more of them for us. It dosen't make sense.

Also, I know that the allegory is a long stretch, but you brought up mutually assured destruction, so I went with it.

Well The U.S.A and U.S.S.R never went to war so you can't denounce mutually assured destruction just yet.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

12 people killed by one madman with a gun.

You see, if we legalised guns over here, this sort of thing would happen much more frequently.

EDIT: Yes, OK, if guns were legal over here, someone could have stopped him. But then there would be a lot more guns on the streets, and thugs with knives would become thugs with guns. You can outrun someone with a knife. Outrunning bullets is something much harder.

You act as if there are any less of these things in gun strict countries.
And before everyone says "What! there are way more gun releated crimes in America!"
Let us look at size of population.

England - Population = 49,138,831

America - Population = 528,720,588

That's why we use things like 'per capita'

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Disgusting.

 

[Hydrus]

Well The U.S.A and U.S.S.R never went to war so you can't denounce mutually assured destruction just yet.

Lol, good point. I hadn't thought about it like that.



But, I think I'll stick to my point though. Gun related violence has all but disappeared here in Australia, after strict gun control laws were brought into effect about fifteen years ago.

I simply cannot see how one can look at a situation like the horrible one we're describing here, and think "Yep, we need more guns".

 

[Mcface]

12 people killed by one madman with a gun.

You see, if we legalised guns over here, this sort of thing would happen much more frequently.

EDIT: Yes, OK, if guns were legal over here, someone could have stopped him. But then there would be a lot more guns on the streets, and thugs with knives would become thugs with guns. You can outrun someone with a knife. Outrunning bullets is something much harder.

You act as if there are any less of these things in gun strict countries.
And before everyone says "What! there are way more gun releated crimes in America!"
Let us look at size of population.

England - Population = 49,138,831

America - Population = 528,720,588

That's why we use things like 'per capita'

"In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.
*

In England and Wales alone ? discounting Scotland ? there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.
*

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.
*

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.
*

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).
*

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people ? less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).
*

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US."

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html

 

[Loiterer]

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

And?

Most recently recorded murder rate per 100,000 in USA: 5.4
Most recently recorded murder rate per 100,000 in UK: 2.03

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[Hirushia]

shows that even if guns are illegal, people will still get their hands on them if they really want to kill people.

This only applies for PREMEDITATED murders. This guy really wanted to kill someone, so he went out of his way to get a gun. However, look at all of the murders that are committed on the spot, such as a drunk guy shooting his wife because he already had a gun in his pocket.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Whoa, scary. You know, with gang crime on the rise here in Saskatchewan, we could start to see violence like this happen regularly.

*shudders*

I blame our crime on our proximity to the states (where it is easier to get firearms) and the stupid laws on bladed weapons here (I could go out and buy a Katana right now if I had the money, I would just have to produce my ID to prove I'm 18.)

Still, this story is a reminder that murder sprees are very easily started.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

um... I think this proves something about gun control but im not sure what...

It proves that gun control must be made internationally mandatory. *glares at America*

 

[King of the Sandbox]

I'd just like to note that no video games were involved in this brutal and senseless massacre.

My well wishes to the victim's families. T-T

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

"In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.
*

In England and Wales alone ? discounting Scotland ? there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.
*

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.
*

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.
*

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).
*

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people ? less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).
*

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US."

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html

Well given that there are more knives out there than guns I would say that's pretty accurate.

But I would also hazard a guess to say that a gun has far greater range, more likely to strike innocent bystanders, and is more likely to be used in conjunction with other felonious activities (such as armed robbery, domestic terrorism and illicit drug distribution).

If someone pulls a knife on you I'm also willing to hazard a guess that you're more likely to survive then if someone puts a gun infront of your face.

You're also not going to rob a bank full of patrons with knives unless you're stupid. Which means the possibility of a possible massacre of innocent bystanders is significantly reduced if the police fumble on their counter-action.

At the very least you can *run* if confronted directly by a man wielding knives.

Not to mention the fact that if you knife someone you end up covered in blood and may leave trace evidence at the scene if there is a struggle. Which drastically increases the odds of you being spotted and reported by a member of the public. But a bullet fired from a stolen firearm will only leave gun powder residue. Even if the police bring you up on charges you can just say you were using a friend's firearm when out hunting or a million of other un-verifiable excuses that will probably hold up enough in court to dissuade a jury that your 'story' is not within the realms of being beyond questionable doubt.

Guns make it easier for somebody to wind up dead. This is why people use them. So why not get rid of them as much as possible?

I don't see this as an unreasonable thing to think.

And let's not forget the fact that we don't want civilians operating firearms for their own protection.... Let's say if a madman starts shooting, and everybody starts shooting back? The casualties in a crowded city/suburban area would be massive.

Not only this but what do police do when they show up to scene where everybody is shooting at everybody else? People say 'firearms for protection' ... but what they mean to say 'firearms for MY protection and NOBODY else because they can all get fucked if they get in the way'.

If you want to be a cop, join the police...

Actually there was a good article on the Escapist that wrote about a guy's dad almost blowing a hole in him (in a city apartment building) because he had bought a shotgun. I think we can entertain the thought that 'what if he had hit?' ....or worse 'what if he had hit a stranger?'

 

[Cryogaijin]

It is all about risk mitigation.

Those people saying "Well if everyone was armed. . ." are forgetting that it is actually quite rare for a concealed carry civilian to actually stop a crime not aimed at themselves. (off duty police are FAR more likely to.)

Further, the 1 in 57 number (which is oddly specific. IE: Citation Needed) goes for your relatively untrained yahoo with a concealed carry permit. Hell, even well trained police are lucky to hit one in ten due to adrenalin and "buck fever".

I'm an avid target shooter that owns 8 guns, and has a concealed carry permit. The only time I EVER concealed carry is when I am hiking in bear territory. Odds of me ever having to use one against a bear? Almost Nil, as bears are fairly predictable. Moose OTOH. . .

That said, media tends to be amazingly hyperbolic about guncrime. To much of the media anything that has a scope is a "sniper rifle" (for the record, there really aren't any .22 sniper rifles. . .) Any rifle with plastic furniture is an "assault weapon" and any handgun where the magazine is seperate from the grip is a "sub-machine gun" Ignorance begets ignorance in a sadly perpetuating cycle.

 

[Mcface]

"In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.
*

In England and Wales alone ? discounting Scotland ? there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.
*

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.
*

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.
*

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).
*

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people ? less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).
*

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US."

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html

Well given that there are more knives out there than guns I would say that's pretty accurate.

But I would also hazard a guess to say that a gun has far greater range, more likely to strike innocent bystanders, and is more likely to be used in conjunction with other felonious activities (such as armed robbery, domestic terrorism and illicit drug distribution).

If someone pulls a knife on you I'm also willing to hazard a guess that you're more likely to survive then if someone puts a gun infront of your face.

You're also not going to rob a bank full of patrons with knives unless you're stupid. Which means the possibility of a possible massacre of innocent bystanders is significantly reduced if the police fumble on their counter-action.

At the very least you can *run* if confronted directly by a man wielding knives.

Not to mention the fact that if you knife someone you end up covered in blood and may leave trace evidence at the scene if there is a struggle. Which drastically increases the odds of you being spotted and reported by a member of the public. But a bullet fired from a stolen firearm will only leave gun powder residue. Even if the police bring you up on charges you can just say you were using a friend's firearm when out hunting or a million of other un-verifiable excuses that will probably hold up enough in court to dissuade a jury that your 'story' is not within the realms of being beyond questionable doubt.

Guns make it easier for somebody to wind up dead. This is why people use them. So why not get rid of them as much as possible?

I don't see this as an unreasonable thing to think.

And let's not forget the fact that we don't want civilians operating firearms for their own protection.... Let's say if a madman starts shooting, and everybody starts shooting back? The casualties in a crowded city/suburban area would be massive.

Not only this but what do police do when they show up to scene where everybody is shooting at everybody else? People say 'firearms for protection' ... but what they mean to say 'firearms for MY protection and NOBODY else because they can all get fucked if they get in the way'.

If you want to be a cop, join the police...

Actually there was a good article on the Escapist that wrote about a guy's dad almost blowing a hole in him (in a city apartment building) because he had bought a shotgun. I think we can entertain the thought that 'what if he had hit?' ....or worse 'what if he had hit a stranger?'

"In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.
*

In England and Wales alone ? discounting Scotland ? there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.
*

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.
*

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.
*

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).
*

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people ? less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).
*

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US."

http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html

Well given that there are more knives out there than guns I would say that's pretty accurate.

But I would also hazard a guess to say that a gun has far greater range, more likely to strike innocent bystanders, and is more likely to be used in conjunction with other felonious activities (such as armed robbery, domestic terrorism and illicit drug distribution).

If someone pulls a knife on you I'm also willing to hazard a guess that you're more likely to survive then if someone puts a gun infront of your face.

You're also not going to rob a bank full of patrons with knives unless you're stupid. Which means the possibility of a possible massacre of innocent bystanders is significantly reduced if the police fumble on their counter-action.

At the very least you can *run* if confronted directly by a man wielding knives.

Not to mention the fact that if you knife someone you end up covered in blood and may leave trace evidence at the scene if there is a struggle. Which drastically increases the odds of you being spotted and reported by a member of the public. But a bullet fired from a stolen firearm will only leave gun powder residue. Even if the police bring you up on charges you can just say you were using a friend's firearm when out hunting or a million of other un-verifiable excuses that will probably hold up enough in court to dissuade a jury that your 'story' is not within the realms of being beyond questionable doubt.

Guns make it easier for somebody to wind up dead. This is why people use them. So why not get rid of them as much as possible?

I don't see this as an unreasonable thing to think.

And let's not forget the fact that we don't want civilians operating firearms for their own protection.... Let's say if a madman starts shooting, and everybody starts shooting back? The casualties in a crowded city/suburban area would be massive.

Not only this but what do police do when they show up to scene where everybody is shooting at everybody else? People say 'firearms for protection' ... but what they mean to say 'firearms for MY protection and NOBODY else because they can all get fucked if they get in the way'.

If you want to be a cop, join the police...

Actually there was a good article on the Escapist that wrote about a guy's dad almost blowing a hole in him (in a city apartment building) because he had bought a shotgun. I think we can entertain the thought that 'what if he had hit?' ....or worse 'what if he had hit a stranger?'

You act as if criminals buy their guns from stores. They do not. They get them illegally. If gun stores were shut down, the crime rate WOULD BE THE SAME. If you want an illegal fire arm, it's not hard at all to get one illegally.

Also, a country completely unarmed is just giving more power to their government. In the US, the average time it takes for an officer to arive on scene is 4-5 minutes AFTER THE CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. The police do not help you, they catch the guy who did it to you. If you dont want to be a victim, you own a gun.

I didn't buy my gun for personal protection. I bought it for fun. I enjoy shooting, thats hwy in military. But you can bet your ass if someone ever decided to try to break into my house, they would never do it again.

Also the right to bear arms is our most important right. They are to protect us from both foreign and domestic enemies. Meaning, an unjust government. Your health care is completely controlled by the federal government, firearms are outlawed, it's all the making for a dictator takeover. It's not crazy hobo street protester stuff, it's happend countless times throughout history. Cuba, Japan, Russia, Germany etc.

Those who surrender their freedoms for "safety" deserve neither.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Wow... that's pretty big news. That shows me for not watching the news today.

Obviously it won't seem that big to you Americans with your near constant state of blood fueled rampages.

Spoiler

Just kidding guys.

Good thing you were kidding, I was about to go on a blood-fueled rampage.

Yeah, shame that people's gots to shoot eachother : /

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You act as if criminals buy their guns from stores. They do not. They get them illegally. If gun stores were shut down, the crime rate WOULD BE THE SAME. If you want an illegal fire arm, it's not hard at all to get one illegally.

Also, a country completely unarmed is just giving more power to their government. In the US, the average time it takes for an officer to arive on scene is 4-5 minutes AFTER THE CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. The police do not help you, they catch the guy who did it to you. If you dont want to be a victim, you own a gun.

I didn't buy my gun for personal protection. I bought it for fun. I enjoy shooting, thats hwy in military. But you can bet your ass if someone ever decided to try to break into my house, they would never do it again.

Also the right to bear arms is our most important right. They are to protect us from both foreign and domestic enemies. Meaning, an unjust government. Your health care is completely controlled by the federal government, firearms are outlawed, it's all the making for a dictator takeover. It's not crazy hobo street protester stuff, it's happend countless times throughout history. Cuba, Japan, Russia, Germany etc.

Those who surrender their freedoms for "safety" deserve neither.

Oh dear. Why is it if you bring up a rational argument people bring in politics and nationalism? I want nothing to do with neither because none of it has bearing on my argument. It's also riddled with misconceptions about my nation.

For starters, you can have private health care if you choose, but yes our public healthcare is taken care of and funded by the taxpayer.

Firearms aren't outlawed ... I can go get a pistol licence with a couple of training courses, filling out a test, waiting a couple of months, being enlisted by a firing range as a member, buying a firearm through a licenced dealer and waiting the 6 week cooling down period.

Oh yes, and might I add, gun control works here pretty damn well <.<

As long as I maintain all federal and state laws of holding a firearm, including installing a gun cabinet that is locked, and ready for inspection at any time during a random police inspection of said gun cabinet, and making sure the firearm is not loaded with any ammunition prior to storage.

And since when has Australia ever had a dictatorship? Or a Civil War? Or has ever been even invaded (barring the whole European-colonisation thing)? Infact the only nation that has posed a tactical military risk to Australia and has a habit of building things on Australian territory without permission is America.

And America isn't going to start a war with Australia anytime soon because ...well it can't afford it and it needs all the invest... I mean 'allies' it can get it's hands on to not buy US bonds and military aircraft ... no not at all >.> <.<

Hell ... voting itself is mandatory here to prevent there ever having a dictatorship o.o

A people that live in fear of it's own government is a people divided. Since when is having an intense fear (not hatred like mine of all governments, but actual FEAR) a healthy thing for a populace to have?

Tyrants thrive off fear ... tyrants love it.

The only time a government fears it's people is when the people all think the government is a joke... something that should not be taken seriously in any capacity.

And if you really believe in the US Bill of Rights you SHOULDN'T be in the Army, Navy or Air Force .... as that is fairly well understated in the Second Amendment that is conveniently twisted, or downright white-out-ed to justify a standing army.

a 'well-regulated militia' not a standing army :-] Read it.

Because US citizens of the era realized that a military itself represents a threat to security, because it's a tool that may be used pre-emptively and unlawfully engage another nation, or it could represent a tool for tyranny by a politician during peacetime.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

shows that even if guns are illegal, people will still get their hands on them if they really want to kill people.

Owning firearms is illegal in Britain. This is just another example of how gun control laws don't work. They're a waste of time for legislation and a waste of money for enforcement. All they do is empower criminals because they're no longer afraid of their victims having defense. There's nothing easier for a criminal to get his hands on than contraband items. Hell, it's just as easy to get drugs in our prisons as it is to get them on the streets.

Do any of you people bother reading up on the subjects you talk about, or even read what people have to say in the thread?

Manual action rifles and shotguns are both legal in the UK with the right permit. These were in all likelihood legally obtained wepons.

*SNIP*
That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US."

Incorrect. 'knife crime' and 'gun crime' include any crime in which a knife or gun has been involved, simply carrying a knife is a 'knife crime' or owning an illegal firarm in the US, doesn't mean anyone has been a 'victim'.

As someone else pointed out US Murder rate is over twice that of the UK. I have to go to work now, but I'll be back and I'm fairly sure our current rate is about 1.4 and yours about 5.9 (I'll check later), that's 3.5 times ours.
I don't like getting into cross atlantic arguments about gun control because no one seems to recognise that each countries laws are the most suitable for the firearms/crime situation in that country. What does piss me off however is people who havent a fucking clue misrepresenting the situation in another country to try and prove their own agenda back home. UK gun control works very nicely for us, legalise handguns etc to tyhe extent you have in the US and you watch our death rates soar...maybe up as high as 5.9 in every hundred thousand from our nicely low approx 1.5-2

 

[Sovvolf]

By the sound of it, you wouldn't have to stop it immediately. You could have shot the radiator and after a while, the car would stop. You could also shoot a tire and have the car stop quickly.

I've read many of your posts here and I some what agree with a good few of them but well... while in theory this one is true... I don't think it would work in execution. See a lot of people here who are posting (and either making me laugh or annoying the shit out of me) seem to think that if some one had a gun, then that person would go all Clint Eastwood/Charles Bronson and start shooting down. I honestly doubt that, in the shooting spree's in America I've seen, no body seems to do anything but hit the ground. Armed or not, they either bolt for it or get down scared. You'd probably be in too much shock to pick up a gun and start shooting.

All this which is being said now is the equivalent of the speech from a guy who lost a fight, saying "I should have done this, Should have ducked under" or a guy who cowarded out and just got beat "I should have fought back... pop, pop, jab". That or I could equate it to people who talk shit about how good he'd do in the situation "I'd rip his head off" but wouldn't do shit in the actual situation except jump down scared.

Sure a fellow might have gotten his senses back and pulled out his gun... then it's more the question of whether or not he has the balls to actually shoot. I mean he could do it, but there's the risk of him getting shot and killed in the process. I think if a few people there had guns... it wouldn't had made one bit of difference.

The bigger thing that's annoying me about all this (and there's a quote below me that demonstrates this perfectly) is the bombardment of messages stating "Shows you gun control doesn't work" or "Criminals can still get their hands on illegal weapons" and such. The weapons the guy had were legal, obtained by legal means. They were his fathers old rifle and shotgun passed down to him (that's what's been stated on BBC news right now) so it doesn't prove any of that. I mean if anything (as stated below) it proves guns control should be tighter (which my God I hope they don't do, I was looking forward to firing my .22 rifle on the weekend).

Don't take me as some anti-gun nut, I'd say I'm the opposite. I love guns but I think they should be restricted depending on the area you live in. You stated you where from Texas (I think) in one of your posts and you need a gun because there's a chance of being attacked by a bear while hiking. Fair enough, good reason to own a gun in that part, gun ownership in that area should be pretty loose as there's a very good reason as which to own one. The city on the other hand... I think gun ownership should be tight. Your not under the threat of wild life while walking around, there's no real reason to own one. Though to be honest it's too late to implement that into America because too many criminals own guns to which they can shoot common folk. However over here, were gun control is extremely tight it can, will and has been implement quick enough so it works.

Though God I do wish I lived in Texas. When I get older, maybe in my 30's I plan on moving there.

shows that even if guns are illegal, people will still get their hands on them if they really want to kill people.

The gun he had were legal guns obtained by legal means... so I don't think it shows that at all. What it could argue is that gun control needs to be tighter. Though I hope they don't tighten it.

 

[Malyc]

Why didn't anyone shoot back? Oh wait....

Y'know, that's exactly what I said after Columbine.

Schools in America have a no weapons allowed policy, meaning that there are supposed to be no guns on school property, and that students have to fight of gunmen with pencils, although after this happened my schools hired armed policemen to guard the place.

I was being sarcastic, but what this idiot is implying that you'd all be safer if the scholl lifted the "no weapons" policy.

When did I imply school kids should have guns? I don't recall that part...

He was raging at me, not you.

I told you he was raging at me!

OK, OK. You were right, i just thought he was raging at me because of the fact that I was talking about schools, and you just asked why anyone didn't shoot back. My mistake, and i'll leave you to your arguments =)