Another tragic school shooting

Same could one say for civil liberties in US under current administration. :smok:

I don't see the need for privatley owned guns. Let's face it, most guns (except hunting guns) are made for one specific reason: Killing poeple.
As for protection against criminals I do pay taxes and it is country's duty to protect me against them. Large amounts of privatley owned guns and lax gun laws in countries like US is just making police work harder and infinitly more dangerous.

Arguments like i need gun for protecting me and my family are not recognised as valid since we do have police for that (we do pay taxes for them to protect us). Our gun laws are restrictive and rightly so.
For example in my country one has to go psychological exam (we don't want crazies to get guns do we?), safe gun handling course with exams (written and oral (two oral exams- state and in front police), then you have to become member of shooting club and then and only then you can apply for permit to own a gun (that includes collectors of historic guns).

After that one can apply for gun purchase permit (for specific gun). Police can inspect your home for apropriate gun safe (locker).
Permit for carrying gun is given rarely and only for valide reasons, like if applicant is security guard, regularly carrying large amounts of cash (momey courier)...

These things are mandatory. For example as member of reserve military unit (123.GORB) i would still have to go to psychological exam, safe gun handling course and exames, gun club membership... even if that is basicly part of my reservist duties.

Same goes for hunters who also have to be members of licenced hunter "family" (local organisation of hunters) - mandatory.

Reasons for such strict gun laws in most of Europe are practical and historical.
Practical: less guns are in private ownership, less crime involving guns.
Historical:
After any mayor war (30 year war, napoleonic wars...) there was a lot of guns in private hands. This coupled with weak state control right after the wars resulted in a lot of crimes commited ( banditry, murders, inssurections... wild west practicaly). European countries were also more densly populated than US for example which allowed better and more organised police control against bandits... Armies were better organised so there was no need for militias (for example A-H empire had reseve units wizh mandatory membership...).

 

TISO:

Yes, it is the duty of your countries' police to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate your murderer.
I understand now. Thanks.

Tim

 

That's is not true, Legal gun owners in the UK are usually the most law abiding citizens because if we cock up then that's our right to shoot gone down the drain. More guns doesn't mean more crime, If someone couldn't be killed with a gun then it would be with a knife or even more effectively a crossbow(cheap, easy to use, silent and accurate) It was proven in the US that if you gave people the right to carry handguns as long as they were sane and had no criminal record then crime goes down dramatically for the reasons that criminals don't like getting shot at. Police forces already spend alot of time just investigateing crimes and trying to prevent them let alone act as you're personal body guard 24/7 if a criminal points a gun at you in an alley where's the local bobby to too stop him?

 

I'm blessed to live in a country where I have the choice of not owning a gun or owning as many as I want to.

I persoanally feel that it's the police's responsibility to enforce laws, the court's responsibilty to prosecute criminals and the individual's responsibilty to defend his/her self. If you want to rely on the cops to protect you, that's your right but I will take a little extra precaution for myself.

 

Belive it or not they are effective. My chances of being killed are smaller than being struck by lightning.

OK i was a bit clumsy. What i ment to say is that state has to have control of guns trade. That means that all guns have to be registered and trade/sells monitored (here it is monitored by Ministry of defence).
I agree that legal gun owners are least of the concern as they are in 90% of cases very careful and responsible with them (in part also becouse they are registred). Problems are illegaly owned guns (and there is lot of them in Slovenia - leftowers of recent Balcan wars). Here illigal gun owner is automaticly prosecuted for "illigal Gun and explosives tarfficing" and senteneced to couple of years behind bars. We do have our share of gun related crime but % is very, very low ( i have bigger chances to be killed with an axe than with a gun).

Couple of years ago we had amnesty. Old guns (manlichers, mausers...) were registered and military guns ( or rather guns you could not posses like automatic firing guns...) you could give over to the police without sanctions. One could hardly belive what was turned over (good old MG-42's, kalshnikovs, thompsons, PPSH's, MP-40's, couple of RPG's, few cases of granades, a lot of cases of ammo....).

Here you can have that choice as well, but you do have to go trough the motions and get permits and register your guns.

 

And here we are back with the owning guns or not debate...

Crossbows? They are a one-shot weapon, unless they are either weak or you have time to reload. And they are not exactly easy to conceal compared to a handgun. And they make a much worse club. If I wanted to go and shoot up my school, or even just mug people, I know which I'd pick.


The original point of this post was that a country that has guns as freely available as America does seems more likely to suffer from such incidents as schoolkids shooting up their classrooms. Yes, it happens elsewhere too, but much less often. Is it a coincidence? Comments have been made that people who want to do such a crazy thing will find another way - like bombs. How often does that happen anywhere? Taking the UK as an example, I have heard of mass shootings in schools, mass stabbings in schools (usually the knife-wielder was taken down by teachers before much damage was done...) but never a schoolkid setting off bombs in his school - and certainly never a school suicide-bomber.

Opportunity + motive makes it easier than motive alone.

 

ricky ...a bow or crossbow can be reloaded in seconds ,it need not be concealed once walking the halls of a high school,,,if need, hide it in the bushes, a guitar case,or in your car..the lack of a loud report would in some ways ,make a bow extra deadly.....ever handle the point a broad head hunting arrow?..4 thich gauge razor blades comming to a wicked stiletto point...........btw ,can you guys in europe own bows or crossbows?..can you carrie a hidden knife while walking the street in town?..if so how big can it be ?...thks

 

Like you said,it's the police that snapped.And he was from the police!What can u possibly expect?We're talking here about seemingly normal citizens snapping and having the means to carry guns ard.That's what's fearful.However,though guns should be banned,i have this to say,the american teenage public in genewral needs to wise up.

How is it that we always seem to blame the tools of destruction but not the one handing them out?
If there were sufficient education and unified teaching system regarding guns for the teenagers ato mature.Then guns wouldn't be much of a prpoblem.But as such,the "free" media has made young people at their most impressionable age exposed to violence and weapons.
*now do not say that what people are exposed to doesn't influence people!i'm a medic and even i am now almost insensitive to the injuries of people...almost uncompassionate.*

 

What I have to say is I find it really, really strange the American attitude to guns and these events. There seems to be a 'these thing happen' attitude which I find baffling.

From what I can make out most of these kind of incidents have been done with legally held firearms. The individuals were often not considered criminals before hand. Professional criminals basically don't do these kind of crimes.

As I said before I think its a price American Society is willing to pay.

[shrug]

 

And of course, everyone who does not own a gun, dies. It is logical. Nobody is left alive in Europe currently, we are all zombies.

The entire concept of legalized gun ownership seems based upon the ludicrous assumption that the average law-abiding citizen is going to need a gun to defend himself. Every time we have this discussion here on the forums it's basically the pro-gun team saying, "what if there's a home invasion" or "what if you get mugged" to justify that everyone must be allowed to own guns, whereas the anti-gun team says "I am much more likely to get invaded or mugged if guns are legal, and much safer if they are not". Because in fact, you just don't need to own a gun to survive. Or rather, you only need to own a gun to survive if everyone else does too.

If it is true that Franklin said "give up an essential liberty for temporary safety" then I do not think it undermines the case of those against gun ownership at all. Besides, this liberty is not surrendered in favour of a temporary illusion of safety but rather in favour of a constant in society that most Europeans consider preferrable.

The analogy with cars has been made before and it goes awry for the same reason. A car is a mode of transportation, intended to move people quickly and comfortably. Unfortunately, they are hard and fast-moving objects, so accidents do happen. Guns, on the other hand, are weapons, their design perfected to kill. Some guns are made to hunt animals, others just to look menacing, but they are all without exception tools used to kill with.

Majorwoody: it is illegal to own bows here unless you're a member of an archery club. Most types of knives are illegal too. That last thing makes less sense to me than a ban on guns, as it is much harder to do real damage with a knife than with a gun, but on the other hand I still see absolutely no need to own a knife for self-defence.

 

MURR!!!! BRAINNNNSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!


I think Roel has covered it quiet well, the only point has has missed which is often raised is the idea that gun owership keeps governments in check. I suggest I anyone who holds that idea speak to someone in the miltary and find out if privately owned guns are holding the US army in check. You might have to wait until they stop laughing.

 

Actually crossbows too a while to reload but now modern crossbows can be fired semi auto from a 5 dark mag.

 

Knife crime is on the way up in the UK. It is a great weapon for mugging and casual fights - concealable, intimidating, and you can do some fatal (or at least serious) harm quite easily.

 

From what I've seen,a lot of anti-gunners have never been a victim of a violent crime.I guarantee if someone were to invade their home or the home of a relative,whip the shit outta them then steal whatever they could,they would have a different attitude concerning gun ownership.
Also,it just kills me how many anti-gun politicians have concealed carry permits (in Chicago) or 24 hour police protection (such as Mayor Daley).A lot of people I work with live in or around high crime neighborhoods.If you had to live in a similar neighborhood,you'd have a gun for your protection.In large cities like Chicago,there is a very real chance that the police cannot get there in time when you dial 911.

 

It's interesting that pro-gunners start talking about banning guns and how that violates their rights. It's not about banning them, but about control over guns and trading with them. Now that is the problem. If one has to go trough some some process to get the guns (not just waiting for your ID to check up) gun sales would be down but that is not exactly what NRA and gun producers want, do they?

If you want to drive a car you do have to get drivers licence and that includes exams about driving and knowledge of the rules in handling such device safely. It is strange that for some reason same rules that apply for simple transport would be seen by some as losing their right to own weapons when applied to guns.

 

That argument probably one of the weakest ones to get wheel out for the gun arguement. Unless you keep a loaded gun in every room I doubt you'll ever get to it in the event of trouble.

 

Just to clarify my standing, I see no problem with a friearm for home defence but my main standing is for target sports as a legitimate sport rather than killing an intruder.

As for bows and knives in England, Bows can be bought along with corssobws without a lisense and you do not need to be a member of a club (Every Englishman has the right to have a long bow ) but knives are a bit more complicated, you can own as bigger knife as you want but if you are carrying it about you must have a just cause and self defence is no long deemed as a just reason.

 

this gun argument always seems to take on an almost religious fervor....you guys in europe grew up in countries where there a very few guns ..your crimminals are not armed with guns ..nor are they as vicious and numerous as they can be in some parts of the us. ...we in the us grew up in households with guns ,our dads start us on bbguns and teach us saftey and shooting skills ,we hunt game ,ducks pheasants ,,varmits ,deer ,wild boars ,ect....i took my boy out shooting just today ,.22 rifles and pistoles ,a 12 gauge shotgun (he is still intimidated by the recoil of the scatter gun)we yanks conseder it our birth right to keep and bear arms..to us your nany state governments which prohibit this and that seem very overbearing....if such a government were to try to seize our arms in america ,you guys would see gun violence that would put all this petty inner city gang war stuff to shame...you guys see us as nuts for haveing any non felon adult able to buy a firearm .......we see you as oppressed and over regulated ..to us it seems insane that you allow your government to disarm you...(for your own saftey ,of course)you see us as lunatic gun weilding rambos and we see you a henpecked ,emasculated husbands who wear aprons and say yes dear ,yes dear to your mommy ,nanny masters....neither of these stereotypes is valid of course.......

 

As we determined before, it's a difference of culture. Those who are pro-gun will always be pro-gun and those who are anti-gun will always be anti-gun. There is no changing it. We can debate it until the end of time and nobody will feel any differently.

One other thing, I do not consider guns to weapons. I have 22 guns and NO weapons. A weapon is ANYTHING that is used to purposely inflict harm on another person. It can be absolutely anything. Sticks, rocks, cars, guns, knives, airplanes or even pencils. My guns are for sporting (hunting and target shooting) and collecting purposes. They are not weapons.

 

Let's see: well regulated Milita; security of a free State; people (not persons, the collective, not the individual). I have never been able to see how this give individuals the right to have guns without any regualtion. As TISO points out, the need to have driver's licenses and car registrations are accepted, and this seems to me to be a far more serious threat to the right ot go where you want when you want.
in any case individual restrictions on guns is practiced in the US. Automatic weapons, howitzers, battleships, fighter planes, back yard nukes. None of these are legal. Why are chaep hand guns?