probably harder for a youngster to buy a pint of beer in America than a gun, please log in to view this image
No, Yappy's simply putting the other side of the gun purchase market. My contribution offered the genuine fear factor. Circumstances in this country where abject vulnerability can convert a pacifist into a potential gun owner / carrier. Not their fault but the police knew all about the goings on around Clapham at that time but couldn't offer protection - and were less visible than those causing the threat. The police only became apparent when another shooting had happened, which did nothing to assuage the terror felt by those inadvertently caught in the firing line. Yappy's contribution highlights the market labelled 'community protection' where fear still plays a part, albeit one veiled in machismo and proactivity. In this example people form into private armies for protection from other groups. These subcultures are known by various tags from mafia to gangs to white wing reactionaries etc. but all amount to the same thing: self-preservation in the first instance - and from there into positions where the initially vulnerable become aggressors to other groups. Okay, so both of these examples explain reasons why otherwise reasonable people might wish to buy weapons. The question this thread asks is with plenty of guns available and so many legit and hooky gun owners, how do you stop spree killings of the magnitude of Connecticut, Columbine etc. over there or west Cumbria, Dunblane, Hungerford etc. over here? Two very different societies with two very different histories, attitudes to guns - but in terms of effect, the same awful impact on highly vulnerable, innocent people going about their everyday lives. I don't want to come over as a gun nut because that's far from the case - but like it or not, guns are a reality that, like nukes and other nasties, cannot be uninvented. Therefore to question guns or their ownership is a distraction imho. The random, spree killing phenomenon is about nutters with an unbalanced reaction to personal issues. In most cases I'm aware of the perpetrators have come up at one stage or another on the police, social welfare or psychiatric radar - and we have to work harder at identifying these potential threats at this point. How that happens without infringing human rights etc., I don't know - but with more incidents of spree killings, it will happen sooner or later. The equation is a simple one: nutter + access to guns = potential disaster. Answer, separate them and closely monitor activities thereafter. How many children and everyday folk will have to face death or maiming before we wake up? Only saving grace is that these major incidents occur so very rarely, thank God.
As a footnote to what was and is a very interesting thread, I've just seen Piers Morgans CNN interview with the guy who started the petition to deport him, a complete and utter fruit loop called Alex Jones. Now I'm not Morgans biggest fan (in fact I can't stand the fella) BUT after that interview he has gone up in my estimation 10 fold. If ever there was an argument for banning certain firearms in America then it's right there. Worth a look. SORRY.....Seen interview was posted up earlier (couldn't pull it up at work)...only just seen it
Guns are simply not needed. Believing them necessary for protection against armed criminals isn't really true. Living just up the road from our beloved moderator we have had our share of gun crime including four fatal shootings in and around the old ice rink in the space of 12 months. All within 50 metres of each other and one actually on the ice with a skater shot dead. Numerous other shootings in the area and sirens and helicopters day and night. Does it scare me? Not at all, far bigger chance of being run over or having a heart attack or whatever. Japan has exceptionally strict gun laws, so strict that even the Yakuza rarely carry firearms. Arming everyone does not stop crime which will always exist. Same goes for the death penalty, it won't stop homicides. Guns are made to kill, they have no other purpose other than that or to induce fear.
Having lived here almost a year the NRA are using an ammendment that is over 200 years old,it's out dated and archaic and needs changing.
The death penalty won't stop all homicides, but the ****er who kills someone won't be able to do it again! Guns don't kill people.......people kill people.
We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them in the fields and in the streets............................. Bloody hell COL, don't you ever turn it off?
Face it, with a machete/cutlass/parang one could probably kill or severely injured between five and ten people before being overpowered. With a Kalashnikov and four magazines there are 120 bullets to shoot people with. 30 dead minimum.
Historically, being BRITISH as we are here, of the former BRITISH EMPIRE (is it former? It still sort of exists, as everybody says ), we have no right to say anything about guns or violence or oppression of the weak/little - as our British country here was built from the use of guns throughout its history, after all. We built our Empire on it, didn't we? Of course, in "civilized" societies we would or should expect people to behave a bit better than a bunch of thugs or individual nutters going around on killing sprees....... but really? Some would even argue that all this fear, hatred and violence is PRECISELY what makes America so "EXCITING!!!!" That bit about the Yakuza isn't really true........ you can look up the news of recent years, most gun violence in Japan is DIRECTLY related to the Yakuza. Whatever the case may be, I hope we can all be civilized and look at it from the perspective of being decent people who can get along with everybody in that society without being a bunch of ****ers.
