
that this is actually MORE likely to happen in countries whose population aren't all carrying guns. NRA forever!!
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 9:50, Reply)

Everyone knows if everyone was armed this sort of thing would seldom happen
And yet it does, with alarming frequency. I suppose if everyone went around in life armed with a sub-machine gun on their person..
But that is a vision of a society even more mental than the utterly mental reality of society they already have
Molon labe
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:17, Reply)

Those poor, poor people though. I often think 'how many innocents must die before the pro-gun lobby admit there's a problem?' & then remember that that would require them to completely alter their worldview.
[edit] Well, that ninjaedit makes me look more of an arse.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:23, Reply)

I pasted from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe and b3ta decided to correct the spelling for me
But yes, when will they learn a nation armed to the teeth is a frequent accident waiting to happen when people flip out and go a bit mental, and the scenario many of them would like; gun-belts and such, would be even more hellish than the madness they already have.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:48, Reply)

Was asking a yank friend of mine few years back about gun control and he explained that because you have so many guns in the system banning them would achieve a massively armed criminal population and defenseless civilian one.
In other to have the power to disarm the U.S and keep it disarmed would demand one of two things.
A complete cultural shift away from gun ownership affecting not only civilians but criminals.
Or a hugely powerful police state.
The gun genies well and truly out of the bottle there I think.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:20, Reply)

that GUN originally stood for Gay Uniformed Nazi, and let nature take its course.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:29, Reply)

your opinion of right-wing nutjobs.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:34, Reply)

(I couldn't work out how to get a commie implication in to the acronym)
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:35, Reply)

You should have come over, offered me a drink. I might have kept those adorable little shoes on for you.
Urgh.
You'll keep, Tabby, you'll keep...
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:44, Reply)

gunpowder was presumably invented before guns, so what does the word "gun" actually mean? Why isn't it called "bangpowder" or something?
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:47, Reply)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:51, Reply)

apparently the word "gun" originally referred to any projectile-hurling weapon
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gun
and we got it from the Chinese who had already invented guns as well, which I didn't know.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:58, Reply)

We tell them guns are Chinese and therefore unpatriotic - job done :-)
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:01, Reply)

A friend of mine who works in a gun store (UK - rural area) was telling me that following the Dunblane massacre the knee jerk reaction to gun control actually made the situation worse.
Don't get me wrong it wasn't that all regulation was bad and we should all be armed - just that once guns are out there it's bloody hard to make changes.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:33, Reply)

but it has happened. There was little-to-no gun control in the UK until the start of the 20th century.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:48, Reply)

A slightly scary mate of my dads when I was growing up had a lot of guns. Did he get rid of them all when the legislation banning handguns came in after Dunblane? Did he fuck. I haven't seen him since he got banned from the local pub for flashing a .357 Magnum. The sort of people who generally want to own guns are the sort of people you don't really want to have them, and the sort who are very unlikely to agree to give them up.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:25, Reply)

You could phase in gun control over a number of years - introduce licenses, prohibit sale to sections of the populace, ban the sale of automatic weapons, draconian sentences for gun runners etc.
That said, long term policy making is not a strength of the American political system. Or the British one for that matter.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:36, Reply)

At least in certain states.
You need a license
I'm pretty sure full automatic is illegal (though you can buy conversion kits)
And a quick google search for the penalty for smuggling guns is 20 years and $1million dollars.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:44, Reply)

Mandatory gun licences are certainly not country wide.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:14, Reply)

making them any more illegal isn't going to make them disappear.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:50, Reply)

they don't often need replacing.
All this would do would create a trade in illegal weapons where there currently doesn't need to be much, so make gangsters wealthier and gangs more violent, just like any kind of prohibition has over the years.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 10:54, Reply)

( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:08, Reply)

but I suspect gangland killings and armed robberies are by far the bigger problem.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:12, Reply)

he's killed 15 people and it's got on the news and it's shocked everybody.
US-wide there are on average about 35 deaths by shooting a day.
(12,632 in 2007 according to Wikipedia)
EDIT: homicides only, not including accidents or suicide
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:17, Reply)

( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:25, Reply)

That it's easy to obtain a gun illegally in America?
Yes, I agree.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:08, Reply)

I can't prove it, but it seems likely to me. Why bother complying with the law to get a gun if you're only going to break the law with it anyway, and it's that easy?
Secondly, it doesn't really matter that much how the criminal gangs got the guns, if gun ownership were made totally illegal, they would still have the guns. Only law-abiding citizens would hand their guns in.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:12, Reply)

legally bought guns would be much easier to trace through ballistic examinaion, so only stupid criminals would buy one through normal channels.
Obviously this doesn't stop crimes of passion, but as I've commented elsewhere, I doubt the lack of a firearm would stop someone who really wants to kill someone.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:48, Reply)

not the occasional one-offs that get in the news.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:57, Reply)

www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
I think the Michael Moore film Bowling for Columbine cites these numbers, and the weak correlation internationally with gun crime statistics to gun ownership percentages.
His thesis ends up being that its not gun ownership that is the problem, but a culture of fear, in particular racial fear.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:31, Reply)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
what's interesting is that while Northern Ireland has a higher gun homicide rate, the US has a far higher suicide/accident rate.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 11:34, Reply)

It's comparing figures from random 1 year samples over the course of 2 decades from surveys with different types of data sets.
There's a column for self defence yet not filled in.
Either nobody shot in self defence in the various years it was made or the author thought up the lists before reading data.
The U.S data is from 2004-2006 yet it says 1 year.
There's more holes to poke in it but I can't be bothered.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:08, Reply)

it's surely good enough a rough guide for a casual internet debate.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:17, Reply)

It wouldn't be an Internet debate if the opinions were informed and useful ! ;-)
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:23, Reply)

Especially where there's many other source options that are current.
www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms
Fill yer boots.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:28, Reply)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Lunch now, you can have the last word on this i've got salad to eat.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:40, Reply)

seems far more important to her than consistency or actual informed, intelligent argument?
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:58, Reply)

( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 13:04, Reply)

Despite being just over fourteen and a half stone and just a little bit of ginger in my beard.
I am however Cornish.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 14:07, Reply)

I'm trying to have a look at getting a good graph together, but on my limited version of excel I'm not about to label the scatter points properly.
Unfortunately the GunCite table also mixes years for the different countries statistics, so its not the best source. However, the general thrust is still interesting: while the USA has both the highest gun ownership and gun homicide rates, the next 6 down the list by ownership (in descending order: Norway, Canada, Switzerland, Finland, France and New Zealand) all have over 20% gun ownership and less that 1 gun homicide per 100,000 population, with no particular relationship between the two datasets.
Its worth noting that this is not an exhaustive list, many violent countries do not have statistics available on gun ownership, but perhaps that's to the good as it means we are comparing countries with governments stable enough to collect such data.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:03, Reply)

because it has total gun deaths broken down into homicides, suicides and accidents.
I was surprised to see N.I. higher than the U.S. because I was sure it was the opposite, but it's because the total gun deaths is higher in the U.S.
Also curious is the suicide rate in Switzerland... I wonder if gun ownership correlates to suicide by shooting. Not that I'm saying gun ownership causes suicides, but I guess if you've got one it seems like an obvious way to do it.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:09, Reply)

the South Africa statistic is intersting, in that it has a very high total homicide rate, 2/3rds of which are non-firearm.
Were I of the homicidal inclination, I'd have a wealth of creative options: bare hands, a kicking on the floor, kitchen knife, rock/brick/pool ball in a sock, garden tools, heavy household ornaments, the whole content of my tool box (except perhaps the tape measure), rat poison, and several plants growing in my garden including deadly nightshade, hemlock and in a few weeks the classic fly agaric mushroom.
Personally I'm of the opinion that prohibition is a sticking plaster measure at the best of times, we have to look to the cause of murder, not the tool used. Why are people angry enough to kill?
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:21, Reply)

often it's just a PR exercise so that the politicians can be seen to be doing something. After Dunblane, for instance, who got penalised? Legitimate gun sports clubs. They didn't do anything whatsoever to address the actual cause of the incident.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:26, Reply)

The below link is to a paper recently done by the Australian Institute of Criminology:
www.aic.gov.au/documents/7/D/5/%7B7D52BA73-81EC-42F7-8246-468FB222FB4B%7Drpp116.pdf
By suddenly restricting ownership of large swathes of previously legitimately held firearms, you end with a 'grey market' - I quote:
"The grey market consists of all long-arms that were not registered, or surrendered as required during the gun buybacks, following the National Firearms Agreement (1996). Grey market firearms are not owned, used or
conveyed for criminal purposes but may end up in the illicit market."
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 15:05, Reply)