As with people trying to say that if the UK had plenty of guns this disaster wouldn't have been as bad as it had been.... that is absolute bollocks and you know it.
And there are different forums to discuss the relative efficacy of gun control within the context of culture, yet that discussion somehow managed to surface in this thread without eliciting an abrasive retort from you.
If you're insisting that I discuss or post things only directly relevant to the thread topic then there isn't much to say about this one other than "it's a tragedy" or "glad it's over". A reasonable amount of topically tangential discussion is to be expected, but I digress...
I don't want to bicker anymore but I don't think there was anything wrong with my post.
I don't claim to know one way or the other, but it's not totally unreasonable to suggest that an armed citizenry would have been in a better position to intervene.As with people trying to say that if the UK had plenty of guns this disaster wouldn't have been as bad as it had been.... that is absolute bollocks and you know it.
This means things like pepper spray which a woman could carry in her handbag to ward off a rapist is illegal and she could be prosecuted - even if she somehow exercised her right to self defence. What we have is one right to self defence but on the other hand severe restrictions on how we might protect ourselves - i.e. we aren't allowed to carry anything that could be used for self defence...
The UK had pretty high gun ownership until the 1953 act that began to erode gun ownership - I can find no "Dunblane" or "Hungerford" or now "Whitehaven" type incidents in the UK before 1953 - I don't know if the people who went out and shot so many would have done if there had been greater gun ownership among the populace. I don't know if the evil men who perpetrated the horrors would have been put off knowing that UK citizens they encountered could protect themselves.
I DO know that these three incidents happened after the 1953 act. I'm not theorising - just commenting.
This was of course a tragedy but what I do not understand is the predictable reaction for a review and tightening of UK guns laws.
Such as after Dunblane and the rushed through & badly written legislation which banned handguns, the Hungerford massacre in 1987 banning semi-automatics and once again the legislators are fending off pressure from campaigners over changing the law.
Gun control in UK is one of the tightest in the world, passing through more legislation does not mean incidents like this will not happen, the problem does not lie within the weapon but the wielder and this was a extremely disturbed individual and I doubt the legality of the weapon would have mattered to someone so determined to cause deaths.
Last edited by Laila; 06-04-10 at 11:22 AM.
Here's some homicide rates for you by continent.
North America - 6.5
Europe - 5.4
By Country and year. 2001 - most recent
United States - 5.6 / 5.7 / 5.7 / 5.7 / 5.5 / 5.6 / 5.7 / 5.6 / 5.4 / 5.4
England and wales - 1.61 / 1.52 / 1.62 / 1.62 / 1.37 / 1.37
And alot of violent crime you're reffering to comes from drunken louts on a saturday night. Who do tend to be pricks.
As an Englishmen, I'd rather die then see everyone have guns. I like to system, and I like the fact when I lived there I never had to see one except if you saw an armed cop unit.
Anyone trying to use this incident as a case for gun legalization is just sick in my opinion.
Last edited by Jetboogieman; 06-04-10 at 04:32 PM.