BF2S Forums 12 Dead in UK Shooting

nlsme1 wrote:

According to the 2001 census, the population of London was 7,172,091. What is more plausible. An explosion in population of +1,000,000 a year. Or a respectable increase of around 100,000 a year? I'd say my numbers are a lot closer then 14,000,000.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 … ages/h.asp


No I don't think it is a good thing to have a crime rate 5 times that of London. That is besides the point your homicide rates have held steady(after stricter gun laws), yet other cities without as strict gun laws are at record lows.

Well, looking at China's recent "mass killings", I would say guns don't kill people. People kill people. And if they want to kill someone, they will.

Should further break down where crimes are committed in the two respective cities. I'd wager that most of the crime in London happens in it's East End while most crime in NYC takes place in Brooklyn, South Bronx and Harlem. Crime occurs where minorities congregate and live. Fact. It's got almost nothing to do with access to firearms.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-03 14:03:26)

mikkel wrote:

krazed wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Who told you that it was?

it's the way a lot of people act/come across

This issue turns up every month or so in D&ST, and I've read through most of the threads. I can tell you from observation that it most certainly is not how people act or come across. What unnamednewbie posted is the hyperbolic interpretation derived by many people who are uncomfortable with the relatively positive statistics regarding gun-related violence in the United Kingdom.

They take this interpretation and store it for use in any thread on anything regarding gun-related violence in the United Kingdom, threads which often discuss events which have no significant bearing on the statistics that these people are uncomfortable with. This interpretation, deliberately fabricated so that it could not hold up even to documentation proving a decline in gun-related violence, is then presented as a representation of the arguments with which these posters disagree, and then attacked in manners which simply aren't applicable in the real world.

That's called a straw man. That's what people use when it's easier to shape the opposition to be defeated by their opinions than it is to shape their opinions to defeat the opposition.

Why yes, it is hyperbo exaggeration. A better term would be sarcasm.

But some people do come across 'that way.' However, note my later post accusing American gun control activists of being the most vociferous in lauding the absolute success of foreign gun control/bans. Sorry, no master plan here.

Shem wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

12 Dead in Shooting

" LONDON - A taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England on Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before shooting himself, police said.  "

Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?

He legally obtained them.

We have guns, you just need to go through a shit load of paper work and proof of need to get them.

Most farmers have shotguns for example as they have legitimate reasons for usage.

I guess you'd better make it 100% no exceptions to completely avoid gun violence.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-06-03 19:08:50)

nlsme1 wrote:

According to the 2001 census, the population of London was 7,172,091. What is more plausible. An explosion in population of +1,000,000 a year. Or a respectable increase of around 100,000 a year? I'd say my numbers are a lot closer then 14,000,000.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 … ages/h.asp


No I don't think it is a good thing to have a crime rate 5 times that of London. That is besides the point your homicide rates have held steady(after stricter gun laws), yet other cities without as strict gun laws are at record lows.

Well, looking at China's recent "mass killings", I would say guns don't kill people. People kill people. And if they want to kill someone, they will.

Not greater London. Which are what the statistics are for. They list the boroughs. They are the boroughs that make up greater London.

I thought everyone in Sweden(maybe it's Switzerland) owned a gun and that they have very low mass killings and practically no gun violence?

Bertster7 wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I thought everyone in Sweden(maybe it's Switzerland) owned a gun and that they have very low mass killings and practically no gun violence?

Not according to the BBC.

US, Finland, Yemen, Canada, France, Germany.

I bet it's those damned Laps!

Collective punishment is gay. Responsible people shouldn't not be allowed to own a weapon because some other people aren't responsible.

Our nations simply have different views on being armed.  In the US, we have the right to keep and bear arms.  In most places within the US, you can exercise that right (at least on private property), unless you have been convicted of a crime (usually felony or domestic violence).   In the UK, that right is not protected.  It is a different balance of liberty vs. order.  We go more toward liberty, the UK favors order.

Quick question on the "highest rate of ownership" bit--does that estimate for illegal and "gray market" firearms or legal ones only?  Does it include militia issued firearms?

Mass shootings are terrible.  They are HIGHLY visible, tragic, and abberations.  The trouble is we don't want knee-jerk reactions, but we want to mitigate the damage active shooters can do.  Most places in the US rely on security or police departments.  Many schools have "lockdown" procedures to isolate the shooter before police arrive.  Some people advocate eliminating restrictions on those licensed to carry firearms (most mass shootings happen in so-called "gun-free zones.")  It is a tricky thing, because there is very little scientific evidence that actually points to a viable solution.  Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution.  Humans occasionally murder each other.  It doesn't matter if we take away some means--those bent on murder will likely find a way.  (After a lot of terrorism, Israel allowed a LOT of people to be armed.  They have fewer shootings, but more bombings now...terrorists and murderers adapt.)

The sad thing is while we search for the "best" ways to mitigate and prevent shootings, innocent people are dying.  I lost a friend in a mass shooting.  After a lot of research, I have yet to find anyone with a real solution.  We are just arguing marginal returns...

FatherTed wrote:

ahhh mother of misconceptions. in some areas of the UK (most notably the rich country areas or farming lands) it's quite common for people to own guns. Not allowing the general public access to semi auto large clip weapons isn't really something i'm against, as the vast majority of people are stupid. i do not want stupid people around tools capable of killing quantites of people in a short time

it's a magazine!   and having a smaller magazine just means i need to reload a little sooner

the vast majority of people ARE stupid, which is why they shouldnt have access to sharp things, alcohol, or motorized vehicles... yet here we are

FatherTed wrote:

inb4 they'll use a knife lololol. its much more emotionally involving to stab someone, and it's also much harder to even get the chance to stab someone.

pretty easy to jab someone in the back on a busy street, ask that japanese guy that went on a stabbing spree

it varies but yeah guns make it easier knives, which are easier than clubs, which are easier than rocks, which are easier than your fists



if you stab the shit out of someone and then jump in a car and drive off... you could probably get a bunch of people before the police caught up with you

Last edited by krazed (2010-06-05 19:37:21)

FatherTed wrote:

oh no doubt in some circumstances it's easy enough to shank someone, but it's a lot more emotionally involving to do it (only proper headcases kinda thing) and to get away with more than one or two fatalities would (i'd imagine) be rather difficult. Far easier with a firearm no?

I've never been hot on firearms terminology, excuse me

Those who are active killers are usually mentally unstable (rather obvious, I should think). 
Easier with a firearm, yes.  People have been pretty successful with knives and explosives, as well.

You might find your firearms laws acceptable, but they would prevent me from conducting one of my hobbies.  Since my hobby isn't harmful, I would object to restrictions on it.  (Reference previous posts, or PM for further discussion).