Wicky_42 said:
Because I'm sure that that's what the various school shooters you've had to deal with went through ¬_¬
Face it, in the states this guy could have already had a gun, gone out into the streets and started shooting. Cops would have turned up, gun battles, lots of potential for death all round. Here, the worst your average muppet is going to have is a big knife, which is beaten by big bits of plastic, and no-one dies (though one plonker maces himself... >.>). Madman, arrested, peace restored, job done and done right.
When we do have shooters - take that banker last year leaning out of an upstairs window with a shotgun, or that dickhead of a taxi driver shooting up a town - the armed response deals with it, not a beat cop; gunmen pose a completely different scenario, calling for completely different skill-sets than a petty thief or car theft.
In Columbine the guns were acquired via illegal sources; as it's been said in this thread before if someone really wants something 9 times out of 10 they're going to get it. Virginia Tech was a failure by the gun store owner. And those are brought up all the time as failures in the system, but what about the millions of people who buy guns and don't go shooting up schools? What about all the crimes stopped by people who are licensed to concealed carry? It's just like Fox News, because they make the most shockwaves they get the most press. You don't hear about the normal stories where a guy was turned down to purchase a gun and nothing came of it. Further, you cant just say this guy would have already had a gun here, just like I can't really say he never would have gotten a gun. We just don't know how it would have turned out, but it's more likely he wouldn't have gotten a gun.
GHudston said:
It's not based on stereotypes and bad jokes. One of the many times that I've been to the US I decided that I wanted to see what it was like to shoot a hand gun. All I needed was an ID and some cash to have a gun in my hand (this was in Florida, by the way. I'm aware that laws differ from state to state). I didn't own the gun, but with enough insanity and a little luck I could have been loose in the street with it.
Yes, true. There really isn't any argument for that, someone probably could do that, in that case there's not much you can do unless someone working at the Range shoots you before you make it out the door.
I don't buy that a 3 day waiting period is going to do anything but delay a shooting by 3 days, or that a law against carrying a rifle in public is going to deter someone who would threaten an officer with a machete.
It's more based on the fact that most crimes are in the heat of the moment by unstable individuals than anything else. You can always buy an axe/machete/insert-any-yard-tool at the store and go off, but because buying a gun is more difficult most people don't bother.
I'm not saying that everyone in america is a gun nut and that shootings are everywhere, because that is clearly not the case. But mistakes are made with background checks and the occasional nutcase begs, borrows or steals a hand gun and kills someone. If it even happens even -once- it's one too many times.
That's the great debate we have over here. I do think stricter enforcement of the laws needs to be thought about. The fact is that some Pawnstores and whatnot very rarely do the background check and are always swayed by greenbacks, that needs to stop for sure.
We're not entirely safe in the UK either, as the above post pointed out, but that's why I want trained police to have more access to firearms. I don't see how arming the public will do anything more than increase the amount of gun crime here.
I'm not going to argue arming the public over there, that's something for resident's of the UK to decide, not some guy who tells everyone he's a Canadian when going abroad to avoid the hate that's due from the previous administration. I think that Police need a step up above the average criminal, whether it's rubber bullets or bean bag guns or plain old guns.
