Mass shooting in Britain

[Markp]

From what I researched for an interwebz argument a few years back, shotguns were not that hard to get in the UK (relatively speaking). In fact, there was an increase in shotgun licenses about five years back. Minimum barrel length of 24", semi-auto shotguns were banned, and pump-action shotguns were limited to three round capacity (including the chamber). I am sure someone will come along with the current info.

Expect new shotgun laws, assuming it was a legally-owned shotgun.

You can buy the Saiga 12 in the UK... but it will cost you!

http://www.rusmilitary.com/html/firearms_saiga12.htm

 

[aquaman]

Can't you people see how idiotic it is to gloat over this?

First off, twelve people are dead.

Secondly, this is horrible for our cause.

Couple points to make, first off no one is gloating. Second this just shows that strict gun control does nothing to stop people determined to kil. Lastly this does not hurt our cause, this happened in another country however a case can be made in favor of ccw if this were to happen in a state that prevents it

 

[oather]

Can't you people see how idiotic it is to gloat over this?

First off, twelve people are dead.

Secondly, this is horrible for our cause.

Is it horrible to Ford Motor Company's cause every time someone is killed in one of their cars?
Maybe you shouldn't be making the same logical disconnect that Anti's make.


The British should outlaw murder. That would have stopped him.

 

[zoostation]

Very sad day. My prayers for the deceased.

 

[Idempotent]

Mass civilian shooting sprees are always bad for our cause. If nothing else they lead to lots more restrictive legislation. Look at what happened in Australia.

People using firearms responsibly is good. People using them for murder is bad, and regardless of whatever you or I might think about who or what is actually responsible, the usual result is more calls for banning guns.

 

[Markp]

Yep, it will lead to a more comprehensive ban in England for sure.

Especially with "eyewitness" reports like this: "He turned around and stared at me and he had this absolutely huge sniper rifle," said Mr Moss. "It was almost touching the floor, massive scope and everything."

Nice touch... the guy can't tell a shotgun from a sniper rifle.

Mark

Addendum - apparently he had a scoped .22 and a shotgun... I guess the scoped .22 counts as a "sniper rifle". This is sad, but at the same time, pathetic. All the gun laws in the world will not stop people from using guns inappropriately.

 

[smores]

How long until Hillary Clinton blames lax gun laws in America for Britain's "gun" violence?

Shh, they'll get wise to our scheme of selling so many of these unauthorized small arms to those wankers...

 

[gamer_jim]

Can't you people see how idiotic it is to gloat over this?

First off, twelve people are dead.

Secondly, this is horrible for our cause.

Nobody is gloating. This is horrible. But the fact remains that even the strictest gun control laws do not protect people from violent shootings. This actually does help our cause. Had those victims in the UK been able to defend themselves maybe this wouldn't have happened or been so bad.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

One report says he used a double-barrel shotgun with birdshot.
No doubt all shotguns will be banned in England very soon.

 

[Idempotent]

Nobody is gloating. This is horrible. But the fact remains that even the strictest gun control laws do not protect people from violent shootings. This actually does help our cause. Had those victims in the UK been able to defend themselves maybe this wouldn't have happened or been so bad.

Sorry, "gloating" was not the right word. But people were still trying to twist it around as somehow being good news for the cause, or saying "Look at the UK, this is what they get with their restrictive gun laws ..."

But this is NOT good for our cause. England's current hyper-restrictive gun laws were a direct result of two previous mass shootings, which first caused them to ban semi-automatic rifles, and then to ban all handguns. The direct result of this shooting is probably going to be more legislation that bans all shotguns. You tell me how this is good for us?

What would be good for us is if lots of people owned firearms responsibly and no one was ever murdered or killed accidentally. But when firearms are used in murders, especially highly visible mass civilian spree murders, you better believe that more restriction legislation is in the pipeline, because that's always been the gut response to these incidents.

 

[Patrick]

Mass shootings have never helped gun owners anywhere. Only ardent 2A supporters see a connection that 90%+ of the population either does not see or does not agree with.

And there is no evidence that guns reduce violence. Only that violence has decreased at the same time gun ownership has increased. The two correlate but there is no evidence of a causative link. For instance, DC, Chicago, Detroit and B-More violence rates have also dropped substantially even during the bans. In this case correlation substantially fails and opens the door to doubt and debate. There is real misunderstanding about the differences between correlation and causation in statistics in the general population.

I'm not trying to start an argument, just pointing out that some "facts" touted by our community have little merit other than our opinion. We will not convince those outside our community using such opinion.

One thing we can say with absolute conviction is that Brady, et al, were wrong when they said more guns and looser restrictions on carry would cause "blood on the streets" in a "Wild West" atmosphere. It just has not happened anywhere.

Brady made a huge mistake when they claimed gun ownership rates and crime had a causative link. Brady claimed "More guns and more carry will cause more deaths." We got more guns and more carriers than ever and crime has (happened) to go down at the same time. There is a 100% record of them being wrong on that statement.

Now I fear we are making the same subtle, crucial mistake. If we claim "More guns mean less crime", we are going to be demonstrably wrong if crime increases for any reason. And it will. Nothing stays the same forever.

There are no universally accepted studies or stats that demonstrate our opinion on guns reducing crime to be correct. If we are going to use facts to argue our position, we should stick to facts that cannot be debated. Brady and the the antis were absolutely, empirically, demonstrably wrong about increased carry and ownership of guns causing crime. That is a huge win for us and we can make big gains on those points alone. Arguing that guns reduce crime, on the other hand, opens the door to legitimate debate on the statistical merits of correlative data. These guys pass laws by working people's fears and doubt. Debate allows the use of emotion to make judgment. Eliminate debate and the only rational choice left is the one that has universally accepted evidence as its basis. So do not make any argument that can open the door to doubt.


The causes of crime are varied and complex. No one factor (guns, economy, etc.) can make a big difference in isolation of the others. Brady overshot and we can nail them on it. They used that single argument to win restrictions in places like MD. We need to hammer home the fact they are provably wrong.

But if we argue that guns reduce crime, we overshoot and are just opening a new door to a new debate and giving them a free pass.

Privately we can agree amongst ourselves. But in public I think we need to temper our arguments a little.

 

[Idempotent]

Mass shootings have never helped gun owners anywhere. Only ardent 2A supporters see a connection that 90%+ of the population either does not see or does not agree with.

QFT

And given the demonstrable history of England's response to two previous mass shootings, each of which caused a new law to be passed that banned lawful civilian ownership of the type of firearm in question, I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that this third mass shooting is a good thing for gun owners in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Patrick]

Britain has some serious issues right now and their populace is like ours: easily distracted. The Pols could latch onto this as a way of distracting the people from other, legitimate, concerns. Like that small issue of sovereign default on their current trajectory.

Even here, the oil spill is helping lots of critters in congress get away with fiscal murder. No more talk of the debt on our nightly news. This means they can pass another bill to bailout underfunded union pensions at taxpayer expense by placing them forever on the balance sheet of the USA (introduced this week in both the house and senate). Bet you didn't hear about that one on ABC News between the "top kill" failure and the Gore breakup.

 

[aquaman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/world/europe/04britain.html

 

[Patrick]

Wow. That was fast. More evidence of the oft-rendered opinion that we could have a perfect utopia if we could just create the right set of rules.

Of course, this completely forgets that not everyone follows the rules.

 

[buzzzyy]

Patrick,

You make some good points.

Crime will increase, certainly when the economy goes further down the shitter.

 

[MDFF2008]

There is much truth to what Patrick states. I've often been a fan of using their tactics against them.

The story of the woman who was raped twice and denied a CCW permit.

The story of the hard of hearing man who's house was broken in by cutting the screen, he just happened to have a .25 ACP under his kitchen table.

Try to put people into the situation. I'm sure a good many people have never imagined a situation where they might need a gun.

I think we can, in addition to saying "blood in the streets" never happened, def say that gun bans have not been successful at reducing crime.

 

[Papi4baby]

Here's something else that happen on the say day of the shooting.

A mother and her toddler son were stabbed to death by a deranged and estranged boyfriend of the the mother........ this barely got coverage
At least 2 times as many people were killed or injured as a result of road traffic accidents as part of the daily death and accident toll on UK roads
Approximately 450 people died of cancer in the UK
16 people committed suicide in the UK
537 died from alcohol abuse in the UK
10 people died of a drug overdose
14 infants (children under 1 year old) died in the UK

Despite this being a 1:60 million risk that occurs on average every 15 years in the UK.


Anyone else hear about all that...

 

[K-Romulus]

K-Romulus, I just found a British gun shop that was selling semi auto shotguns. The shop carried Mossberg 500, 930 and 935. They do not mention magazine capacity, probably limited to one in the chamber and one in the mag. What is weird is that they do mention "There's even an EZ-Empty™ magazine button when the day is done." Unless the shop cut and pasted directly from Mossberg's own literature?

The Brits do allow "Moderators", known here as suppressors.

I stand corrected - I read a UK paper's article that said that semi-auto shotguns are indeed legal there, but with the capacity restriction. Thanks!

 

[Markp]

I stand corrected - I read a UK paper's article that said that semi-auto shotguns are indeed legal there, but with the capacity restriction. Thanks!

The capacity restriction (2 rounds!!!) is only for shotguns kept on "Shotgun Registry" where no "good cause or reason" is needed for ownership... However you can own shotguns with greater capacity if it is registered on the "firearm registry". You need to show good reason to own weapons like a .22 cal sniper rifle or a shotgun with the capacity for more than 2 rounds.

Fortunately, this man's guns were licensed, which will make drawing the chalk outlines easier as well as proving the crown's case against the deceased man.

I don't want to sound callous, because there are many families that are shattered because of what this man did. However all the banning and control of weapons and we end up with the same result... it matters not if he ran them over with his car or shot them. He wanted to kill people and did so. I am fairly confident that had he wanted to run 25 people over he could have done that instead.