smart51
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 12:50 PM |
|
|
Only in america
link to the BBC
"His efforts to make a hole in the outside wall came to nothing because Mr Long did not possess a drill.
But he did have a .22 calibre gun.
He fired two shots from the inside of the bedroom.
The second killed his wife who was standing outside.
He will face no charges. The police accept it was an accident."
If it wasn't on the BBC, I wouldn't believe it. Do Americans like guns more than life?
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 01:04 PM |
|
|
So if he started shooting through his front door it purely an accident if he killed someone?
I remember a story on myth busters where someone got jailed for firing a gun in the air and the bullet coming down a mile or so and killing a bloke in
his garden.
If you fire a bullet into a wall to make a hole, your are still responsible for where the bullets end up.
anyone else got nothing to do all day??? I'm bored sh%tless today 
[Edited on 23/4/08 by Mr Whippy]
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
JAG
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 02:05 PM |
|
|
I know there are problems with the American gun 'system' but I prefer it to the British 'system'.
My brother has real guns - 3 rifles. One 0.303, one 7.62 and one 0.308. They all fire real bullets and even I can shoot a man size target at 600
metres with no practice (it's good fun  )
So why am I thought to be too stupid or dangerous to own a handgun? I can drive a car, which I could also use to kill many people. I can own a
cross-bow that can be concealed and will kill. I can also own a shotgun and cut that down to be concealed.
So; Why the hell are we so concerned about handguns? and why do we think we are so much smarter than the Americans?
I think we have a dumb system and I would like to have a handgun in my hand when/if I ever face a burglar in my own home.
Let's face it - these days the burglar may well have an illegal handgun, I believe they're readily available if you're criminally
inclined.
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
So; Why the hell are we so concerned about handguns? and why do we think we are so much smarter than the Americans?
It is not a matter of being smarter, it is a matter of having access to a gun, pointing it a people when pulling the tirgger.
I'll let the numbers speak for themselves:
population UK 60 million
death 59 (2007)
poulation USA 300 million (2007)
death 28,874 (1994)
In case you don't have access to a slide rule, the USa has 5x population of UK but 5,000 x number of deaths. 
You don't need to be Einstein to figure why.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 02:49 PM |
|
|
I wasn't suggesting that we were smarter than the Americans. I suppose that if 1 in 3 British households had guns, people here would be
shooting walls too.
I'm more surprised at their attitude when someone kills, using a gun, but the authorities decide that there are no charges to answer. Here, a
deliberate action like firing a gun, which resulted in a person's death would be considered manslaughter.
Nice graph by the way. With England, Wales and Scotland at the bottom, someone should send it to the Daily Mail.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 02:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
death 59 (2007)
death 28,874 (1994)
In case you don't have access to a slide rule, the USa has 5x population of UK but 5,000 x number of deaths.
the figure is almost 500x not 5000. A typo I'm sure.
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 02:54 PM |
|
|
The American in general will routinely misinterpret his own constitution, which states that he has the "right to bear arms". This does not
state that every man woman and child should be ready for the next British invasion, but that as a group, they can defend themselves if necessary. All
in the interpretation, but leads to momentary insanity causing much misery an awful lot of the time.
The benefits do not outweigh the possible outcomes. It does a good job of eliminating a lot of the population of course, usually the lesser well off,
if that's your goal.
Guns don't kill people, true. Idiots with guns kill people. And you can never control the idiots.
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 02:58 PM |
|
|
The other reason such an incident wouldnt happen in UK is that not many people have such an urge to install SKY TV in their bathroom, and if they did
and decided on the DIY route then its highly unlikely their wife would be up a ladder on the outside of the bathroom (obviously taking the assumption
that the majority of UK houses have upstairs bathrooms). Also seeing as the majority of UK homes are built of brick etc then would such a fire arm be
able to penetrate 2 walls and still have the power to kill.
So - it would seem an alternative solution would be to promote 2 storey homes, made of brick, with small bathrooms that wouldnt give you the urge to
be in there all day.
I still say get rid of the guns though.
|
|
|
jlparsons
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 02:59 PM |
|
|
On the gun control front, personally I think it would be pretty damn fantastic to be able to own my own assault rifle in my house. On the other hand,
it would be completely awful if everyone else could.
So all things considered I'll go with a lower murder rate and a two week holiday to texas, thanks.
This is why we shouldn't have a constitution - if someone makes a godalmighty cock up of it from the start (right to bare arms) then
you're screwed pretty much forever, or at least till the next revolution.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Subject to
approval, terms and conditions apply. Apply only to affected area. For recreational use only. All models over 18 years of age. No user-serviceable
parts inside. Subject to change. As seen on TV. One size fits all. May contain nuts. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Edited for television.
Keep cool; process promptly.
|
|
|
JAG
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
Colin; not 'having a go' mate just my feelings on gun control, sorry if it seemed aggressive
The graph is interesting but also seems to be out-of-kilter with my personal and unsubstantiated experience. 59 gun deaths in the UK seems an
unrealistically low figure.
This article seems to contradict it "4,000 shot in Britain in a
year"
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
|
|
|
robertst
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 03:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
So why am I thought to be too stupid or dangerous to own a handgun? I can drive a car, which I could also use to kill many people. I can own a
cross-bow that can be concealed and will kill. I can also own a shotgun and cut that down to be concealed.
yeah but can u legally own an AK47 or a military M16 in the UK? or even a 7 foot long cannon that is used to shoot down planes and shoots like 800
rounds per minute? here in america you can have it mounted in the roof of your pickup and nobody will say anything.
quote:
So; Why the hell are we so concerned about handguns? and why do we think we are so much smarter than the Americans?
well, first because 14 year old kids are starting to make them and using them against themselves. and surely there are much more regulations for the
possession of firearms in the UK than there is in the US (virtually no regulations, just a 40-day wait i think).
[Edited on 23/4/08 by robertst]
Tom
|
|
|
hughpinder
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 03:22 PM |
|
|
The figures on the graph were prepared in 2003 - gun crime in this country has increased exponentially since then I believe. If the 4000 deaths last
year is correct that makes it 1 death per 15000 population in the UK, 1 in 10000 in the USA.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 03:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
59 gun deaths in the UK seems an unrealistically low figure.
This article seems to contradict it "4,000 shot in Britain in a
year"
The article says that 81 people were shot dead in 2002/3. Not far from the 59 figure in 2007.
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 04:15 PM |
|
|
Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
The successive, banning in the UK of, carbines, self loading rifles, hand guns and shotguns that hold more than two rounds, has only one logical
reason, and if I may quote JAG; "I would like to have a handgun in my hand when/if I ever face a burglar in my own home. "
Reason: That 'burglar' may be the police.
Your home is no longer your castle.
So make alternative arrangements.
[Edited on 23/4/08 by Confused but excited.]
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 05:01 PM |
|
|
I think the quote goes something like -
'There are Lies, Damn Lies and there are Statistics'.
Personally I don't think any of us in this country know the 'real' truth, only what we are allowed to know by our 'Lords &
Masters'.
I know which legal system I would rather have and this countries legal system is not top of the list. It may be close to the top but ..... .
I believe that we should have a properly maned and staffed police force whose job in the community is (like America) 'To Protect and
Serve'. I believe that this force should be properly funded.
I think that you will find that there are more 'Illegally' held guns in this country than there have ever been.
As to the gun laws that we now have. Technically we cannot stage the shooting part of the olympics as it would be 'illegal' for the
contestants to bring their personal firearms into this country and 'illegal' for them to use them.
The laws that we now have in this country are more to protect the integrity and security of tenure of our so called 'politicians'.
This is my personal opinion and does not reflect on this site other than its use as an open forum.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
zetec7
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 05:13 PM |
|
|
Of course, the graph doesn't indicate how many of the shootings were justified...as in, how many were police shooting bad guys, people defending
their homes, etc. etc.
And here's an excerpt from an interesting counterpoint I received just a few days ago, in response to the stated intentions of one politician to
ban all firearms in Canada:
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12
months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience
and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the Canadian evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
http://www.freewebs.com/zetec7/
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 23/4/08 at 06:22 PM |
|
|
Problem with the graphs. This is death by firearms so includes suicides, much easier and more effective with a firearm, accidents, a lot more guns
result in a lot more accidental deaths by shooting yourself or someone close to you because you don't know there is a round in the chamber or
the safety catch is off. Judicial killings, always armed police shoot a lot more people than an unarmed police force.
Statistics suck they are always presented to prove the argument of the presenter.
Caber
|
|
|
