RuffRidr really hurt my feelings with this comment.
Also, would love to hear your views on the mass shooting in England.I scour the internet continually, but honestly hadn't picked up on this till I saw these two mentions on my own blog comments. To suggest that I pick and choose, is just ridiculous, I'm outraged .
Interesting that the story has been almost completely ignored on this blog.
Here's the story:
June 3 (Bloomberg) -- One of the worst mass killings in British history may have been triggered by a row over a family will, the Daily Telegraph reported, without saying where it obtained the information.
Taxi driver Derrick Bird went on the rampage armed with a sniper rifle and a shotgun through the northeast county of Cumbria, killing 12 people and wounding 25 before turning the gun on himself; his twin brother David and a local solicitor, Kevin Commons, who may have advised the family over the will of Bird’s ailing mother, the newspaper said.
Bird had initially armed himself with two guns on the night before Wednesday’s killings, but was disarmed by a friend; he sought medical help at a local hospital for his mental state but was turned away, the Telegraph reported.
I know, I know. This proves that both gun control and universal health care don't work worth a damn.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/a-cumbrian-horror-story-1990074.html
ReplyDeleteLet's see, he was a 20 year licence holder who had simmering anger fuelled by low self-esteem and paranoia and used sporting weapons for this massacre.
Local authorities are perplexed. Sir Ian Blair, the former Met Police commissioner, said at the Hay Festival: "We have the most draconian anti-gun laws in the world... I don't think we can make the laws any tighter."
Well, one could ban all private firearms.
Laci
Also your shared responsibility in the dozen dead, and even more wounded.
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed at your honesty, and your attempts to act as a grown up!
I'm unsure what the gunloon "point" is here,
ReplyDeleteAre they saying this is a failure of gun control in the UK? Is it their belief that if everyone had an assault weapon in the UK this driveby shooting escapade would have been prevented?
Having been to the UK many times, a tragic event like this will reverberate through their society; it will be like when RFK was shot or the Challenger blew up. It will take people's breath away. Of course, here in the US, we have become so inured to gun violence that it's greeted with the same level of indifference as Lindsay Lohan going off to rehab.
--JadeGold
Well, one could ban all private firearms.
ReplyDeleteLike Jamaica? How many people were killed in shootouts there last week?
Well, one could ban all private firearms.
ReplyDeleteYeah, because that'll definitely work, even though murder is illegal, as is carrying said firearms in public....
One more law will bring about peace and harmony and everyone in the UK will live in peace and harmony with violent sociopaths like Laci.
Ruff - After they're done banning guns maybe they can ban murder.....or crazy people.
ReplyDeleteSee! It's simple, just declare something "banned" and the problem magically goes away, right MikeB & Laci?
{{Like Jamaica? }}
ReplyDeleteRuffy shows us his attempt at intellect.
A favorite rebuttal by the special ed gunloon set is to point out that countries like Mexico and Jamaica have very strict gun laws--yet their gun violence problem is off the charts.
Ipso facto, presto-changeo, QED, voila--gun control causes gun violence !!!
Of course, what is forgotten is that these are third world nations and have trouble enforcing *any* law.
--JadeGold
From the article:
ReplyDeleteTaxi driver Derrick Bird went on the rampage armed with a sniper rifle . . .
Yeah--a .22 rimfire "sniper rifle."
It's almost as if Michael Bloomberg did have a hand in writing the story, Mr. B302000's clarification notwithstanding.
I'm being facetious, if it's necessary to point that out.
The real story here is the weapons used: A sniper rifle and a shotgun. Two rather mundane weapons for such a high body count.
ReplyDeleteNot exactly the high-powered, high-capacity, armor-piercing, rapidly spray-fired from the hip assault weapons that gun controllers wish they could blame for this event.
Jade, we are saying four things:
ReplyDeleteA) People have a physical capacity for violence that cannot be removed (ethically).
B) Violence is an inherent part of human nature, and it cannot be removed (again, ethically). Sometimes people will become violent.
C) We cannot tell who will become violent in advance, even with intrusive mandatory screening. Often they will be trusted members of the community, such as police.
D) The common-law right of self-defense cannot be alienated
(see Blackstone's classic review of English common-law).
The nanny state could prevent violence by making everyone utterly harmless, but banning guns would only be the first step. Logically, the prohibition would have to be extended to knives, forks, scissors, sticks, and anything else it is possible to use violently.
Drugging people into a stupor or liquidating undesirables might also work.
Do you have the courage to propose either of those solutions, or would you rather edge towards them slowly?
First off, thanks for covering this. Despite RuffRifr's comment, I'd think you'd get to this when you saw it, you usually like inviting comment on these things (compliment, not insult).
ReplyDeleteI think the "how's the gun control working olol" comments I've been reading don't really help. We've never really had anything close to the sensible gun laws that most Americans take for granted.
I don't doubt that if we went to US federal-style laws tomorrow, there would be one hell of a bloodbath as we adjusted. Anyone who's seen the average Rangers/Celtic game aftermath would know what I mean.
That said, I don't doubt that we'll go for some knee-jerk ban like we did last time. We usually forgo common sense in these situations.
The Dunblane shooting, according to the enquiry into it, was preventable. But did we actually blame the people who could have stopped it? No, we let them quietly retire and went after gun owners, all of whom were innocent.
Okay, I had a more poetic way of describing that, but it would take too long and probably wouldn't be of any use.
When innocents are murdered in so brazen and horrific a fashion, it is quite unsettling. However, why should people whom, it cannot be disputed, are equally innocent pay the price for something that was not their fault?
In the US, shootings like this often bring calls from gun control advocates for more gun control laws or gun bans. But since Britain already has some of the harshest gun control laws and gun bans, what will they do?
ReplyDelete---
U.K. Mulls Tighter Gun-Control Laws After Shootings
The U.K.'s Home Secretary said Thursday the government will look at whether the country should tighten up what are already some of the tightest gun-control laws anywhere, in the wake of the shooting of 12 people by a lone gunman on Wednesday.
Theresa May said it would be wrong to react before knowing the full facts, but a government led debate on gun control is "right and proper."
---
More anti-gunowner laws, of course! What? Did anyone think that because Britain already has some of the harshest gun control laws and gun bans, more anti-gunowner laws would not be the "answer"?
No matter how harsh someplace's gun laws already are, when shootings continue (and they usually do) more anti-gunowner laws will usually be the "answer."
Gotta give credit where credit is due:
ReplyDelete"Theresa May said it would be wrong to react before knowing the full facts"
Why, that's much more reasonable than most US gun control advocates!
Mr. Anonymous said this, which sounds hysterically familiar (is there a name behind that anonymity?)
ReplyDelete"The nanny state could prevent violence by making everyone utterly harmless, but banning guns would only be the first step. Logically, the prohibition would have to be extended to knives, forks, scissors, sticks, and anything else it is possible to use violently.
Drugging people into a stupor or liquidating undesirables might also work.
Do you have the courage to propose either of those solutions, or would you rather edge towards them slowly?" or
The expression "nanny state" is one that always makes me laugh. Reasonable gun control is what many people believe is necessary to make the society safe. It's no different than removing scissors and knives from the reach of toddlers. We're talking about reasonable precautions.
To describe that as a "nanny state" and to suggest that it'll lead to "Drugging people into a stupor" or "liquidating undesirables" is absolutely ridiculous.
"Reasonable gun control is what many people believe is necessary to make the society safe. It's no different than removing scissors and knives from the reach of toddlers. We're talking about reasonable precautions."
ReplyDeleteTreating adults like toddlers is the definition of "nanny state". Great job proving him right.
AztecRed, You see that's why I hate comparisons, someone always mixes it up.
ReplyDeleteI said you keep scissors and knives away from young kids. You keep guns out of the reach of adults. When you do that, fewer of them shoot themselves and each other.
You keep guns out of the reach of adults.
ReplyDeleteAnd who's going to enforce the laws that do that? Adults with guns--but they're government adults, and thus a higher form of existence. More responsible, more mature.
Like our nannies.
Of course, what is forgotten is that these are third world nations and have trouble enforcing *any* law.
ReplyDeleteOh, so its more like Chicago then?
You keep guns out of the reach of adults. When you do that, fewer of them shoot themselves and each other.
ReplyDeleteSo basically you want to treat them like children.
Thanks for proving Aztec's point.
By the way, when I said, "And who's going to enforce the laws that do that?" I should have said "who's going to enforce the laws intended to do that?" We see the utter ineffectualness of such laws every day, in crime-riddled hellholes like Mexico, South Africa, Chicago, Newark, Washington D.C., etc.
ReplyDeleteMike, were you planning on responding to my four points, or just the hyperbole I threw in at the end?
ReplyDeleteWhat is your interpretation of the common law right of self defense?
By the way, you have never lived in England. You have never seen a nanny state in action, so don't joke about it.
I just hope my adopted homeland avoids falling into the same trap.
Anonymous, I did respond to your 4 points at 9:47 a.m.
ReplyDeleteWas my response not to your liking?
No, you mentioned nothing but the closing paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI would be particularly interested in your response to part D: the common-law right of self-defense.
What do you think of it, and how would whatever legislation you propose account for it?
Anonymous asked my opinion of this:
ReplyDelete"D) The common-law right of self-defense cannot be alienated
(see Blackstone's classic review of English common-law)."
I'm not sure what "alienated" means in this context, but as a general idea I have no problem with self-defense. I'm not an extreme pacifist. What I have a problem with is the folks who stockpile weapons in the name of self-defense, when there's almost no chance that they'll ever need them. I object to those people preaching to others about the virtues of being prepared to protect themselves and their families and their property with weapons just a little bigger than their imaginary enemies.
I object to lots more, but you get the idea.
What I have a problem with is the folks who stockpile weapons in the name of self-defense, when there's almost no chance that they'll ever need them.
ReplyDeleteI've been driving for quite a few years longer than I've owned guns and yet I haven't been in an accident where I would have needed my seatbelt on.
Does that mean I shouldn't have bothered with wearing a seatbelt for those ~10 years since there was "almost no chance I'd ever need it?"
And when was it ever about "need?" Except of course in your own mind.
And Mike, I was not asking for you personal opinion any more than I was giving my own.
ReplyDeleteI was asking for a bit of jurisprudence--you know, what the relevant laws and case studies say on the matter.