Of course that's not the case at all. No one knows how to exaggerate like our gun guys.
Google News reports
A few days ago there was a terrible multiple murder/suicide, which, being fairly rare thereabouts, made international news. Her are some interesting details.
What's your opinion? Does that sound like the anti-freedom and anti-rights place they keep telling us about? No, it doesn't.Labour MP Grahame Morris said outside the police cordon: "The issue is that in 2008 police responded to a call that there was a domestic argument and Mr Atherton had threatened to self-harm - to shoot himself. At the time the police took his firearms from him and he applied to have them returned. Police made an assessment and they were returned to him."
Durham Police confirmed that the weapons were taken from Mr Atherton's house as a precaution, but as he insisted there had been no threat to harm himself, the weapons were returned. That decision followed national procedure, a force spokesman said. "It was one person's word against another," he added.
Why do the pro-gun folks keep lying like that? Why do you think they find it necessary to exaggerate the situation before arguing against it? How many times have we heard about the "gun bans" in England? How many times have they told us the registration would lead to confiscation for us "just like it did in England?"
What's your opinion? I tend to think our gun enthusiasts are usually just mindlessly repeating what they've heard from others. The argument sounds good and it supports their obsessive fetish, so they go with it.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
I have a comment.
ReplyDeleteIn the UK, this happens almost never.
It is incredibly rare.
Here, some form of murder suicide happens WEEKLY.
It is not merely a difference in population size; it is because of a huge difference in the number of lawful gun owners who do this kind of thing here.
This makes my point that enormously more legal guns are subsequently used to commit this kind of terrible crime, and/or used to commit simple suicide, than are EVER used to prevent crime or defend life.
These firearms are being used in our country to do far more harm than any good they do, despite the whinging and whining of people like Greg that these are tools like screwdrivers -- except that screwdrivers kill people about as rarely as this murder / suicide in the UK.
If the gun nuts were so damned interested in self defense, they'd be putting more emphasis on running around in body armor and bullet proof vests.
They don't.
That is because their real reason for wanting to carry is not any objective need of firearm protection. It is because they derive a sense of power from that weapon they lack in their everyday lives.
That they wear that firearm nearly every minute of the day or have it near them is a perfect demonstration of this.
They are not secure with their firearms - keeping a loaded firearm on their nightstand next to a bed is NOT being in control of a loaded weapon, for example. No one can guarantee they will not ever sleep so soundly that someone cannot approach stealthily and take their gun, or that they will be sufficiently wide awake to take control of their weapon on waking, and this is further compounded if they have to find and put on glasses to use their weapon.
Our gun loons cling to a myth of their invincibility in having a firearm.
The reality is like this guy - they are a greater danger than any counterbalancing benefit or safety.
The ultimate exercise of that power of the gun is to kill someone else, and then because they can't face that and the other weaknesses in their lives, they kill themselves.
We don't track, nationally, as a separate category murder / suicides in this country.
ReplyDeleteBut the Violence Policy Center has done several, the most recent I could find was 2008; they're overdue for another.
This quote is from that most recent study in 2008.
Murder-suicide is “a dramatic, violent event” in which a person, almost always
a man, commits one murder or multiple murders, and then shortly after commits
suicide.2 What makes these acts particularly disturbing is that they involve more than
one person and often involve a family. They almost always are committed with a
firearm.
As of yet, no national database or tracking system exists to systematically
document the toll in death and injury of murder-suicide in the United States.c In order
to more fully understand the human costs of murder-suicide, starting in 2002 the
Violence Policy Center (VPC) began collecting and analyzing news reports of murder-
suicides, resulting in a series of studies titled American Roulette: Murder-Suicide in
the United States. This is the third edition of the study.d For each analysis, the VPC
tracked murder-suicide incidents over a six-month period using a national clipping
service supplemented by Internet news reports.
and
Medical studies estimate that between 1,000 and 1,500 deaths per year in the
United States are the result of murder-suicide.3
All major murder-suicide studies in the United States completed since 1950
have shown that firearms are by far the most common method of committing
homicide, with the offender choosing the firearm for suicide as well.4 Estimates range
from firearms being used in 80 percent to 94 percent of cases, but many other
weapons, including aircraft, have been used.
and
The most common catalytic component in murder-suicide is the use of a firearm.
Firearms allow shooters to act on impulse. Every major murder-suicide study ever
conducted has shown that a firearm—with its unmatched combination of lethality and
availability—is the weapon most often used to murder the victims, with the offenders
then turning the gun on themselves.16 In this study, access to a gun was the critical
component for almost all of the murder-suicides. Of the 40 murder-suicides with more
than one homicide victim, 31 were firearm-related. The presence of a gun allows the
offender to quickly and easily kill a greater number of victims. If there had not been
easy access to a firearm, these deaths may simply have been injuries or may not have
occurred at all. Efforts should be made to restrict access to firearms where there is
9
an increased risk of murder-suicide, for example where an individual has a history of
domestic violence and/or has threatened suicide. State and local officials, including
judges, should aggressively enforce laws that currently prohibit individuals with a
misdemeanor domestic violence conviction or who are the subject of a restraining
order for domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
The study also pointed out that men are far more likely than women to commit this kind of violence.
But I don't think our gun nuts care about the objective information. They only care about their fetish object.
So........we've had a bit of push back from people like Greg over the idea of restricting people with serious or dangerous mental illness from firearm ownership or possession.
ReplyDeleteNot everything which shows up on a diagnostic finding should debar someone from gun ownership, but because judgment is a critical part of what makes someone safe or dangerous, the following applies to the argument that mental health testing should be a component to someone being allowed a firearm.
Here is a bit of information from an academic piece on criminal insanity:
Mental Illness
In the U.S., mental disorders are diagnosed based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.About one in four adults, an estimated 26.2% of Americans, 57.7 million people ages 18 and older, suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder. About 6 percent, or 1 in 17, suffer from a serious mental illness .Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder . Nearly half, 45 percent, of those with any mental disorder meet the criteria for 2 or more disorders. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
What is Mental Illness? -- Mental illnesses are disorders of the brain that disrupt a person's thinking, feeling, moods and the ability to relate to others. Mental illnesses are brain disorders resulting in a diminished capacity for coping with the demands of life. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Old news over here.
ReplyDeleteOf course, he was a locenced gun owner and the police were aware that he shouldn't own guns.
Yet, they didn't yank his licence for some reason.
Unlike the Cumberland shootings last year, this one is leading to clamour for stricter gun laws.
And for those of you who are going to parrot that gun laws don't work--if anything this demonstrates that the police should be able to keep people whom they know should not own guns from owning guns.
There should be tighter restrictions on who should own firearms, not less.
The VPC is not a credible source. For one thing, their leader, Josh Sugarmann, is a federally licensed gun dealer.
ReplyDelete"And for those of you who are going to parrot that gun laws don't work..."
ReplyDeleteThis incident clearly shows gun laws don't work, and that you people will push for ever stricter laws no matter what. How's that for you?
MAgunowner said...
ReplyDelete"And for those of you who are going to parrot that gun laws don't work..."
This incident clearly shows gun laws don't work, and that you people will push for ever stricter laws no matter what. How's that for you?
The RARITY of this kind of event in the UK, in western Europe, demonstrates how very well stricter gun laws work.
Total elimination of firearm violence may not be possible.
But a significant reduction, the elimination of MOST of them -- that is possible, and it is desirable.
And that is why in the long run, our side will win.
"And that is why in the long run, our side will win."
ReplyDeleteOur side has already won. We're just chipping away at the last annoyances of gun control.
Let's note two things:
ReplyDelete1. The firearm in question was a shotgun, not a handgun. Handguns are banned, and long guns are heavily regulated. We're not wrong about registration or bans.
2. As Laci tells us, there are already proposals for stricter gun laws. In the U.K., that seems to come under the law of diminishing returns (and diminishing freedoms), but what a shock that gun grabbers would ask for more. They never stop.
3. Dog Gone never lets anything go.
4. We're not the U.K. In fact, we fought a war against said country precisely so as to be something else. We'll never accept the loss of freedom that Great Britain has suffered.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete" than are EVER used to prevent crime or defend life."
You have no data to support your claim.
"If the gun nuts were so damned interested in self defense, they'd be putting more emphasis on running around in body armor and bullet proof vests."
So you're saying the u.s. is not a dangerous place?
dog gone said...... a bunch of generalized accusations that must be a reflection her own childhood.
"almost always a man, commits one murder or multiple murders, and then shortly after commits suicide"
I wonder how many children were killed by their mothers drowning them. You know in a bathtub or oh, I don't know, strap them in a car and drive the car into a lake. That to must be a dramatic, violent event for those children. Then, the mother doesn't have the nuts to take her own life, they just blame a black man.
"They only care about their fetish object."
the boyfriend didn't love you enough?
"Here is a bit of information from an academic piece on criminal insanity:"
Wow, more than a quarter of the United States is CRAZY! Oh, my. I'm sure you realize this number includes persons with phobias. Phobias are the most common mental disorder in the United States, and affect far more women than men.
I'm sure you're little report that you read also indicated that 5.8% are classified as "severe".
BUT WAIT!! the report goes on to say that this is an annual thing! 26.2% of the population are diagnosed EVERY YEAR! how long will it take for the entire popultion to be diagnosed with a mental disorder?!?! With all these crazy people out there, I need more guns.
Once again, a little bit of information misused.
Actually, Greg the war for American Independence was a Civil War--even the Independence proponents admitted as much. So, it wasn't against Britain (the United Kingdom as such was established in 1801 by the Acts of Union 1800.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it seems that the shooter had his guns taken from him by the police following an incident in 2008 but they were later returned.
Nicholas Long of the Independent Police Complaints Commission said: "We have launched an independent investigation and are committed to fully examining the issues around the granting of Mr Atherton's firearms licence and subsequent renewals.
"I have determined that an independent investigation should be undertaken examining police involvement in the grant of a firearms licence to Mr Atherton.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16409097
If anything, this demonstrates that if the police should not have discretion, the law should err on the side of taking the guns from someone with a propensity for violence.
That does not violate any interpretation of the Second Amendment: especially the one made by Heller-McDonald.
No MAgunowner, what this shows is that you guys are wrong about England. It also shows that the local cops should have a say-so in things like issuing CCW permits. Another thing this story shows is the fact that licensed gun owners are often unfit.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeletePolice discretion is apparently something that failed here, so what are you talking about? Discretion can be abused--either by a lazy bureaucrat who can't be bothered or by a vindictive bureaucrat who can't stand people.
Now just what does this have to do with CCW licenses? As far as I'm aware, hardly anyone is allowed to carry a handgun in the U.K., even the police.
Fortunately, I live in America.
Sorry, Mike. Basic civil rights are not subject to the whims of bureaucrats. Maybe in stabtastic UK, or your violence-free paradise of Italy, but not in my country.
ReplyDelete"Fortunately, I live in America."
ReplyDeletesez Greg Camp.
It is true that it fortunate for the rest of the world that you live here. For those of us who have to put up with whiny gunzloonz like you? not so much.
MAGunner wrote: Sorry, Mike. Basic civil rights are not subject to the whims of bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteBullshit. This simply demonstrates your poor grasp of the definition and origins of rights.
Ever heard of the once very important concept of the divine right of kings?
Yeah, that one has been discredited, and completely undone......among others, by bureaucrats.
That Constitutionally guaranteed right to own other people and to buy and sell them?
Yeah--- gone. And that kind of gone is enforced by, among others, bureaucrats.
You have no absolute right to anything. Rights are what we agree and decide they are, and then it is enforced by our society in a variety of ways --- including bureaucrats.
There is nothing whatsoever less FREE about western Europe, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, or any number of other countries which REGULATE firearms and other dangerous weapons.
Because people in those places are far less likely to lose their lives to another human being acting violently, as regards the ultimate civil right - living, particularly living in FAR less fear- they have GREATER freedom than we do here among the paranoiac gun lunatics.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYour wacko idea of rights means that if enough of us decide, you, as a woman, will be back barefoot and pregnant. If rights are determined by consensus, they can be taken away on a whim.
I'm sorry, but there no basic right for those who are dangerous to society to own deadly weapons--that was made quite clear in the Heller-McDonald decisions.
ReplyDeleteTo argue otherwise is to demonstrate that you are indeed lunatics.
You are fantatics who hold opinions which are not only detrimental to society, but also completely idiotic.
The only thing you are persuading us of is that you really could give a rats arse about society.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDelete"Your wacko idea of rights means that if enough of us decide, you, as a woman, will be back barefoot and pregnant."
Dream on, dipshit.
So your answer to someone suggesting that your paranoid delusions about roaming bands of thugz being a threat to you is fucking nonsense makes you pine for the days when a woman knew her "place". Ask that defenseless* galpal of yours how she feels about that.
* I say "defenseless" because after all that time and expense of training her and gettin' her a nice little handcannon she doesn't carry it, does she?
Laci The Dog said...
ReplyDelete"I'm sorry, but there no basic right for those who are dangerous to society to own deadly weapons--that was made quite clear in the Heller-McDonald decisions."
Absolutely. Now, for the rest of the story. The U.S. has about 4% of it's population either incarcerated (1%) or on probation (3.1%). This has been a static number for many years and you're suggesting the rights of 96% of the American people be infringed because of 4% of the population?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI should have known that you'd miss the point. I am entirely in favor of equal treatment of men and women. My point was that if rights are determined by consensus, a majority could simply decide to take away equal rights. I would oppose that as much as I oppose gun control.
Someguy -
ReplyDeleteThis has been a static number for many years and you're suggesting the rights of 96% of the American people be infringed because of 4% of the population?
No,I think we can make a very good case that there are a lot more people who should not have guns than those currently behind bars.
Beginning with the percentage of the population that is seriously mentally ill, moving on to past as well as present criminals, and including drug users, many of whom have never been incarcerated.
If you seriously believe that gun control would only affect 4% at most of the population, and that those people are already behind bars, what are you worried about?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteDrug users, the seriously mentally ill, and criminals--perhaps you've noticed that there's a good deal of overlap in those categories?
But if you really believe that a large portion of our population is too dangerous to be allowed to make choices of their own, you'd likely feel safer in North Korea or somewhere similar.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"If you seriously believe that gun control would only affect 4% at most of the population, and that those people are already behind bars, what are you worried about?"
Your gun control will affect 100% of the population that wishes to exercise their rights. Mental health screening, drug/alcohol testing, a letter from your second grade teacher testifying that you didn't intend on eating your pizza into the shape of a gun, by requiring a citizen to jump through hoops like a circus side show freak just to exercise a right. These are things not even required to get a driver's license.