Elementary school shooting

And while we're at it lets look at the issue of "self defence" in the UK versus the US shall we. In the UK you can use "appropriate" levels of force to defend yourself if you feel threatened. That acceptable level of force is entirely dependent upon the perceived threat.

Now In the US in some states it seems you can shoot someone who was trying to burglarize (Americanism) your neighbour's property. I've forgotten the name of the law and the case it concerned. That man was in legal possession of his firearm and despite being told by police officers not to go outside and confront the burglars he did and shot them dead - in the back while they were running away. Where's the "self protection" argument there?

 

I don't think anyone would argue that what he did was self protection.

 

His attorney did and the courts accepted it.

They were exiting his neighbour's grounds. They had not attempted entry to his house at all. He walked outside of a protective environment - his house - and shot them. He called the police to tell them about the burglary. He was not personally at risk prior to him choosing to step outside his premises with a loaded shotgun/rifle.

Edit: the second man he shot in the back was around 15-20 feet away from him. Self defence my ar$e! Trigger happy redneck more like and a murderer to boot!

 

Actually that would be a double murder with a lifetime in prison in any European country.

 

I think not only should the gun owner have to take a training course and be required to follow better laws for storing a gun (locked with ammunition locked separately), all residents of the same house should be required to take the training course and it must be noted one the license who lives in the house.

Our system here is kinda like that.

For 'Non Restricted' guns that you can use for hunting and such (hunting rifles, small target rifles, shot guns) the gun must be stored in a locked cabinet/room and ammo stored separately. Storing the ammo separately may not deter some people, but it would prevent a lot of accidental deaths, like little kids picking up a gun and shooting themself on accident.

For "Restricted" guns (handgun, some rifles like AR-15 style, no automatics) the gun must be stored in a locked cabinet/room with a trigger lock on it as well. Ammo also must be locked separately. It is illegal to shoot these guns anywhere but on a designated shooting range. It is also illegal to buy one of these guns if you are not a member at one of these shooting ranges and cannot give a good reason to own one.

Each type of gun class (non restricted/restricted) requires a separate training course and you must renew your license every 4 years (i think). On your renewal you must provide the names of the other people in the household as well.

I myself have both licenses but only own a .22 target rifle and a .270 hunting rifle. I do plan to purchase a .22 handgun for target shooting.

I think the USA must me more strict on their gun laws. The only people it will hurt are the bad people who want to do stupid things or people who are irresponsible.

I see first hand what lack of training or respect of firearms is like. I have never seen or been involved in a gun accident, but going to national shooting competitions, I cringe when I see people picking up their guns or carrying them and totally looking where they are pointing them. I don't care if the gun is empty, I do not like having a gun pointed at me. It is dangerous. Firearm safety training wont stop idiots from shooting up a school, but it does help prevent hundreds of accidental deaths, which I think is just as important to think about when talking about gun laws and regulations.

 

Interestingly, the idea behind this statement is why I don't believe guns will ever be banned in the US. Consider prohibition as an example.

In the US in the early 1900s rural Protestants attempted numerous temperance movements in an effort to disrupt urban, immigrant, Catholic life (i.e. the Irish). This culminated with passage of the 18th amendment, which prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of certain "intoxicating liquors." The USA had a large population of immigrants who came from small windswept countries, and one thing they all shared was an indoor pub culture. Having a drink with the mates was something that partly defined their identity, and suddenly that was taken from them. The results were disastrous. Rather than reducing crime by ridding the streets of all those drunken Irish Catholics, organized crime got a major boost and corruption grew unchecked. People like to consume alcohol, and since they'll pay to get it regardless of the law, it was more profitable than some 'traditional' crimes. Crime increased and the US ushered in the gangster age (complete with Tommy Guns and wise-cracking dames).

Analogous to the immigrants' pub culture is Americans' gun culture, and Carrie touched on that in the bit quoted above. As much as it pains me to say it, the foundation of the US is partly defined by the idea that citizens can take up arms against government; that's the reason for the 2nd amendment. That history has been part of our identity from the beginning, and it forms so much of our identity that banning guns outright could quite possibly have an effect similar to prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. Remember the gangsters and their dames? We love them now; they are the heroes of our movies.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Alcohol and firearms aren't exactly the same thing - one is consumptive while the other is destructive. However, I think the cultural elements are similar enough to warrant further thought before banning them outright. As much as I personally would love a nation without guns, I recognize that knee-jerk reactions rarely work as planned, no matter the good intentions behind them.

Edit:

You're thinking of Joe Horn and the Castle Doctrine. It happened about 20 minutes from where I live. Rather than a simple matter of self-protection, the case relied on a specific reading of the Castle Doctrine. Ultimately it didn't matter that the 3 guys were running away. As it happens, the state senator who wrote the Castle Doctrine bill said that it did not apply in Joe Horn's case because none of the men actually threatened his house (i.e. the castle part); they only ran across the yard. It's semantics, but Horn made a convincing enough argument that the grand jury cleared him of all charges.

 

As you say, the Castle Doctrine in no way was applicable to the case but did it open up the possibility (in the minds of the jury at least) for a reflection of what the jury members themselves might do in such a situation, having "the right to bare arms" and damn well use them ?

Surely without that law having been passed, and permitted corruption of its intention, it's a clear cut case of, at an absolute minimum, manslaughter.

 

The tags on the thread are LOL.

 

Well said. It is why I think the talk of gun control in the US is just talk. I think the hate and vitriol "Obama Care" caused would be like a fart in a hurricane if he tried to "meddle with the second amendment". Outside of America I believe we will never understand how the US regards guns as it such an alien facet of their culture to us.

Also politicians as elected officials are supposed to follow the wishes of the electorate (yeah, yeah I know how naive!) and from what I have seen on the news the support for stricter gun control laws is very low and actually falling.

 

Of course the talk of gun control is just that, talk, and a sprinkling of well wishers. But where do you draw the line in your definition of right to bare arms? Do you have to be able to hold said arms unaided or is a tank in every driveway acceptable?

Seems like what this thread is missing is this: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=253916

And why do the rest of us - such as Europeans - have such trouble understanding why the American people wouldn't want to help their poorer neighbours, as in the people in their own country, with such things like healthcare? After all it's the land of the free to do what you want, not free-loader.

 

Free-healthcare only works in small nations where the gross domestic product is fairly high, everything is taken care of and paid for. In a country with + 300 million people there will be too many freeloaders and not enough productive people around to foot the bill.

 

But it's not free in the UK. The point is those of us who are at a certain income level, and employers, all pay for it to be made available to everyone here

 

"Free health-care" is how many chose to describe it, I know it's not free, socialist health-care would be more accurate.

I know this wasn't your intention, but you went on to show why free-health care wouldn't work for +300 million people.

 

Actually I thought I simply showed that we in the UK do help our "neighbours" whether we want to or not

 

Well this has been a brilliant read throughout, great discussions. However I've just noticed something and can make a point regarding it.

Hmmm, looking at your posts through this thread that's a little slip up you've made there sir. 'Socialist' healthcare? Not still afraid of the red army are we? I'd suspected this with the constant arguments about 'The State' regarding assessment of mental health but this is the first actual admission.

Anyway, the point is that with +300million people it's an even more viable solution. With a current unemployement rate of 7.7% (roughly 12million) that leaves +288million to put into such a scheme. I wont claim to fully know how much we all pay into NI (National Insurance as it's known here) but it's certainly not an amount which is painful or really all that noticable. The US average household income (according to various sites in t'interwebz) is $63,091 of which the average consumer will spend roughly $3,000 on healthcare, however some will not need it for a few years or others may end up spending many tens of thousands on serious conditions ($28,000 for an appendectomy ).

Would it not be better for absolutely every single worker in the country to all put in $2,000 a year, whether they need healthcare or not? Guess what, even if you needed an ubermonster-mega-quadruple-heart/lung/penis-bypass costing $125,000 you wouldn't have to pay a thing because the cumulative effect of everyone paying in all the time.

 

Carrie I am in complete agreement with you. As an outsider looking in, the American gun culture and legislation seems ludicrous and the vehement opposition in some circles to healthcare is baffling. But I am just that, a baffled observer. I asked earlier on where the right to bear arms stopped. What do you consider appropriate? A hand gun? An assualt rifle? An RPG? A tank?

I tried to discuss "Obama Care" with a couple of my wifes American work colleagues and had to back out of the conversation very quickly as it was apparent that they could not discuss it rationally.

 

That's a bad arguement. USA has the 6th highest GDP per capita. Significantly higher than the UK with a lower living costs

 

It's the result of a socialist system, I don't see why it would be inaccurate to call it... socialist healthcare. It gets its name from the system that created it.

 

You do realize EU is a 500 million region and all of the member countries have this "free/socialist" healthcare.

 

Whatever label you give it, it is actually six times more cost-effective than the US system of private health care (which has its own freeloading in the shape of moral hazards). It does work.