Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting

[ginnyfizz]

This very morning on BBC Breakfast Time they interviewed a farmer who had been burgled to the limits of his endurance, and after the second farm machinery nicking raid in a week, fired his 12 bore in the direction of the miserable little toads. The police arrested the burglars, but the farmer and his poor old Mum ended up in the cells overnight, with him threatened with a charge of attempted murder. That cannot be right. He did not use the weapon as first resort.

 

I am no Raoul Moat, the looney tune that you refer to. I am a law abiding, mild mannered fifty plus. I am a strapping five feet nine. I do, however, have a disability that means evasive action would not really be an option and it would be obvious to any would be assailant, which very likely makes me more likely to be attacked. I live with my parents who are elderly and in a likewise position. By all that's holy, I swear that if we had less half assed gun laws here that would allow me to more easily own and use a gun, and a castle law, I would not hesitate to blow a hole in anyone advancing on me, my poor demented mother or my frail father. Anyone prepared to attack the vulnerable deserves all they get. I really do not want to hear about their bad situation, it couldn't be much worse than my own is.

 

Gun crime in the UK is far more routine than is admitted, and a lot goes unreported due to the fact that the police do not have control in certain areas. Draconian gun laws just don't work.

[naomis8329]

Ginny I do agree with you. It is certainly not right that someone defending their home and family should end up with a night in the cells and a possible charge against them. The law does seem to protect the criminal in more ways than one. The perpetrators of any crime here in the UK seem to be protected more than those against whom they offended. I found that out the hard way.

 

I believe in defending myself and my family, I lived in Manchester for many years before moving back to North Wales then Chester. I know how routine the shootings were in Moss Side, the drive by's etc. Then knife crime seemed to be all the "rage" after the gun amnesty they had. Of course there was the knife amnesty a few years ago and then after Moat there was another gun amnesty.

 

Whether having gun laws reversed in the UK would be beneficial or not I'm not sure. We've never been a gun culture, except in the green belt areas etc and I don't know how it would be policed. Education and training would have to be enforced and this would stretch an already stretched education system and I doubt it would be enforceable for sometime.

 

I don't know maybe its because I'm older and value life so much, I don't know if it would be a blessing or not to have gun laws reversed or at least revised.

 

The US seems to prove that open gun laws don't work, we could not risk the same thing here. Friday night drinks out for the girls could well end up with more than just vomit in the streets.

[ginnyfizz]

We did once have a gun culture though, that's the point. Up until the 1920's, Britain had gun laws so liberal that they made the USA's look draconian. And a low rate of gun crime. However, in Europe the peasants were revolting and the politicians, the donkeys that had sent the lions to "die like cattle", as Wilfrid Owen put it, in the trenches of Flanders, were seriously scared that the same might happen here in Britain. Especially as a fair old number of pissed off former "cattle" had been demobbed and may or may not have handed in their service revolvers and grenades... So the politicians looked at the Bolsheviks over in Russia. It also occurred to them that since the standard of literacy of the British peasant was then pretty darned high, some of the uppity little beggars might actually visit a public library, read the US Second Amendment, get ideas and take up arms against their own Government. Dear me old bean that would never do. So the process of disarming the man and woman in the street began. It was tightened up as a kneejerk reaction to situations like Dunblane and Hungerford. Which did nothing to reduce gun crime but made for some very ridiculous consequences.

 

- The effect on sporting guns I already mentioned

- The ridiculous irony that when the government of Tony Bliar (spelling mistake intended) was confronted with a foot and mouth epidemic and millions of bovines and ovines to slaughter, in order to find enough men/women with the right kind of firearms to do it, they had to call upon the Masters of Foxhounds Association - whose sport they were trying to abolish and did so a few years after - to supply their huntsmen and hunt masters to do the dreadful deed. (And it was horrible, I was there recording ear tag numbers at one point while a friend of mine deployed pistol and bolt gun to despatch them.)

 

Our gun laws don't work. My relatives in Shottingham can testify to that - the police are totally inert if you bother to report it and seem more scared of the gangsters than the victims are.

[Beriallord]

And this is why guns are literally flying off the shelves right now.

 

 

People generally know whats up, and many of those guns in that video like the AR-15, AK-47, or the Saiga 12 are next to impossible to find on the shelves in many areas. And those 33 round Glock magazines, I haven't seen those on the shelves anywhere in 2 years. I got 2 of them for my Glock 19 and I paid $60 a piece for mine.

 

Last time I went to Cabella's, couple days before Christmas I saw 3 people at the counter that wanted to buy an AR-15, just to find out they were sold out. The reason that people are going into a frenzy to buy these up, isn't because they want to defend themselves from criminals, but because they fear the government. The ones rushing in a frenzy to get these guns now aren't doing so if they intent to just hand them right over to the government if they pass an assault weapons ban. And many of them are coming to the harsh reality that it might be too late to get their hands on these, due to them being an incredibly hot commodity right now.

 

Ever since Obama got elected, certain firearms have been difficult to find, and the price has gone up substantially on many due to supply and demand.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Beriallord

[HeyYou]

I still have yet to see some clarification on IF an assault weapon was even USED in the Sandy Hook incident. The original story I read flatly stated the AR was left in the truck of moms car. It seems to have morphed since then.

 

Reguardless if the original story has stated the AR-15 was left in the car it was still at the scene of the crime. Since there is huge public pressure for gun reform even before the Sandy Hook shooting, advocating banning of such weapons has been put on the table and has given more of a reputable excuse for making more restrictions on existing gun laws.

 

There was a CAR at the scene of the crime as well. Perhaps we should ban cars, so the shooters wouldn't have as easy transportation?

 

 

Sorry Colour, that's a REAL stretch. I most certainly do NOT agree with your rationalization here. You seriously want to ban a device simply because it was in the vicinity of a crime? And so far as I can discover, wasn't even USED in the crime????

[colourwheel]

I still have yet to see some clarification on IF an assault weapon was even USED in the Sandy Hook incident. The original story I read flatly stated the AR was left in the truck of moms car. It seems to have morphed since then.

 

Reguardless if the original story has stated the AR-15 was left in the car it was still at the scene of the crime. Since there is huge public pressure for gun reform even before the Sandy Hook shooting, advocating banning of such weapons has been put on the table and has given more of a reputable excuse for making more restrictions on existing gun laws.

 

There was a CAR at the scene of the crime as well. Perhaps we should ban cars, so the shooters wouldn't have as easy transportation?

 

 

Sorry Colour, that's a REAL stretch. I most certainly do NOT agree with your rationalization here. You seriously want to ban a device simply because it was in the vicinity of a crime? And so far as I can discover, wasn't even USED in the crime????

 

My Rational? I was just simply explaining why these weapons are probably going to be banned. I personally do not have the power to pass legislation of banning anything. For one thing there is no reason why an AR-15 should be even near a public elementary school. Since the weapon was at the scene of the crime there has been huge public pressure to ban such weapons as the AR-15 as well as other assault weapons, reguardless if you just think this is an excuse or not for banning them it has been put on the table. If you have a problem with this you really should be going after your congressman not me.

 

Looking how dysfunctional congress has been recently goodluck. My congressman still has not even replied to any of my emails the last few weeks which is why I may not vote for him next cycle.

Edited January 8, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

I still have yet to see some clarification on IF an assault weapon was even USED in the Sandy Hook incident. The original story I read flatly stated the AR was left in the truck of moms car. It seems to have morphed since then.

 

Reguardless if the original story has stated the AR-15 was left in the car it was still at the scene of the crime. Since there is huge public pressure for gun reform even before the Sandy Hook shooting, advocating banning of such weapons has been put on the table and has given more of a reputable excuse for making more restrictions on existing gun laws.

 

There was a CAR at the scene of the crime as well. Perhaps we should ban cars, so the shooters wouldn't have as easy transportation?

 

 

Sorry Colour, that's a REAL stretch. I most certainly do NOT agree with your rationalization here. You seriously want to ban a device simply because it was in the vicinity of a crime? And so far as I can discover, wasn't even USED in the crime????

 

My Rational? I was just simply explaining why these weapons are probably going to be banned. I personally do not have the power to pass legislation of banning anything. For one thing there is no reason why an AR-15 should be even near a public elementary school. Since the weapon was at the scene of the crime there has been huge public pressure to ban such weapons as the AR-15 as well as other assault weapons, reguardless if you just think this is an excuse or not for banning them it has been put on the table. If you have a problem with this you really should be going after your congressman not me.

 

Looking how dysfunctional congress has been recently goodluck. My congressman still has not even replied to any of my emails the last few weeks which is why I may not vote for him next cycle.

 

Unfortunately, both my reps here are dems.... so, writing them in opposition to gun-control, of any sort, would be pretty much useless. I have done some coorespondence with them in the past, and the best I get back is some boiler plate response about how they know so much better than I do what is good for me/the nation...... Bull Ticky. I didn't vote for them this time, I won't vote for them next time. Problem is, there isn't anyone that runs that I AM willing to vote for.....

[Beriallord]

Looking how dysfunctional congress has been recently goodluck. My congressman still has not even replied to any of my emails the last few weeks which is why I may not vote for him next cycle.

 

I'm not defending government or anything, but in a way that seems kinda selfish. Chances are they are being flooded with 10s of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of emails, and don't have the time or the ability to filter through it all to return an email to you personally.

[colourwheel]

Looking how dysfunctional congress has been recently goodluck. My congressman still has not even replied to any of my emails the last few weeks which is why I may not vote for him next cycle.

 

I'm not defending government or anything, but in a way that seems kinda selfish. Chances are they are being flooded with 10s of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of emails, and don't have the time or the ability to filter through it all to return an email to you personally.

 

Last cycle I made a donation to my congressmen to help get them re-elected, I get a personal letter in the mail thanking me for the support in less than a few days after. The last few weeks I have been spamming my congressmen under several different email accounts, not even a robo reply back.... You might think of me as being selfish, but I see it as ignored when he is supposed to be representing me.

Edited January 8, 2013 by colourwheel

[Beriallord]

Last cycle I made a donation to my congressmen to help get them re-elected, I get a personal letter in the mail thanking me for the support in less than a few days after. The last few weeks I have been spamming my congressmen under several different email account, not even a robo reply back.... You might think of me as being selfish, but I see it as ignored when he is supposed to be representing me.

 

So this is a personal attention thing? Its not you they represent, its your entire district. I'm Colourwheel, and I'm supposed to be important enough where a Congressman has to stop what they are doing to personally get back with me. In the mean time this said congressman has no telling how many thousands or maybe millions of other people they represent, but its their fault for not being able to individually give you a reply and filter you out from no telling how many others who are trying to contact them as well. I'd guess they hand pick a few emails and give a reply to, or whatever they have time for, and that doesn't mean they are trying to snub you personally. And I think you are being unrealistic expecting a reply from a congressman.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Beriallord