This is why we all need guns in the US [Archive]

Maggie

23rd Nov 2004, 13:42

:lol: I'd imagine it was said by many more Natives than just Sitting Bull.
What they didn't mention, in any of the news articles, about this incident, is the fact that last year, at this time, they found several bodies of Mong people, shot to death in the woods. They were found in that general area. My Mom and Dad lived in Hayward, Wi. for 20 some years. The prejudice in that area is terrible. The Mong's live in awful conditions and the small town people are very intolerant. I would guess that if they investigate this they are going to find that this man is related to one of the "unsolved" murders that took place last year.

Wavid

23rd Nov 2004, 14:36

Ashamed as I am of displaying my obligatory ignorance, I have to admit to never having heard of the Mong.

There are certain aspects of American society I have never been able to fathom. The inability of a large number of industrialists to accept the effect their businesses have on the environment, and take some sort of responsibility for it, for one. But the biggie for me is gun control. No legal guns = fewer deaths by guns. Easy-peasy.

amner

23rd Nov 2004, 14:42

'Guns don't kill people - people kill people'

With guns.

wshaw

23rd Nov 2004, 15:23

Guns don't kill people - rappers do
I seen it in a documentary on BBC2

Jerkass

23rd Nov 2004, 15:47

No legal guns = fewer deaths by guns. Easy-peasy.

don't even get me started mate...you might think I've been long-winded on the economic front

amner

23rd Nov 2004, 15:54

He wouldn't be economical with this subject, trust him.

wshaw

23rd Nov 2004, 16:05

I work a lot in America. I love the barmen there. They converse.

Years ago, drinking gin in a bar in Jacksonville Florida (which at the time was being hailed as "the murder capital of America" - there are always at least five of them on the go I've since learned) I was about to embark on a drunken polemic about gun laws when a learned barman leaned over the bar and whispered, "Listen, friend. You're a Brit. Never discuss guns with an American. You'll never agree with us. There's no point even trying."

Wavid

23rd Nov 2004, 16:08

I work a lot in America. I love the barmen there. They converse.

Are we quite sure that w isn't actually JAmes Ellroy in disguise?

wshaw

23rd Nov 2004, 16:14

Yes... but my next sentence was 66 words long or thereabouts, and Mr Ellroy would never be so profligate.

pandop

23rd Nov 2004, 16:49

Guns don't kill people - rappers do
I seen it in a documentary on BBC2

Do I want to admit to knowing where that came from I wonder :oops:

Hazel

pandop

23rd Nov 2004, 16:50

They would kill them more with bigger guns.

Which would certainly test their belief in their cause :twisted: (certain incidents have left me more anti-animal rights people, than anti-hunting/vivesection)

Hazel

John Self

23rd Nov 2004, 16:56

certain incidents have left me more anti-animal rights people, than anti-hunting/vivisection

There's no shame in that. But it's important to distinguish between anti-hunting campaigners, who are protesting against something cruel (ie harmful to animals and with no utility), and anti-vivisection campaigners, who are protesting against something not cruel (ie harmful to animals but strictly for a purpose and end benefit).

pandop

23rd Nov 2004, 18:54

Well yes - and I dislike them for different reasons. Unless they are in my way when I am trying to buy a sandwich in the union, then I don't care who they are, they annoy me!

Hazel

Maggie

24th Nov 2004, 13:46

Wavid,

Mongs are Asian. They come from Thiland. They have a rather strange culture and there is a lot of prejudice against them in the USA. My home state of Wisconsin just had a whole bunch of them arrive to settle here. I do not know any Mong people personally, so I am not real familiar with the particulars of their culture but from all I've heard it is very different than our own.

Completely off the subject here: I am a terrible speller and I haven't figured out how to spell check from this site. Please excuse :oops:
my poor attempts at putting my letters in the correct sequence.

amner

24th Nov 2004, 14:06

The H'Mongs are from not just Thailand, but Laos and Vietnam, too. They worked for the CIA in the secret conflicts in Laos for years and when the Americans left were subjected to persecution from all quarters.

They have a bizarre, almost incommunicable language (and were pre-literate until well into the last century), which has proved a huge barrier for them, contributing to their troubles and everybody else's misunderstandings. I hadn't touched on them in my South East Asia module for my Anthroplogy degree, but I found last night that I have a couple of brief chapters on them hidden away in old texts.

Maggie

24th Nov 2004, 15:14

Thanks for the info on the H'Mongs. Like I said, for some reason their is a huge prejudice here. Of course, this is America and there is a segment of this society who pride themselves on their various prejudices :roll:

Jerkass

24th Nov 2004, 15:19

Those people all tend to forget that pretty much all of us here in America (aside from Native Americans, but we've fenced them all off in Reservations) are immigrants, and fairly recent ones in most cases, too.

Of course, seems to me I've seen recent scientific evidence that would indicate that the Native Americans were immigrants themselves in the not-so-distant past, but never mind.

I've wandered off into a different topic entirely now, haven't I? But at least I've stayed away from the gun control debate.

epsilon minus

21st Jun 2005, 21:36

A little disagreement (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6551094/) settled rationally.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

epsilon minus

21st Jun 2005, 21:52

No legal guns = fewer deaths by guns. Easy-peasy.

No, I don't think so.

Not only do gun control laws not deter violent criminals from obtaining and using guns (they're criminals to begin with and don't care about breaking the law), it actually emboldens them, as they know that their victims are likely to be unarmed and unable to resist. In fact, in the U.S., states with stricter gun control laws tend to have higher crime rates than states with less strict gun laws.

John Self

21st Jun 2005, 22:02

wshaw

21st Jun 2005, 22:11

I stand by what the barman in Jacksonville told me.

Cultural differences. Big, big cultural differences. And you drive on the wrong side of the road. And what you call a fanny is something entirely different.

Please. Let's follow Jerkass's suggestion and talk about something less incendiary. Like... ah, immigration.

epsilon minus

21st Jun 2005, 22:44

Yes, didn't Michael Moore come to the same conclusion in Bowling for Columbine - I know you'll love to find yourself in agreement with him, epsilon! - where he compared the US with Canada, which has equally liberal gun laws, but only a fraction of the proportion of firearms-related homicides?

Crikey, is it just something about Americans then? Maggie? Rick? Jerkass? Epsilon?

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I haven't yet seen Bowling for Columbine. I'm going to have to rent it one of these days. I'm not surprised, though, to find myself in agreement with Moore occasionally, because I'm one of those people whose politics are so far to the right that, in a lot of ways, I'm actually leftist. For example, I don't believe in foreign interventionism or drug prohibition.

In any case, you're correct that America is a violent society, and no amount of gun control is going to change that.

Also, guns are such an salient part of the collective American psyche--particularly in the rural West and South--that trying to confiscate them all would be, at best, an exercise in futility, and, at worst, touch off a second civil war

amner

21st Jun 2005, 23:24

Please. Let's follow Jerkass's suggestion and talk about something less incendiary. Like... ah, immigration.

Or God (http://palimpsest.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=914), maybe.

Colyngbourne

21st Jun 2005, 23:26

Then I'd *definitely* get no sleep. You can talk about my crippling back pain and sunburn if you like.

amner

21st Jun 2005, 23:27

Tut tut, sunburn...there's high factor creams and stuff you know, Col.

Colyngbourne

21st Jun 2005, 23:31

Don't tell me :roll: I blame a high wind and a school sports day carousel where I couldn't sit down and apply the stuff (and write inbetween races as I've done for the last ten years). We were all constantly on the hop, following classes around the field.

Jerkass

22nd Jun 2005, 1:53

We could have a heated (geddit, geddit?) debate about whose sunburn was worse, Col, yours or mine?

NottyImp

22nd Jun 2005, 9:46

Or God, maybe.

Christ, no.

Wavid

22nd Jun 2005, 9:47

Is that a statement of your position, Notty?

NottyImp

22nd Jun 2005, 9:49

...because I'm one of those people whose politics are so far to the right that, in a lot of ways, I'm actually leftist...

Ah, so you're a libertarian, then? Interesting, don't get many of them over here. So am I, as it happens, but from a left perspective. I suspect we'd heartily agree on some things, and violently disagree on most.

I doubt that your blood-pressure will be well-served by all the bleeding-heart Liberals around here. :lol:

NottyImp

22nd Jun 2005, 9:49

Is that a statement of your position, Notty?

God only knows!

epsilon minus

22nd Jun 2005, 11:13

Ah, so you're a libertarian, then?

Sort of. I agree with the libertarians on some issues, but not others. I've been politically homeless ever since The Republian party showed its true colors during the Monica Lewinsky debacle. Clinton was the most corrupt president snce Nixon, and all those fools wanted to talk about was what he was up to with that poor, dumb girl in the Oval Office. Now we have the Neocon Junta, which is even worse.

At this point, I'm more of a strict Constitutionalist than anything else.

I doubt that your blood-pressure will be well-served by all the bleeding-heart Liberals around here. :lol:

Liberals and Neocons perturb me equally, as I do them.

Conservatives think I'm a Commie rat because I don't support sending American boys to die in Iraq for Halliburton and Greater Israel, and because I think that the Bill of Rights applies to every last inch of American soil, including Guantanamo Bay.

Liberals think I'm a Fascist pig because I have reservations about the wholesale slaughter of unborn children, and because I support the unalienable human right of every man, woman, and responsible child to own and carry whatever type of conventional weapon they feel they need to defend themselves, wherever they feel they need it.

I just can't win, ya know?

gil

22nd Jun 2005, 12:14

epsilon minus

22nd Jun 2005, 13:31

I'm not going to argue with you on the corruption of senior officials, though I have to say that neither Nixon's Capitol Hill scheming, Kennedy's Bay of Pigs, nor Clinton's peccadilloes and (alleged) realty scams spilled as much American and British blood (to say nothing of innocent Iraqi victims) as the current administration's lust for oil and lucrative contracts for their pals.

I will argue with you on the right to bear arms. This right was established at a time when even we in the "Mother" country had the right to keep a blunderbuss under the bed, and where barons and such
whose lands and property the King or the Parliament of the day might have wanted to annex had the right to fortify their house and keep the odd cannon. While in Europe generally there has been a movement, first to licence, then to ban, firearms, in the USA this stopped short at licencing. The results are plain to see. There are so many guns under beds in the USA that anyone can get their hands on one easily, and they're not afraid to use them.

In one paragraph, you talk about how evil the present government of the U.S. is and then in the very next paragraph, you imply that this same government should have a total monopoly on firepower in the U.S. Do you realize that this makes absolutely no sense?

In USA, in 2001, there were 10 gun deaths per 100,000 population, OK some of these were suicides.

In the UK, it was 0.4 per 100000, and 2001 was a bad year, what with drug gang killings, IRA activities and itchy trigger fingers on the hands of police.

Why do you preface the word "deaths" with the word "gun"? Would it make you feel better if all those people were pushed out of windows?

The fact is that, in the U.S., according to the best estimates, guns are used far more often to frustrate crime than to commit it. Thus it is disengenuous to compare only gun homicide rates, since there were undoubtedly many people here in the states who were not killed because they had a gun handy when someone attempted to bludgeon or stab them to death. It's only when overall homicide rates are compared that you can see this.

Compared with the knife, the baseball bat and bare hands, it is so EASY to kill someone with a gun.

This is true, but would you think this was such a bad thing if you had to use one to defend yourself and your family from some deranged lunatic or serial killer?

John Self

22nd Jun 2005, 13:40

It's only when overall homicide rates are compared

Homicides in US in 1999: 12,658 (approx. 4.2 per 100,000 population)

Homicides in UK in 2000: 850 (approx. 1.4 per 100,000 population)

These were the first figures I came across. Others show a higher overall homicide rate for the US in other years (around 5.7 per 100,000) but the rate in the UK for those years remains around 1.4.

epsilon minus

22nd Jun 2005, 14:06

John Self

22nd Jun 2005, 14:27

I wonder what the homicide rates are in, say, Jamaica and, say, Switzerland.

I don't. I was just providing the figures you mentioned in your response to gil, re US/UK overall homicide rates as against US/UK gun homicide rates.

epsilon minus

22nd Jun 2005, 14:38

I wonder what the homicide rates are in, say, Jamaica and, say, Switzerland.

I don't.
I do. If gun control reduces murder rates, one would think that life in Switzerland, with a machine gun in almost every household, would be a perpetual bloodbath, whereas Jamaica, with some of the world's strictest gun laws, would be a veritable crime-free paradise.

Perhaps you could provide us with the stats, gil.

Or is it just a case of "lies, damn lies, and statistics"?

Wavid

22nd Jun 2005, 14:43

Harumph. A machine-gun in every house? I don't think this argument is very balanced, epsilon, in that you ask for statistics but only provide these rather bizaare generalisations in support of your claims.

It's an obvious point that an increase in the availability of guns increases the chances of someone being killed by one. That cannot be refuted.

And gil's most telling point wasn't even about gun control but the fact that gun ownership is encouraged by some groups - this is where madness truly lies.

And the end of the day the old maxim rings true: that the sort of people who want to own guns are certainly not the people who should be allowed to have them, by definition.

amarie

22nd Jun 2005, 14:45

If gun control reduces murder rates, one would think that life in Switzerland, with a machine gun in almost every household, would be a perpetual bloodbath, whereas Jamaica, with some of the world's strictest gun laws, would be a veritable crime-free paradise.

I lived in Switzerland, both Zurich and Geneva, for quite some time, but failed to notice machine guns in the homes of my friends, and certainly never acquired one myself.

John Self

22nd Jun 2005, 14:49

It's all rather moot anyway, as we cannot know whether or not the homicide rate, either overall or by guns, in the US would decline if gun control was increased. The only way to find out is to revoke all legally held firearms for a year or two. If homicide rates stay steady or increase, you can have 'em all back.

Jerkass

22nd Jun 2005, 15:27

Even that wouldn't do much good, as the amount of guns in the system that are misappropriated legal ones, or that have been bought from some 'legal' shops doing a bit of extra business on the side (with a legal operation always being the best cover for any illegal operation), would still leave enough supply around to corrupt the numbers.

This doesn't even consider straightforward gun smuggling.

Whether we want to defend ourselves from our government or not, I can't see a bunch of guys with semi-automatic rifles holding up very well against tanks, helicopter gunships, stealth bombers and cruise missiles.

Since Gil was correct and the right to bear arms originally came from our founding fathers' desire to allow citizens to defend themselves against an unfair/overbearing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it government, I suppose this means we should change our constitution to allow citizens to purchase tanks, helicopter gunships, stealth bombers, and cruise missiles. If we're being strictly constitutional about it.

As for your "Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my guns" argument...ok, if that's valid, I'll bet we can name one person who has killed more people with guns than Ted Kennedy has with his car. Although neither of us will have proven anything with either comment.

In the end, it's a bit of a silly discussion, like most political discussions are. First of all, nobody's going to change their mind--like most political discussions. That's why I usually stay out of them. Second, everyone in the world except people who own guns can see that a gun that exists is much more likely to kill or injure someone than a gun that doesn't exist. Substitute "is readily available, legally or otherwise" for "exists," if you prefer. And I refuse to believe for a second that a proliferation of illegal weapons is helped in no way whatsoever by the fact that there is a ready supply of legal weapons and dealers.

gil

22nd Jun 2005, 15:51

In one paragraph, you talk about how evil the present government of the U.S. is and then in the very next paragraph, you imply that this same government should have a total monopoly on firepower in the U.S. Do you realize that this makes absolutely no sense?

You have to remember that in the UK, the vast majority of law enforcement personnel are armed only with truncheons. Armed units are deployed only when the criminal is armed.

If you insist on electing Governments against whom you have to defend yourselves with firearms, there's no hope for you. Happily, that isn't the case, even with the current administration.

Why do you preface the word "deaths" with the word "gun"? Would it make you feel better if all those people were pushed out of windows?Because the deaths I was reporting WERE caused by gunfire. As I pointed out, it's much easier to kill with a gun than in hand-to-hand combat. Our homicide rate is much higher than the gun death rate, but still smaller than the US, as JS pointed out

I wonder what the homicide rates are in, say, Jamaica and, say, Switzerland.As it happens, peace-loving Switzerland's rate is about 10 times the UK rate or a third of USA. I don't have Jamaica's figures.

Jerkass

22nd Jun 2005, 16:52

To make fair comparisons here, I think the UK and Switzerland are probably allowed, but Jamaica probably isn't.

Comparing relatively civilized "Western" nations with, say, Sudan, wouldn't give us much of a valid comparison, either.

Finally, epsilon minus, welcome to Palimpsest--I hope you'll find, like most others have before, that it isn't necessary for you to think the same way as everyone else does to enjoy yourself here. We've even managed to have discussions about God here, with parties diametrically opposed to each other, and we've remained perfectly reasonable and friendly about it. Welcome and enjoy.

Beth

17th Apr 2007, 1:34

Just plain nuts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070416/ts_alt_afp/uscrimeshootinggun_070416215712) :cry:

Digger

17th Apr 2007, 8:37

So, given the deaths yesterday in Virginia, do we think anything will change with this ol' chestnut debate? I suppose the upcoming presidential candidates will say something, whether or not it'll just be hot air, who knows.

And 8 years, on Friday, since Colombine. Sigh.

EDIT: I love Jerkass' measured and calm welcome to old epsilon in the previous post! Shame he couldn't hang about longer... :roll:

ono no komachi

17th Apr 2007, 9:36

Digger, you may have heard the same piece as I did on the Today programme by Justin Webb on the campus in Virginia. He seemed to be saying that the Republicans won't introduce gun control because they're well... Republicans, and the Democrats won't because they've decided they need the votes from the gun-totin' states. Pretty disheartening stuff.

gil

17th Apr 2007, 9:39

There will be no change there. The NRA allege that more gun crime deaths are averted by gun-toting law-abiding citizens than are perpetrated by gun-toting crooks, and while I don't see many news stories that back this assertion up, it remains a much-loved delusion that you are safer with a gun than without it.

Colyngbourne

17th Apr 2007, 9:39

I think they'll just focus on the sympathy and grieving aspect and totally ignore the 'gun' bit of how 31 students happened to die. There are already gun-sympathetic people from the US blogging that if only the students had been allowed to carry guns, they could have defended themselves and no-one but the perpetrator(s) would have died. :shock:

beer good

17th Apr 2007, 9:52

If this (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/children.pdf)study is correct, enough young people are killed by guns every year to equal one of these tragedies every four or five days. And that's just counting "children and teenagers". So sadly, no, I really don't see this particular case changing anything.

Daveybot

17th Apr 2007, 10:00

I think it's all been said here before, but I'd add the following points which I recently noticed from round and about, many of which I suspect are nothing particularly new either...

Firstly, that good ole 2nd amendment:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this day and age it's hard to see that 'well regulated militia' bit in evidence. (Apart from in Michigan, of course). And honestly, isn't there some kind of argument to be made that this section was written in a cultural and political context (The US not having by far the largest military force on earth when this was written) which doesn't really exist today?

I prefer the individual libverties argument to the constitutional one myself. 'I want to have a gun' seems a lot nicer than 'suggesting I get rid of this gun is unpatriotic'. It's probably not a big issue - I only hear that second one coming from real loonies in the NRA, anyway.

Anyway, secondly, I read an interesting article (http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/04/gun_ownership_linked.html) over at Mind Hacks the other day. It summarises a study just published in the Journal of Trauma which links home gun ownership to an increased likelihood of suicide:

The man-in-the-street wisdom on suicide goes something like this: 'If someone wants to kill themselves, they'll always find a way to do it'.

In actual fact, we now know that availability of an easy method of suicide makes it more likely.

Many drugs are no longer provided in pill bottles, but instead, in blister packs and this is linked to a reduced (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11002388) severity of overdose.

You would think that if someone wanted to die by overdose, pushing pills out a blister pack would be no less of an obstacle than emptying them out of a bottle, but simple measures such as this can be an effective (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10905911) form of self-harm prevention.

Why is this? Well, it's not really clear, but possibly because every action someone takes on the path to suicide has to be contemplated and thought about.

Perhaps each contemplation makes people reflect and less likely to act impulsively. Certainly, in some people (but not all it seems) impulsivity is linked (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15585459) to a history of suicide attempts.

Pushing 100 pills out of a blister pack is 99 more actions than emptying a bottle of pills, so maybe this gives more time for people to halt any impulsive actions.

Guns are an instant way of killing yourself and this is one explanation of why they might be linked to a higher rate of suicide....and homicide? I know and appreciate the 'Canadians have guns too' argument, but I still find it hard to believe there isn't at least a slight increase in risk of events like this when guns are so readily available.

Anyway, at the end of the day I think I'll sit with Col - the whole thing's a tragedy and I fell terribly sorry for all involved.

Digger

17th Apr 2007, 10:00

There are already gun-sympathetic people from the US blogging that if only the students had been allowed to carry guns, they could have defended themselves and no-one but the perpetrator(s) would have died. :shock:

AAARRRUUUGGGGGHHH! :-(

Peronel

17th Apr 2007, 10:10

This was all very relevant here over a decade ago immediately following the Port Arthur shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre) , carried out with guns which were, according to Wiki, legal to possess in Tasmania (although Bryant did not hold a licence). There are varied opinions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_massacre _and_its_consequences) on whether the subsequent reform to gun laws or the resulting buyback scheme had any affect on the homicide rate.

I don't know if stricter gun control laws are likely to lower the rate of firearm related homicides. To me, it's the old supply and demand - cut off the supply, sure, but the demand remains, and will turn elsewhere (gun smuggling, illegal purchases, etc). On the other hand, I don't know nearly enough about criminology and homicide to make an informed decision.

Anyway, secondly, I read an interesting article (http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/04/gun_ownership_linked.html) over at Mind Hacks the other day. It summarises a study just published in the Journal of Trauma which links home gun ownership to an increased likelihood of suicide

I cannot even begin to describe how irate this article has made me.......

amner

17th Apr 2007, 10:48

without a gun permit only one handgun purchase per month is allowed

Thank God for those restrictions.

gil

17th Apr 2007, 10:56

Thank God for those restrictions.Surely too restrictive! Suppose I buy a gun, and my wife gets a hold of it, how am I to defend myself if I can't buy another for a whole month?

amner

17th Apr 2007, 11:41

Yeah, bloody pinko bleeding heart unpatriotic commie liberals!

Beth

17th Apr 2007, 11:52

Something I learned last night is that each year in this country over a quarter million 9mms are manufactured. I knew there were a lot, but that many? The doors of my workplace are engraved (Ha!) with 'Concealed weapons are not allowed in the building'. Jesus, Mary and Martha.

wshaw

17th Apr 2007, 12:20

Something I learned last night is that each year in this country over a quarter million 9mms are manufactured.

Join Campaign Against The Arms Trade (http://www.caat.org.uk/), I say. I'm a member. They're just as vociferous about the small arms manufacturers as they are about the rest of the military-industrial complex. OK, turning back the increasing avalanche of deadly weapons, big and small, is a labour of Sisyphus, but it stops me feeling quite so depressed by it all.

Manwhile Juan Cole puts it all into perspective on the ever clear-eyed Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com/2007/04/7-us-troops-killed-guerrilla-attack-in.html).

Maggie

17th Apr 2007, 13:54

Yeah, bloody pinko bleeding heart unpatriotic commie liberals!

Did someone call ? :-?

Maggie

P.S. You can go ahead and add the newest......UnAmerican and UnPatriotic. Oh, and probably Non-troop-supportive. (guess I'd rather see human's alive than dead !)

Beth

21st Apr 2007, 6:10

OK, turning back the increasing avalanche of deadly weapons, big and small, is a labour of Sisyphus, but it stops me feeling quite so depressed by it all.

Joined the CAAT mailing lists. I see that one of their projects for this year is working to stop arms fairs. Also joined the Brady Campaign but am still depressed by this week's events. Yes, the Cole blog for the 17th puts things into their true light. And, even if the Iraqis manage to reach a calmer juncture, the extreme psychological damage is there to stay.

Daveybot

11th May 2007, 12:24

It's not in relation to the US, and it may be more relevent to a 'terrorism' or 'fear' thread, but as far as I know there isn't one of them. Feel free to move this comment elsewhere if you deem necessary, admins!

Anyway, I find the latest news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6646537.stm) in the Jean Charles de Menezes story slightly worrying. I don't think you should be able to shoot a completely innocent guy and have no action taken against you, whether you're in charge or not. Cops should be held to higher standards than the rest of us, surely?

The total eventual outcome remains to be seen of course, but this surprises me.

wshaw

11th May 2007, 12:31

Daveybot

11th May 2007, 12:40

It doesn't suprise me, Db. The officers appear to have been told that this man was an armed terrorist, possibly with an explosive device. Under those circumstances they were following proceedure. It would seem logical therefore not to prosecute them.

This horrendous mistake that was made wasn't their one. It was about faulty intelligence and rules of engagement that need rewriting.

Yes, I guess so. I couldn't agree more about the last part. I can see the logic, and I know it all makes sense, but I do also worry slightly about the idea that the guys at the front line aren't at least in some tiny way responsible for their actions. You can always pass responsibilty up the line until you get a new Home Secretary, but I'm already a bit fed up with this practice, and I wonder if it really helps prevent similar things happening in the future. By all means I don't want to see them fired or anything nearly that harsh, but some kind of mark on their record would not be ridiculous, would it?

I'm probably being very unfair. I'm sure that just being involved has already shook the officers up quite enough, but I fear it's also fair to say that they haven't got it as bad as Mr de Menezes.

Beth

14th Feb 2008, 22:50

excuse me while I puke.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/14/university.shooting/index.html

wshaw

14th Feb 2008, 22:55

Crap. Sorry Beth.

BiNS

14th Feb 2008, 23:04

Sorry Beth, I missed the Illinois connection when I posted. Hope there's nobody you know there.

Beth

15th Feb 2008, 0:18

It's all just so exhausting, the complacency that only erupts into a few minutes of stupid bears and flowers left at a shooting site, then we all go back to what we were doing. One of my babysitters is a sophomore at DeKalb. Sorry for such an emotional post but I just feel at times that a menace is circling endlessly, always ready to pounce. But you never know when and that is draining. Last week there were five people shot to death in the course of business at a city council meeting in Kirkwood, MO. It's insanity on such a huge scale that it's difficult to fathom. You'd think that lots of people would be running through the streets, er, um, ripping their clothes and getting truly bothered about this. But it's such an accepted fact of life here that some days it hardly seems worth working for change.

Edit: just saw your post BiNS on the This is the News thread. We must have commented at about the same time.

BiNS

15th Feb 2008, 0:42

Beth, I think we're in danger of the same complacency over here. A friend's policeman brother told me the other week that a great percentage of gun crime here goes unreported.

Another friends's son had a gun calmly put to his leg on the bus with a demand for his mobile phone last year. He asked the gunman, who was all of 16, if he could take his sim card out before handing it over, to which he nodded before pocketing the phone. I asked if his son was in shock but no, he took it in his stride. Which suggests that the young over here are already accepting guns as a fact of life.

Handguns are illegal over here since the Dunblane massacre, but there doesn't seem to me to be enough of a deterrent. Without getting too Daily Mail about it, I think posession should be 7 years minimum, posession with intent, 10 years and threatening life by discharging one, 15. Actually hurting or killing someone with a handgun should be life, no parole.

I know this brings up the old debate about there not being any reason not to kill with a gun but if the law could reduce death and injury through firearms by even 10% surely it would be worth it?

Beth

15th Feb 2008, 0:51

Without getting too Daily Mail about it, I think posession should be 7 years minimum, posession with intent, 10 years and threatening life by discharging one, 15. Actually hurting or killing someone with a handgun should be life, no parole.

I know this brings up the old debate about there not being any reason not to kill with a gun but if the law could reduce death and injury through firearms by even 10% surely it would be worth it?

Seems entirely reasonable here, BiNS. By unreported gun crimes, do you mean unreported to the police by the victim, or swept under the rug by law enforcement and kept from media reports, etc.? Your friend's son is a lucky kid. If someone put a gun to my leg, I'd pee down it.

Stewart

15th Feb 2008, 1:17

from BBC

It is also the fourth shooting at a US education establishment within a week.

Last Friday, a woman shot dead two fellow students before killing herself at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge. In Memphis, Tennessee, a 17-year-old is accused of shooting and critically wounding a student on Monday, and a 15-year-old was shot at a junior high school in California on Tuesday.

BiNS

15th Feb 2008, 1:29

Seems entirely reasonable here, BiNS. By unreported gun crimes, do you mean unreported to the police by the victim, or swept under the rug by law enforcement and kept from media reports, etc.? Your friend's son is a lucky kid. If someone put a gun to my leg, I'd pee down it.

Unreported as in kept from the media. Although I'm sure they hear a lot more than I do.

wshaw

15th Feb 2008, 9:33

To be fair to the UK police, I know in London they've been fairly successful on gun crime. Operation Trident, in particular, has had quite a good record on this after the increase in gun crime around 2002/3.

Nationally, gun crime is down significantly in 2006/7, as are the number of fatalities involving guns fell from 645 to 566. Gun crime figures may be due to lower reporting, but I don't the coppers I've talked to would go along with this. In London, at least, they take guns really seriously.

I think though, BiNS' son's friend's experience shows how much guns have entered the culture - which in some ways is more worrying. I've been trying for a few years to get a publisher interested in this - with absolutely no success, oddly. Children are far more aware of the geography of guns - who's got one, where people with guns are likely to be - than their parents. There is a massive difference of perception between grownups and their children on this.

Noumenon

15th Feb 2008, 9:56

Back in, hmm, something like 2004 or 5, I started working for a former employer again and got to know one of the new employees, a van driver like my then self. One evening, shortly before, a, I quit to go and work in an office again and, b, he got fired for using the van out of hours and allegedly running a female motorist off the road while intoxicated, I went over to his house for A Reason. During that first and last visit he happened to show me his handgun, which was he told me a brand-replica 9mm (ie "not from the original country of manufacture"), which he kept dismantled in a sealed fridge baggie along with a handful of bullets. Which is good, I suppose, since he also had a baby.