Yet Another Massacre of Innocents

[Guest fountainhall]

What gives a person the right to behave in such fashion? I mean, to a person who simply rings your doorbell, gets no reply and walks away. It could have been anyone . . .

 

I suspect the gun lobby will add "and it could have been two armed burglars returning to their car to get equipment to break into a house they assumed was unoccupied." Since most Japanese cannot pronounce the letter 'R' - it usually comes out as 'L' - "Freeze!" could therefore have sounded more like "Fleeze" which, in the heat of the moment, could easily have been interpreted as "Please".

 

To compound the murder (for that is what is was, whatever the Court determined), a civil court later awarded Hattori's parents $650,000 in damages. This they used to set up two foundations. However, the insurance company which covered the murderer (how do you cover someone for deliberately killing another person, I wonder?) has so far paid out only $100,000 - 20 years later! So much for justice, in my view!

 

No doubt a similar type of argument will eventually be heard in Court at the trial of George Zimmerman, whose murder of Treyvon Martin earlier this year attracted massive media attention, especially when the local police initially decided not to file any charges at all. This is an account of an interview he gave to ABC News on July 18 -

 

George Zimmerman, accused of second-degree murder in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, told a television interviewer Wednesday that he would not have changed the circumstances leading up to the shooting and that he viewed the entire incident as "God's plan."

 

At the very end of the interview, however, after commercial breaks and with his lawyer by his side, Zimmerman asked "to readdress on whether I'd do anything differently."

 

"I do wish that there was something, anything I could have done that would have put me in the position that I wouldn't have to take his life" . . .

http://abcnews.go.co...02#.UA919o4ig0I

 

Sound familiar??? And how anyone buys into the idea that God has a plan for one man to kill another is quite beyond me!

 

That said, I accept the circumstances of this case are very different. Zimmerman was not arrested because of the bizarre Florida "Stand Your Ground" law which seems virtually to permit unlawful killing. Yet also this month, Zimmerman admitted he was not aware of this law when he shot and killed Martin! So seemingly he has rather stupidly ruled that out of his defence.

 

And what of this law?

 

Florida's "stand your ground" law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free . . . It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

http://www.tampabay....icle1233133.ece

[KhorTose]

Apart from him, it seems, only US-Americans get killed. This is a complot by the Communists, Jews, Moslems, whoever you want. No war since WWII or terrorist attack killed so many US-Americans as get killed by gun crimes, accidents and suicides.

 

Your are way wrong. Wars have killed far more people then civilian gun deaths in America. Nlot even close. No, it is not a complot of others, but do to the fact most Americans have low self-esteem and are f...sticks, which makes as much sense as what you wrote and sounds more like what you would have liked to have written..

[KhorTose]

 

And what of this law?

 

Come on now, I am sure I can come up with thousands of examples of wrongful death by drunk drivers and the cars and drunks are still on the road. The insurance only paid 100,000 because that is their normal liability on home owners. Did you check for the civil suit against the owner? For the record, I do not agree with "stand your ground"

laws. As far as I know they are in only in a few Southern-arch conservative- states.

[Guest fountainhall]

Your are way wrong. Wars have killed far more people then civilian gun deaths in America. Nlot even close.

 

With all respect, Khun KT, you may have misread Christian's statement. Also, I think that being the sole contributor to one side of a heated debate must be kind of maddening, the more so when many of those of us in the opposite camp are not Americans! What does it have to do with us?

 

And that's difficult to answer! Americans no doubt consider some policy issues in the UK downright ridiculous. But surely the depth of feeling on the issue of gun control is an indication of the bewilderment many in the so-called civilised world feel about US gun policy - a policy which is completely out of step with most of the rest of that world?

 

As to ChrstianPFC’s comment, I respectfully suggest that he is in fact correct.

 

Here is what he said -

 


No war since WWII or terrorist attack killed so many US-Americans as get killed by gun crimes, accidents and suicides.

 

You disagree. Yet this site (below) gives statistics of gun-related deaths in the USA between 1998 (9,257) and 2009 (9,146). It also gives gun-related suicides for selected years – 2005 (17,002) and 2001 (16,689). And it gives the number of “unintentional gun deaths” in 2005 (789) and 2001 (802).

 

What does this tell us? Well, the average number of gun homicides between 1998 and 2009 is over 9,300. Let’s assume 9,000. That makes 108,000 for the 12 year period. Gun-related suicides seem fairly constant – let’s assume 16,000. So over a 12 year period that would be 192,000. Unintentional gun deaths also seems pretty steady. So let’s assume 750. That makes 9,000 over the 12 years.

 

http://www.gunpolicy...n/united-states

 

The total for 12 years then becomes 309,000. And that still leaves the period from 1946 to 1997 to be accounted for – 42 more years. In fact, though, we do not even need to count these in. So let's just leave the figure at 309,000.

 

Now compare this figure with known US casualties in war since the end of WWII. The basic statistics (as of 10 June 2011) are these -

 

Korean War – 54,246

Vietnam War – 58,253

Desert Storm – 269

Somalia – 18

Afghanistan – 1,548

Iraq – 4,469

http://www.taphilo.c...ar-deaths.shtml

 

This total is therefore 119,403. From another site, I note that there have been 79 military interventions by the US since WWII (up to May 2011). These have clearly involved some deaths, with the Saudi Arabia bombing amongst the worst. It also omits 9/11. But the total number of these additional deaths cannot be more than around 10,000 - 20,000 absolute tops. Even if it was 120,000, Christian would still be 100% correct.

[Guest fountainhall]

Come on now, I am sure I can come up with thousands of examples of wrongful death by drunk drivers and the cars and drunks are still on the road. The insurance only paid 100,000 because that is their normal liability on home owners. Did you check for the civil suit against the owner?

 

I am sure we both can! But with respect, this is a discussion about guns, not cars. And I suspect there is not nearly such a proportional disparity between other countries and the USA in relation to car deaths.

 

As for the payment of $100,000, a judge in his home state found the man who fired the gun to the responsible and awarded the parents of the victim $650,000. If his insurance was only $100,000, what about the other possessions the man may have had? Surely he is the one who was found guilty and he is the one who is liable to pay the award - not merely the insurance company? This from the New York Times -

 

A judge today awarded more than $650,000 in damages and funeral costs to the parents of a Japanese exchange student, saying there was "no justification whatsoever" for the killing of the 16-year-old boy who approached a suburban homeowner's door in a Halloween costume almost two years ago.

 

The judge's ruling in a case that crystallized major cultural differences between Japan and America contrasted with a criminal court jury's verdict last year, when the homeowner, Rodney Peairs, was acquitted of manslaughter. Judge Bill Brown, who heard the civil case without a jury, condemned the shooting, which had provoked outrage in Japan, where gun ownership is rare.

 

Speaking in a quiet but firm voice, Judge Brown said that he was not making any "social comment" about gun control, but he made clear that he believed Mr. Peairs was wrong to use his gun.

 

"There was absolutely no need to the resort of a dangerous weapon," the judge told a crowded and silent courtroom.

http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm

 

And just to be absolutely clear: Hattori was dressed in a white tuxedo and pants and the shooter's house had "Happy Halloween" decorations outside.

 

At the shooter’s trial, his lawyer stated Hattori’s “way of walking was one which any reasonable person would find 'scary' and thus within their right to shoot to kill.” The shooter added, “I remember him laughing. I was scared to death. This person was not gonna stop, he was gonna do harm to me."

 

According to forensic evidence, Hattori was not moving strangely and quickly towards him, rather he was moving slowly, or not at all, and his arms were away from his body, indicating he was no threat.

 

http://wonderfulrife...tori-death.html

 

For a more legal view on the manslaughter trial and the civil suit, see "What's Reasonable: Self Defence and Mistake in Criminal and Tort Law" by Professor Caroline Forrell - p1406 onwards

 

http://www.lclark.ed...44art5forellpdf

[KhorTose]

On Hattfori that is exactly what i meant. If the court gave his family a judgement then the shooter has to pay or declare bankruptcy. Did you look up what he did? On Christian PFC see PM.

 

I am taking it back to 1774 at the start of the revolutionary war. Not even close, especially when you count the civil war. You do not even have to factor in a per-capita average to get far more deaths by war. Highly selective of you to take only 12 years. I think cars do have something to do with it as it is the same logic. Gun control is just another form of prohibition Just like alcohol and drugs, prohibitions do not work. You want to ban guns, drugs, alcohol, locking knifes, etc. all you do is turn many honest productive people into crooks and worst then that you encourage real crook to go underground and make a fortune bypassing dumb laws that people will not obey for a number of personal reasons. Our jails are full to bursting now with all the laws passed for our own good, and what gun controllers will do is make a man who buys a gun to protect his family from the crooks, into just another crook. Not right, not workable and strongly interferes with personal freedom. The day anyone can show me where banning guns does provide a benefit to society based on real statistics I might reconsider. But the facts are plain, no such benefit exists. I am keeping my guns

[Guest fountainhall]

Highly selective of you to take only 12 years.

 

Absolutely agree! But Christian PFC did stress "since WWII" and my use of statistics was only to prove that this is indeed correct. I am equally certain (without requiring any statistics ) that you are also 100% correct if you choose to go back to 1774.

[Rogie]

The figures look pretty clear-cut to me.

 

FH cites 309,000 deaths for homicides, suicides and 'unintentional' gun-related deaths over a 12 year period.

 

Up to an including Iraq and Afghanistan, FH quotes 119.403 deaths in conflicts post WW2.

 

If we add to that the following:

 

Revolutionary war (war of independence) = 25,000

Civil War = 625,000

1812 = 20,000

Mexican = 13,000

WW1 = 117,500

WW2 = 418,500

 

Total (1) = 1,219,000

plus post WW = 119,400

 

Total (2) = 1,338,400

 

__________________________________________________

 

Gun-related deaths for 12 year period = 309,000

 

If we say approx 25,000 deaths/year

 

1,338,400 divided by 25,000 = 53.5

 

In 53.5 years the numbers of deaths that are gun-related equalled the numbers killed in the major conflicts in which American personnel served (I have not included many of the 'minor' ones) since 1774.

 

53 and a half years compared to 238 years.

 

Of course the deaths by guns are not constant, and the population was a lot lower in the early days, so this kind of erercise is somewhat futlle . . . I wish I hadn't bothered

_____________________________________________________

 

Slightly on a tangent I think including suicides by guns is fair. Often the verdict on a person who's committed suicide is "death when the balance of his mind was disturbed" or something like that. I would imagine some suicides are as a result of a spur of the moment thing, perhaps after drinking too much and falling into a depressive state. Grabbing your gun and using it to kill yourself is a lot easier and quicker than most other means, although jumping off a cliff or a suspension bridge is equally quick (bit not so easy, they usually involve some kind of pre-meditation). So, without doing any research, I am simply postulating that deaths by suicide in countries where many of its citizens have guns in their homes will exceed those where guns are outlawed, pro rata per head of population. I'm going out on a limb there, and would be happy to be proved wrong. For example, a country where guns are outlawed may have a similar suicide rate to the US, with suicides choosing to hang themselves or take poison instead, or any of a host of alternatives.

[ChristianPFC]

"complot" is a germanism, it should be "conspiracy" in English.

 

Is there any benefit to the country by allowing civilians to carry guns? No.

 

How many people get killed by guns carried by civilians? A lot.

 

What else could a terrorist, Communist, Jew, Muslim, ... wish for? Hence, the second amendment is a conspiracy by the terrorists (Communists or Jews or Muslim or whoever) to get US-Americans killed.

 

(As you may have noticed before, not all of my posts are meant serious. So is this. But the facts are true.)

[Rogie]

In the context used I just assumed 'complot' was short for communist plot. Communism may be in its deaththroes (N.Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, a few despots here and there) but let's not forget in their heyday they used to hide under people's beds and, unlike Koko's aliens, they weren't blue they were red, and instead of making sure their countrymen had a decent standard of living (millions died in purges, wars and famines) their leaders, whilst living a life of luxury and privilege, plotted the downfall of those they secretly envied and who did it better, the 'decadent' west.

[Guest fountainhall]

What gives a person the right to behave in such fashion? I mean, to a person who simply rings your doorbell, gets no reply and walks away. It could have been anyone, Jehova's Witnesses, door to door encyclopaedia salesman . . . anyone. Put more simply what gives anyone the right to shout the uncouth command "freeze"?

 

Just to wrap up the comments I made about the sad Hattori case.

 

Firstly, Rodney Peairs, the shooter, was no elderly man fearful for his life and his property. He was a tall, fit 30-year old. After the shooting, he and his wife locked themselves in their house. Hattori's friend raced over to the body, and then went to a neighbour's house to call an ambulance. When a neighbour approached the dying Hattori, Peairs shouted for the neighbour to "go away" and get off his property. It took the ambulance 40 minutes to arrive. Hattori died on the way to hospital. Had he been attended to more quickly and not left on the driveway, it's possible he could be alive today, for one of the causes of his death was loss of blood.

 

Secondly, one reason Hattori’s father launched the civil suit was his anger at the meeting which had been arranged between himself and Peairs. In the Japanese tradition, Hattori senior expected an apology, Had he received one, he would in all probability have left the matter there. Peairs refused to apologise. He 'stood his ground', as it were.

 

In 1993, one million Americans and 1.65 million Japanese signed a petition calling for stronger arms control laws in the US. Shortly after, the Brady Bill was passed. Hattori's parents were presented with a copy. On a visit to Japan in 2003, former President Bill Clinton had a private meeting with them.

 

There is an interesting parallel between the Hattori case and the sinking of a Japanese fishery high school training ship, the Ehime Maru, off Hawaii in February 2001. In that case, the submarine USS Greenville was underwater with some civilian visitors on board. To impress the visitors, it performed an emergency surfacing manoeuvre. For some unexplained reason, the captain was unaware the Japanese ship was directly above him. Nine of its crewmembers were killed, including four students.

 

A US Naval Inquiry placed the blame on the captain of the submarine, Commander Scott Waddle, and some of his crew. The Navy provided compensation. But I recall seeing a documentary about the incident in which Cmdr. Waddle said he was aware of Japanese tradition in such terrible cases. So he flew to Japan to meet with the families of the tragedy. In front of them, he outlined the facts and in tears made a formal apology, bowing deeply as he did so. This he did specifically against Navy instructions. That visit, coupled with other efforts by the US, helped assuage much of the anger directed towards the US government and military.

[Rogie]

In 1993, one million Americans and 1.65 million Japanese signed a petition calling for stronger arms control laws in the US. Shortly after, the Brady Bill was passed.

 

Is the Brady Bill proving effective ? Is it doing what it is supposed to do? I haven't heard of it so please excuse my ignorance.

 

There is an interesting parallel between the Hattori case and the sinking of a Japanese fishery high school training ship, the Ehime Maru, off Hawaii in February 2001.

 

Something else i was unaware of - thank you for mentioning it.

 

I wonder what makes men (and it's usually men!) - fully trained men, do crazy things from time to time? A good example is when a man gets it into his head he's God's gift to women. History is littered with the 'honey trap', tales of a femme fatale luring a politician, policeman or military man to act impulsively or out of character. There was a sad and rather pathetic case recently where a British man, following internet correspondence with a woman in Brazil, flew over to meet her. She wasn't at the airport but a friend of hers was. The friend said he had the woman's bag with him and she'd be really grateful if he'd take it with him and fly to somewhere in Europe where she'd meet him. Somewhere along the line he got stopped and his bag was found to to contain drugs. Now he's in prison awaiting trial. The 'woman of his dreams' really exists but of course the person he was in contact with on-line was a fraudster.

[Guest fountainhall]

Another day, another US gun massacre! Seven dead this time. Six worshippers in a Sikh Temple and the gunman. Three more critically injured, including a police officer. So now I suppose people are supposed to carry guns to defend themselves at their place of worship! Or perhaps hire AK47-toting security guards inside!

[KhorTose]

Another day, another US gun massacre! Seven dead this time. Six worshippers in a Sikh Temple and the gunman. Three more critically injured, including a police officer. So now I suppose people are supposed to carry guns to defend themselves at their place of worship! Or perhaps hire AK47-toting security guards inside!

Aren't you kind of jumping the gun. Pun intended. As of this moment all the facts are not in. However, in answer to your question you could not carry a gun to your place of worship in Wisconsin as they do not issue concealed permits to carry, and the shooter apparently used a normal semi-auto rifle.

Meantime in England one of your dangerous buses killed 23 Angolian football fans. Get those damn buses off the road.

[Guest fountainhall]

That started me thinking. Why on earth would Angolan football fans be in the UK? Angola is not in the Olympics soccer tournament.

 

And of course the reason, dear KT, is that the crash took place in Angola about 600 kms south-east of Luanda! Does Angola permit gun-ownership? I don't know, but I suspect its gun control laws are pretty lax. Still, gun ownership has nothing to do with buses or cars.

[Rogie]

Further to the War on Drugs thread on the main forum:

 

Honduras bans guns in violence-hit Colon region

 

 

The Honduran Congress has voted to ban the carrying of weapons in a region beset by land disputes and drug-trafficking violence.

 

The measure covers Colon province, on the country's Caribbean coast, and home to some of the country's most productive farmland.

 

The new law prohibits the possession of guns in public, but exempts police, soldiers and private guards.

 

Honduras has the world's highest murder rate: 86 murders per 100,000 people.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...merica-19095078

[KhorTose]

. Still, gun ownership has nothing to do with buses or cars.

 

Okay I am sure i could have given another example, but I am confounded why cars or guns do not have humans in control of them, or is it that only bad people operate guns, while vehicles are all driven by ex-saints.

[Guest fountainhall]

I'm sorry to say I find absolutely zero parallel whatsoever between vehicles and guns.

 

A gun is produced for the primary purpose of killing (or at the very least, severely wounding). In many cases, it is animals. In war, it is one's fellow man. The fact that a car, a loose air conditioning unit, a badly fitted electrical plug can also kill and maim is a totally separate argument.

 

No doubt some will argue that a gun's primary purpose is defence. Sorry, I don't buy that one either. If that were the case, why are guns not modified to ensure they only maim and can not kill? And I am bound to ask: why did the shooter in the Hattori case shoot with the intent to kill the young, harmless, unarmed and totally innocent young 16-year old? If the purpose is defence of life and/or property, why not aim for the knee or the arm which carried a suspected gun/knife/whatever and thereby merely disable, instead of depriving a young man of his entire life? Guns kill! People use guns to kill other people! Indisputable fact!

[KhorTose]

A gun is produced for the primary purpose of killing (or at the very least, severely wounding). In many cases, No it is produced for defense, hunting, target shooting, and only becomes bad if misused by one's fellow man. Without Hunters the Unitied States would be overran as the animals, who grazing land is no longer there, and there would be no money to pay for conservation. The fact that a car, a loose air conditioning unit, a badly fitted electrical plug can also kill and maim is a totally separate argument, but only if you totally disregard the human operating the car. A car is meant to be transportation, but when misused by drunks, people texting, talking on the phone, driving without sleep and driving on drugs then it is a far greater killer then guns. No difference, it is not the instruments that are bad it is the people using them.

 

No doubt some will argue that a gun's primary purpose is defence. Sorry, I don't buy that one either, or any thing else that justifiies what you want to believe, as it seems far more importent to you to justify prohibitions that don't work, then accept a different reality. Why are guns not modified to ensure they only maim and can not kill? Probably the same reason why the speed limit on the highway is not five miles an hour, and how would you hunt. And I am bound to ask: why did the shooter in the Hattori case shoot with the intent to kill the young, harmless, unarmed and totally innocent young 16-year old? First off you would have to ask him and while you are at it find out why the drunk with a 2.0 blood alcohol gets behind the wheel of a car. I would love the answer to both questions as they are very similar. Guns kill! People use guns to kill other people! Indisputable fact! Yes they do and often it is to protect themselves and their families or in war to protect their country. Drunk, drugged and distracted drivers also kill far more people then guns! Indisputable fact.

[Guest fountainhall]

Sorry Khun KT. I'll say it again. Vehicles are not produced to kill. Golf balls are not produced to kill. Electric plugs are not produced to kill. Houses constructed in hurricane zones of wood instead of much sturdier materials are not built to kill. A whole host of items used daily around the world are not produced to kill. Occasionally, they do. Guns, however, are produced for the primary purpose of killing!

[Bob]

The mantra that "guns don't kill, people do" is about as accurate as Fox New's mantra of "fair and balanced" reporting. Saying something multiple times only increases it's credibility for those that don't think very well in the first place.

 

Guns serve many purposes but their primary purpose is and has always been to kill animals for food or human beings (either in aggression or defense). Simple as that. My good neighbor's attempt to analogize guns to automobiles, toasters, power plants, or any other activity or device that happens to unintentionally kill or harm people or animals is, for me, beyond the pale of logic.

 

Automobiles, as Khun Khortose points out, kill (albeit, unintentionally) every year although the death and injury rate has dramatically fallen over the last many decades due to massive efforts by government and industry to improve and regulate the product (requiring driver education course, requiring teens to have probationary period limitations, requiring seat belts, requiring air bags, improving road guardrails, etc., etc.). The gun industry, led by it's huge lobbying organization (the NRA - the Fox News of all lobbying organizations), has fought every single effort to regulate its product and, frankly, hasn't done one damn thing to help lower the number of gun murders.

 

Some day, the people of the US will say "enough" and actually do something about it (and, if that means amending the Constitution, so be it); meanwhile, the slaughter will in fact continue.

[KhorTose]

Wrong Bob, People do kill and this latest shooting is a prime example of the fallacy of thinking that they do not. It turns out that Page, the man who shot up that temple, had a long history of drunkenness, and had even once ran a car off the road. Now if he had killed a family of four with his car you would be telling me that it was not the car that killed the people, but page being drunk, but when he does it with a gun, then it is the gun. You and Fountainhall are going for the good old quick fix. Lets just ban guns and the violence in our society will just go away. It is just those darn guns causing all this trouble which ignores the fact that other societies have guns without problems and taking guns away does not reduce violent crime. By the way one member of the temple tried to stop him with a butter knife, Sort of a shame that Wisconsin did not have a right to carry law, but that is another thread. You really want to fix the problem? Then you allow federal day care with an eye towards doing early intervention on troubled kids from troubled families. That is the answer, not some stupid law that takes guns away from honest well-balanced people.

However, you are going to have to pay for this, but somewhere down the road your jails would start the empty and violence in society would decline. However, instead of advocating and fighting for this you are both choosing a simple solution that has no justification is reality based on measurable facts and statistics and ignores the research that says you are wrong. While you are at it, ban alcohol which is at the root of more dysfunctional families and deaths then all the drugs and guns combined. It is just as simple a solution as what you propose and just as misquided, and unworkable.

[Guest fountainhall]

It turns out that Page, the man who shot up that temple, had a long history of drunkenness, and had even once ran a car off the road

 

But, dear KT, how many people in the US have a "long history of drunkenness" and once ran a car off the road? I'll take a bet with you that the number is well into the tens of thousands - even hundreds of thousands. Then tell us how many of these have gone out and committed gun massacres? I don't even need an answer because it is so patently obvious!

 

That is the answer, not some stupid law that takes guns away from honest well-balanced people.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that either. The implication is that the shooter in the Hattori case was a troubled kid from a troubled family. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence of that case that indicates anything other than a normal balanced human being. The fact is that he had a gun and he used it, when there was no perceptible threat to his life or his property. Had there been no gun, he'd have called 911, Hattori would have gone on to his party - and that young man would likely still be alive today! If you own a gun and 'believe' you are being provoked, it's far easier to reach for and use the gun than it is to use your mind and fully consider what you are doing and why you are doing it. As the shooter exclaimed, he just didn't think. Then not havng thought, he locked himself him his house and shouted to neighbours to get off his property. Meanwhile, young Hattori was bleeding to death. Guns should never be in the hands of reasonable people who do not think! I'm sorry to say I think there is something deeply flawed in any society which happily goes about its business after a tragedy like this.

 

You and Fountainhall are going for the good old quick fix. Lets just ban guns and the violence in our society will just go away.

 

Yes, I am 100% for banning guns in all societies. But I am not naive enough to believe that the problem will disappear. In the USA, there are around 280 million guns in private hands, I believe. Once they are banned, you can have voluntary surrender programmes. You can have payments made for each firearm, as in Australia. But it will take a long time for most to be taken out of society. So it is not a quick fix by any means.

 

But it is the very fact the the USA is awash with guns that actually puts more into the hands of criminals. The FBI reports that 340,000 legally purchased guns are stolen each year. The vast majority of these guns find their way into the hands of criminals - many petty criminals. Yet if these guns were never sold in the first place, they could not end up being used by criminals. So in their attempts to "defend" themselves, there is a lot of to be said for the argument that American law actually encourage criminals.

 

ignores the fact that other societies have guns without problems and taking guns away does not reduce violent crime. It is just as simple a solution as what you propose and just as misquided, and unworkable.

 

This is an old, old canard always offered up by the gun lobby.

 

Fact. In comparison to the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, the USA ranks as No. 1.

 

Question 1. How many gun massacres have there been the US in the last 12 months?

 

Question 2. How many gun massacres have there been in countries which have banned gun ownership (apart from certain very restricted uses) in the last 12 months?

 

Once again, the answer is self- evident. And why is this? Let me quote from The Washington Post of July 21 2012 -

 

mass killings occur in societies with stronger gun laws, but not with such regularity — and not against the backdrop of daily gun violence, both criminal and accidental, that distinguishes the United States.

 

We don’t expect this massacre to lead to more sensible laws. We understand the politics . . . The politics of guns will never shift if people are too cowed or dispirited even to join the argument.

 

U.S. gun laws make no sense.

http://www.washingto...JryW_story.html

[Bob]

It turns out that Page, the man who shot up that temple, had a long history of drunkenness, and had even once ran a car off the road.

 

You tell us this history and the news tells us he bought the handgun within the last two weeks. Something's a bit wrong with that scenario, right? At least we might be on the same page that at least some people ought not be able to purchase or possess handguns.

[KhorTose]

But, dear KT, how many people in the US have a "long history of drunkenness" and once ran a car off the road? I'll take a bet with you that the number is well into the tens of thousands - even hundreds of thousands. Then tell us how many of these have gone out and committed gun massacres? I don't even need an answer because it is so patently obvious!

 

How do you keep totally missing the point. How many people have these drunks killed with their cars. Yes, far more then guns. They are at fault when they drive drunk, but the gun is at fault when they or anybody else kills. That will never make sense.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that either. The implication is that the shooter in the Hattori case was a troubled kid from a troubled family. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence of that case that indicates anything other than a normal balanced human being. The fact is that he had a gun and he used it, when there was no perceptible threat to his life or his property. Had there been no gun, he'd have called 911, Hattori would have gone on to his party - and that young man would likely still be alive today! If you own a gun and 'believe' you are being provoked, it's far easier to reach for and use the gun than it is to use your mind and fully consider what you are doing and why you are doing it. As the shooter exclaimed, he just didn't think. Then not havng thought, he locked himself him his house and shouted to neighbours to get off his property. Meanwhile, young Hattori was bleeding to death. Guns should never be in the hands of reasonable people who do not think! I'm sorry to say I think there is something deeply flawed in any society which happily goes about its business after a tragedy like this.

 

And the person who is texting, who kills while driving is perfectly normal too. Just like the Hattori case it is not common but it happens, sadly. I will answer you next here. How many mass killers to you know who are sane, whether or not they use a gun? I am getting a kick out of Al Jazera as they are blaming the shooting on America's racism towards Muslims and non-Christians. They are closer to the truth then you are blaming guns.

 

But it is the very fact the the USA is awash with guns that actually puts more into the hands of criminals. The FBI reports that 340,000 legally purchased guns are stolen each year. The vast majority of these guns find their way into the hands of criminals - many petty criminals. Yet if these guns were never sold in the first place, they could not end up being used by criminals. So in their attempts to "defend" themselves, there is a lot of to be said for the argument that American law actually encourage criminals.

 

Just like drugs, once you ban them you will find one million guns smuggled into the US every year and everyone with a gun will be a criminal including those who just want to protect themselves from the man with a club and a knife. You will give the criminals a whole new industry and only honest people will be without guns and gun crime will not go down----just like England today.

 

Fact. In comparison to the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, the USA ranks as No. 1.

 

Not only in gun ownership but in a number of fields including personal liberty.

 

Question 1. How many gun massacres have there been the US in the last 12 months?

How many have been in Switzerland, and Canada where they also have guns. I don't think you are reading my post at all. Guns are not the problem, the way our children are raised are the problem.

 

Question 2. How many gun massacres have there been in countries which have banned gun ownership (apart from certain very restricted uses) in the last 12 months? Don't know

You are really getting selective with the dates as you do not wish to mention the Cumbria shooting where 23 people where shot and 12 died---all since you banned guns. If they are more common in the US then the UK I need to remind you we are a larger country.

 

All the Washington post asked was a ban on what is called assault rifles. Nice try, but that does not work as even under the old law there where many ways to get around that ban. What you are doing with you gun control is the same as people who try to feed the hungry and do not tackle birth control. You are only looking superficially and not willing to tackle the real problem. Gun control, like prohibition, and like war on drugs are all simple misguided quick fixes that do nothing to deal with the real problem. That problem is what is obvious to me is and will always be people and for the first time in history we have solutions to that. If a child is raised properly they are far less likely to be drug addicts or criminals. That is the solution not another dumb prohibition. Two Americans have said it best:

“Why don't they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as well as prohibition did, in five years Americans would be the smartest race of people on Earth.”Will Rogers quotes

 

“Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.”Abraham Lincoln quotes