Mass Shooting in The UK?

[USAFNoDak]

They've just had 12 people killed and some more wounded in the UK by some guy with a shotgun and a .22 rifle who drove around shooting people, some at point blank range, at more than 30 crime scenes. The shooter belonged to a gun club, so more than likely, the guns were "legal" under UK law.

My question is, where are the reporters talking about how the UK gun laws failed to stop a mass shooting? Why aren't they asking why gun control has failed to reduce violent crime in the UK? Why aren't they reporting that violent crime in which guns are used is UP since they made their gun laws more "strict" after a previous mass shooting? I guess 12 people murdered by a loony with a gun in a country where guns are extremely hard to "legally" possess, just isn't very newsworthy to the US media. I wonder why?

[cannonfire]

To play devil's advocate, they will probably be saying that since this guy WAS part of a gun club and could LEGALLY own guns, that the laws should be stricter. I agree that UK laws are horrible but the media just doesn't see it that way.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My question is, where are the reporters talking about how the UK gun laws failed to stop a mass shooting?

Because the gun he owned were legal?

My question is, where are the reporters talking about how the UK gun laws failed to stop a mass shooting?

Also - to play Devil's advocate, the Dunblane massacre was accomplished with 2 9mm handguns and 2 357 revolvers. After the ban, they haven't had a handgun based massacre - so wouldn't they arguenow that the laws were effective on that weapons platform and too loose on rifles

The use of handguns in property crime, drug wars and the like have a different casuality than rampages by individuals, so why should they talk about that?

Look, if we want to just complain about UK gun laws - we have to make some sense here.

If the thread becomes a UK bash without logical content, it's going to be closed.

[USAFNoDak]

Also - to play Devil's advocate, the Dunblane massacre was accomplished with 2 9mm handguns and 2 357 revolvers. After the ban, they haven't had a handgun based massacre - so wouldn't they arguenow that the laws were effective on that weapons platform and too loose on rifles

An objective press, including not only the UK's but the US's, might write a strory about "weapon substitution". Also, they could write that while handguns were banned after the Dunblane massacre, the number of "illegal" handguns in the UK has risen significantly, along with the number of crimes where a handgun was involved. They could then tie this into the fact that even though handguns were banned, and if that ban was in fact responsible for this shooter not being able to get a handgun, he was able to substitute weapons such as a .22 rifle and a shotgun to carry out another massacre. In conclusion, the handgun ban has not reduced violent crimes where handguns are used, nor was it able to stop another madman from going on a killing spree using a rifle and a shotgun.

I'm not so much attacking UK gun laws. I'm attacking the lack of objective journalism which should report on when laws are effective or lacking in their effectiveness. I would say that this latest massacre, plus the rise in violent crime and the number of "illegal" handguns in the UK casts doubts on the effectiveness of the laws put in place to prevent another Dunblane or to reduce the number of crimes where handguns are involved.

In addition, though not gun related, in Tokyo, some nutjobs were able to kill a number of people in the subway system using some form of poisonous gas. We know that there are virtually no guns in Japan which are owned "legally" by any civilians.

My point being that when it comes to mass murders, the murderer(s) will find a way to kill if they are driven to it, for whatever reason. A ban on certain types of weapons cannot reliably stop such an event.

On a tangent note, the press in Canada had to finally admit that their national gun registration was too costly and did virtually nothing to affect crime rates in Canada.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You are saying that they should make the stretch that it was substitution that led to this. OK, then their response should be that they should have banned all handguns and all long arms.

In the research debate about the AWB, the studies clearly found that it didn't reduce any crime indicators. One reason postulated was that there was almost complete substitution of weapons of equally potency but lacking the cosmetic features that the AWB went after. Thus, it is suggested that we do complete bans of military style weapons.

That's how this would go in the UK - I'm sorry but you are demanding that they make arguments that really can't be supported and are put through your filter.

The crime/handgun ban connection is irrelevant to the rampage shooter problem - thus harping on it as a response that they should make to a rampage isn't realistic.

There are better arguments to make against gun bans but putting forward ones that can be easily dismissed isn't going to help.

[USAFNoDak]

There are better arguments to make against gun bans but putting forward ones that can be easily dismissed isn't going to help.

How many times have we seen mass murders carried out without the use of guns?

1. Federal Murrah Building

2. Tokyo Subway

3. Various arson cases.

4. 9/11.

5. etc.

I understand what you are saying regarding the media, especially in the UK. They are committed to gun bans, so they will never point out that a gun ban put in place in response to a mass murder (Dunblane) will never be effective in preventing future mass murders. This latest case in the UK would seem to prove that point.

I am making no demands on the media. I'm pointing out that they will protect their agendas by misreporting, stretching the truth, ignoring the obvious when it runs counter to their agenda, or just being silent on issues which would tend to show that they are wrong headed in their thinking. This latest mass murder in the UK received only passing mention in most of the US media. I seem to remember Dunblane getting lots of press. Why the difference?

[Mike Irwin]

Tediously bad logic abounds, unfortunately.

Closed before it gets any worse.