We've had enough gun debates on here, so I'm not going to get involved with this one.

But you know my views.

@largeham- You are absolutely right. Criminals aren't going to obey the law period. So don't punish law-abiding citizens who just want to be able to protect their family in the instance some joker wants to break in and steal my property. Nobody in their right mind wants to shoot, let alone kill anyone, but if you threaten my wife and kids, you're asking for it.

Actually nowheels, i entirely disagree - in my rather limited knowledge, it has become common place for theives (in the UK) to find a kitchen knife in the home they are robbing and place it somewhere easily accessible.

On the table perhaps. The reason being that if someone comes home while they 'work' they can use this knife to threaten, injury and escape (as they deem neccesary)

This 'tactic' rarely result in death. However if they feared the occupants of the house were armed then they would be required to purchase (illegal, black-market) firearms (ostensibly because they have failed whatever background checks Largeham is calling for - but also because the more powerful automatic weapons are already illegal)

Now for tactical reason i'd rather live in a society where firearms are illegal. (in Ireland, farmers are allowed own weapons, actually anyone is 'allowed' own a gun, but they need permission and a license - they also need to prove they need use of a gun - so most firearm ownership is restricted to farmers who can prove the need a weapon to protect their animals from predators...)

*rarely results in...

Obi your write. Fascism for all

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a ..... I'm
from Atlanta and can attest to validity of the mandatory gun ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts - 65k - Similar pages @ orathaic. This proves my point. Maybe it's just different in the U.K. I don't know. If more people own guns legally, then crime rate will go down.

Look at me.

I'm an idiot.

I double post all of the time because I...I....I...I....

...I just can't help myself.

Oh, you poor stutterer Maple :P
Nowheels, maybe it is something to do with the environment. Here in Australia (donate to the Queensland flood victims), we have pretty stringent gun laws, at least in cities, and crime has been dropping over the years (though news coverage has risen). I believe Orathaic is in part right, if criminals know people have guns, then they will use them as well, increasing the likelihood of death or injury, vaguely similar to an arms race. However, the UK and Australia are island nations, making it a lot harder for people to bring in arms.

P.S. Donate to the flood victims :)

@nowheels, NO, my point was, if the crime rate is the same less people will be killed when houses are being robbed if the thieves are using knives to defend themselves.

as for actual crime-rate figures, i believe you'll find the US has some of the highest domestic crime rates in the western world. Actually Canada has equivalent levels of gun ownership but much lower gun crime - why? i guess it is because gun laws don't in and of themselves create or stop crime. (alas i have no decent statistics to backup this ascertain - i'm merely basing it on previous results i've heard/read, but feel free to find your own statistics to tear down what i've said)

I'm argueing that gun laws facilitate different tactics to be used WHEN a crimes are being committed.

Meanwhile the link you posted merely indicates that given alternatives (such as robbing a house in a neighbouring town which doesn't have a 100% gun ownership law) criminals will not choose to attack the well defended target.

If ALL homes in the US were equal then they would all be well defended, and thus equal in terms of choice to attack, rather than being hard points worth avoiding.

Support our right to arm bears.

Solve the toxic political environment by (1) DECLARING it will END! (2) Have a fascist government - there, no more arguments!


Democracy is messy, I want less politics in politics too :)

@ Nowheels,

Come on man, the statistics of a town with a population of 13,000 are hardly comparible with almost all other situations.

And also do you rely think there would be less victims if people in the crowd could grab there guns and return fire?

rely = realy

tss, really

This goes a bit back, but Invictus said that this man was going to get a fair trial. I highly doubt that:

1) Because the crime is known and condemned by everyone
2) One of his victims was a federal judge

@Hereward: Maybe my stupid American brain can't wrap itself around your esoteric British satire, but if that's satire I don't get the joke and if it's serious then that writer's terribly off-base

So now we're supposed to pretend this has nothing to do with politics, and he just selected a meet the constituents event by a Congresswoman - who had her office vandalized not long before - at random. And the fact he listed Sarah Palin and the Tea Party as people/movements that inspired him is immaterial, as is Palin's use of the crosshairs on Giffords. Just a random lunatic, nothing to see here. What a bunch of nonsense.

This attack is exactly what the far-right had been stoking for a couple of years now. To pretend otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse.

As for gun control - we have 10,000 gun deaths per year, the UK? 50 maybe. Guns facilitate the killing of people.

No. I have not once said that it can't be political. I've said wait and see what the investigators working on the case determine. Is that so hard?

"criminals will not choose to attack the well defended target. "

Why do armed gangbangers seek out and kill other armed gangbangers? This idea that guns ward off criminals has a fatal flaw in it's logic.

And don't you think that gun stat is a little misleading? What's the overall murder rate in the UK compared to the US? I wouldn't be shocked if they have a lower rate of murders per capita, but I don't think the difference in murder rates is nearly as drastic as the difference in murder rates with guns.

Of *course* the UK will have fewer gun deaths -- guns are banned. But if the overall murder rate is comparable, then it's not solving the problem, just forcing murderers to change tactics.

It's interesting that this thread has, essentially become,
1 - "I'm scared of being robbed, invaded, set upon by my own government, so I need to buy a gun. Now I feel safe!"
2 - "I'm scared that you own a gun, because, let's face it, I don't trust you, or your child rearing techniques. Now my options are to belittle you in to giving away your gun, or get a gun myself."

As for the original topic, was he gunning for the congressman? Probably. Chances are he wanted someone to see him, and what better way. Though "probably" isn't fact, and hind-site changes original intentions, so no one will probably ever know.
Could an insane person be spurred on by another, sure. Most of everyone is looking for a guiding voice of some kind or another. And talk radio "entertainment," and the current political "discourse" are as good a place to get a lacking parental figure as any. Does that mean shock jocks (is that even a term anymore?) and politicians who do not pay enough attention to the impact of there words are to blame, no. These people have the right to say what they want; and so long as we are living in a culture that actually thrives on, and is driven by fear, these people will have an audience... not to mention some coin to line their pockets.

In summary, Caucasian middle-class Americans seems to be the most well to do terrified bunch on the planet. And by gum, I love 'em. They sure do make a web forum an interesting highly opinionated read at four in the morning!

At the risk of turning everyone against me, and also being labeled (unfairly) a troll, I think I might agree more with obiwanobiwan (never thought I'd say that) than with the people who claim that there is no one to blame than the perpetrator. That said, this statement comes with rather a large caveat, I'll get to it. I don't think we can ever say, "Oh this man is just disturbed, and it's entirely in his head and that there's absolutely nothing that society as a whole, or the environment he lived in had to do with it in any way whatsoever." I think as a whole we need to take responsibility for the terrible things that happen in our society. His actions took place within the context of a society and need to be understood in that context. And even if they didn't there are supposed to be systems in place to catch things like this before they happen. They failed, we have to see why that is too. However, and here is the caveat, even if we fix whatever part of society is causing this kind of violence (not that that's a realistic goal) whatever that changes society to will result in a different kind of violence. It's sort of inevitable, but, I don't think that justifies a defeatist attitude. We owe it to the victims of this shooting to learn from this, and try to prevent it happening again.

People are going to kill regardless if guns were ever even invented. Yes, guns are intended to kill, but would you try to rob someone if they had a gun or a kitchen knife. If guns are illegal in the U.K. then why were their any gun-related deaths Putin? Oh, and America is slightly larger than the U.K.

The political climate in the US is not as bad now as it was in the 1850s, but we see where that led to. I don't think that it is even if it is as bad as it was in the 1960s. There is more talking now, but I think on the whole I think there is a lot less violence. We may be at a 'high' point in the divisiveness of the political culture.

Lets pray that Obama can regain his footing and be a healer that brings people together.

@ Victorious- Absolutely they would've had a better chance of survival (the people who lost their lives) if someone with a gun had taken this psycho out before he shot as many people as he did.

Yes, the US is five times larger in population. The rate of gun deaths is far more than five times larger. If it was proportionate to population then the US would have 250 gun deaths a year, not 10,000. A ban is not going to stamp out every single use of the banned thing, obviously. But it sure is effective at reducing it to a minimum.

This idea that if you banned guns, people would switch to something else doesn't quite work, for the simple reason that guns make killing much easier. How do you kill 18 people with a knife in a handful of seconds? And, by the way, carrying knives beyond a certain length are banned also, even in the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

This is the murder rate based on murders per 1,000. The UK is .014, the US is .043.

"Why do armed gangbangers seek out and kill other armed gangbangers?"

C'mon Putin, that's not even close to being contextually similar to what was stated. The reason gangbangers kill each other is completely different from the reason someone burgles your home.

I'm in complete agreement with nowheels.

Who has the best chance to protect you if something goes down? Yourself? or the cops?

The cops are there to clean up the mess. If you think they are there to save you, may you please die of stupidity. No one is more responsible for protecting you than YOU.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will only make them targets. As was mentioned by someone here already, the criminals aren't going to let the law get in the way of taking something they want.

I absolutely LOVE to hear stories about would-be thieves being shot by their victims. Serves 'em right.