Features

A roomful of firearms and fantasists at the world’s biggest gun show

30 January 2016

9:00 AM

30 January 2016

9:00 AM

 

 Las Vegas

They say that there are more guns in America than human beings and most of them seemed to be at Shot Show in Las Vegas last week.

Shot (Shooting Hunting Outdoor Trade) Show — the firearms industry’s biggest shop window — occupied several floors of a building roughly the size of Wembley Stadium, wedged between a couple of casinos and a replica of the Grand Canal. Like a kleptomaniac at Harrods, I didn’t know what to try out first. I was momentarily torn between being Dirty Harry (at the Smith & Wesson stand, with the most powerful handgun in the world) and James Bond (I couldn’t find the Walther PPK, it seems to have given way to the PPQ).

Winchester, Springfield, Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, Mossberg, Heckler & Koch: how could I not be bewitched by the sheer poetry of such names? Not to mention the nostalgia of tucking a classic Colt six-shooter or two in my belt. But Che Guevara, I thought, and other fans of the classic AK-47 might have been shocked to come across the very glitzy Kalashnikov USA stand (‘Russian tradition, American innovation’).

Maybe it was the smell of powder or gun oil, but there was definitely an aphrodisiac quality to Shot Show. I kid you not when I say that a higher than normal proportion of the women there struck up a conversation with me. They weren’t all trying to sell me extra ammo, either. ‘Honey, if I had hair like yours, I’d be a real bitch,’ said one smoking gun-toter. But the truth is I only had eyes for Amanda Lynn Mayhew. Amanda is a hunter and a fitness fanatic (she actually owns a magazine called Fytness Fanatik) who is in training for a bodybuilding competition: ‘Doing a lot of tightening and toning.’ She works for the Department of Natural Resources in Canada and regularly shoots moose and deer and bear in northern Ontario.


I watched promotional movies of people creeping up behind assorted critters and then posing with their dying victims, grinning their heads off. Amanda Lynn Mayhew made a pretty good case for the necessity of this sort of hunting, with a view to stopping deer from taking over the world. But I still found myself crying out, from time to time, ‘At least leave the bloody buffalo alone!’

There is an interesting split here in the gun-owning community. Amanda swore by her rifle (Weatherby Vanguard), but disdained the pistol. The hunters are wary of the urban cowboys. The best-selling novelist Lee Child, who was signing books at the 5.11 Tactical stand, similarly heaped scorn on the theory of ‘personal defence’ (with the stress on the ‘de-’) in a home invasion. ‘All the FBI guys point out that civilians with guns in practice never succeed in seeing off home invaders. They’re always too groggy, or they forget where the gun is.’

Jack Reacher, Child’s muscular protagonist, is no kind of trigger-happy hero. If the gun-lovers who queued around the block to buy a signed copy of Make Me read the book carefully, they will discover that its protagonist never reaches for a gun unless he really has to. He only carries a folding toothbrush, for goodness sake. As a rule he prefers to hospitalise bad guys with his elbows, or just head-butt them to death.

Trigger-happy heroes were, however, in attendance at Shot Show’s NRA enclave. A lot of them. They are all constitutional experts, although they had a tendency to zero in specifically on the Second Amendment. They didn’t like Hillary Clinton much. There was a general consensus that it was unpatriotic not to bear arms. I came within a whisker of signing up. There was a special deal on and they were throwing in a free subscription to American Rifle. I too wanted to ‘Stand and Fight’ (as their slogan has it) — is that so bad?

But Lee Child scoffed. ‘Right-wing politics in the USA has lost any connection with reality. “If everyone had guns in their pockets then there would be no more mass shootings” — that’s cobblers. No one has ever stopped one of these mass shootings. It’s all just toys for boys. Or fashion accessories.’

I couldn’t find my way out of the show; I had to ask somebody. Maybe there is no way out, I had started to think. It seemed symbolic of the whole American gun debate. Whatever Obama may say about the need for stricter gun control, Shot Show is a microcosm of a locked-and-loaded nation, with the safety permanently off. As the ad says, this really is ‘Remington Country’. The simple fact that even I, a rank amateur, could go and kit myself out like Rambo — and I was seriously tempted by the multiple grenade launcher — is testimony to the militarisation of an entire society. Something like Sparta.

I am sympathetic to the neo-frontier spirit. I want to be a hero too. As I strolled up the Strip in the sun, courted by Elvis and Mickey Mouse and Scooby-Doo and Darth Vader, I thought I could understand the mentality even more. At the Venetian complex, I could take a gondola or climb St Mark’s Campanile. Or further up the street, visit the Eiffel Tower. Everything in Las Vegas is fake. Even the sky is a lie — a trompe l’oeil concoction straight out of David Copperfield’s box of tricks. It makes you want to reach for a gun.

Coincidentally, there would be a shooting on this street just a few hours later, outside the Bellagio Hotel & Casino. The Strip was sealed off but no one batted an eyelid.

Maybe the gun in America is the last refuge of truth. It is an exercise in hardcore empirical epistemology: like Dr Johnson kicking a stone, when you get hit by a bullet, you really know it. No more room for doubt. Maybe dousing myself in elk urine (I could have bought a bottle at the show, ‘with enhanced estrus’) and climbing a tree with a crossbow over my shoulder would make me feel more real for a while in a land of dreams and delusions and semi-naked ‘policewomen’ with big truncheons.

But then again, maybe gunplay is just another form of semi-automatic entertainment. Just as I was imagining myself as an NRA cowboy, so too the other gun show guests were passing themselves off as Jack Reacher or Tom Cruise or Amanda Lynn Mayhew. America is in thrall to a Hollywood fantasy, but with real bullets and actual blood.

Andy Martin’s book on the thriller writer Lee Child, Reacher Said Nothing, was called ‘remarkable’ by Stav Sherez in the 16 January Spectator.

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • Richard Lutz

    Readers might like to know that Lee Child was wrong when she said “No one has ever stopped one of these mass shootings”. Most were stopped by armed civilians in the form of police officers, while there have been many instances of ordinary people stopping shooting sprees, some of which were noted in an article by Hunter Roosevelt titled ’12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns’ – http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

    • Frank

      Yes, but this article is simply advertising the author’s book about Lee Child (a fiction writer also known for his deep scholarship on self-defence!!). Probably saved the Spectator from having to pay money for a proper article.

      • For Whom the Troll Bells

        I read my first Jack Reacher novel about a year ago having picked it up in a hospital waiting room. I thought that it was reasonably entertaining but very light weight, and there were quite a lot of features that didn’t ring true. I subsequently discovered that Lee Child was a Brit; perhaps that explains why I didn’t find it very convincing.

    • PaulUK2901

      Police officers aren’t armed civilians, they’re armed Police officers. That’s why most countries have police officers, so the civilians don’t need to carry arms Sherlock. Only in America.

      • Roger Hudson

        Didn’t Robert Peel, who started the Met., say that a constable was a man paid to do what any citizen should be doing anyway. Police don’t serve the people, they serve the law, just like everybody should obey the common law of England. The armed UK police never seem to be in place before an incident, just reactive.

        • PaulUK2901

          And how is any of that relevant to the price of fish?

          • Richard Lutz

            I think the point Mr Hudson is making that police are rarely around when you need them and that competent adults of good character have a legal right to defend themselves and a legal duty to protect dependents under their care, so have a right to possess the practical means to exercise these rights and duties even if some people prefer dead victims to armed victims (notably criminals and closet fascists). Thus laws that unreasonably restrict the possession of practical defensive weapons are rightly repealed so said adults can carry a concealed pistol as they can in nations like the Czech Republic and Switzerland (or a Taser stun gun if firearms are not to their liking).

        • Mary Ann

          A policeman on the beat is just as likely to come across a crime as you or I are, when was the last time you came across a crime where firearms would have been appropriate, I never have.

          • gunnerbear

            And of course…..if I thought for a moment that the vast majority of people around me were carrying firearms on the street, then I think I’d have to carry one as well….

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Absolutely. I’d have to expect criminals etc. to be armed, so…

        • Frank Natoli

          Peel also said that police can only be effective in communities which respect the law. Communities which regard criminals as one of their own, and police as the interlopers, will have the law of the jungle. The most violent cities in America, and I suspect in Britain, prove Peel’s point.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            And guns are a big factor in causing the issues.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So it’s guns that give you a runny nose, eh, noeL nosefloW?

            Stop pushing pistols up you proboscis then!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Look, your personalities and their gun issues are not my problem.

      • Richard Lutz

        A civilian is a person who is not a member of the armed forces like a soldier. So an armed police officer is an armed civilian employed as a police officer. Lots of nations allow non-police to carry guns, including the armed security guards who protect armoured cars and banks, the bodyguards who protect rich rapists and murderers, and (at taxpayer’s expense) politicians like David Cameron and Robert Mugabe. The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Switzerland among others allow ordinary adults of good character to carry a concealed pistol after training to defend themselves and dependents under their care like a child or disabled spouse. So you might like to get your facts straight before you make any further assertions.

        • PaulUK2901

          Too delusional for me. Have fun in Narnia.

      • sfin

        Here in Paris, last November, 130 people were shot dead – over a four hour period – whilst enjoying a Friday evening out. Not a policeman in sight.

        In the Bataclan concert hall, 3 gunmen held and controlled 1500 concert goers over a period of 3 hours. During the methodical killing of 89 of those concert goers, they had time to stop and reload.

        And here’s the thing…there wasn’t a damn thing any of those 130 dead, or the 300+ injured could do about it.

        The vast majority of killings in the US are black on black with illegal handguns. When a massacre occurs where the perpetrator is white, it is nearly always in a heavily gun controlled area such as churches or school/ college campuses.

        Incidentally, the police in the US and the UK are not duty bound to ‘protect’ you. They are only duty bound to enforce the law through the prevention and detection of crime.

        All governments in Europe are busily importing an aggressive, invasive and murderous ideology – whilst, at the same time, forcibly disarming the indigenous citizen.

        That is real oppression.

        • Leon Wolfeson

          Oh, so untrained civilian shooters making things worse… as you ignore the accidental discharges and suicides, of course, in America.

          And no, I can’t see your gun ideology being invited here.

  • bigsammyb

    Mass murders are prevented all of the time in America by armed civilians, but given they are prevented they don’t make front page news. This is a very biased article written by a supplicant with no concept of what freedom and personal responsibility is. Kind of proves that you needn’t take anything the spectator says about anything seriously …

    • For Whom the Troll Bells

      If the mass murders were prevented, how were they mass murders? Actually, even your premise is pure nonsense. For a decade, I lived close to Baltimore and not very far from Washington DC – two of the most violent cities in the US, with gun crime at a national high and in a very populous part of the country. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that, had potential mass murders been prevented by, presumably, gun-bearing ordinary citizens they would not have been extensively reported in the numerous local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Ah, I hear you say, that is because ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry guns. Well, there are plenty of areas in the US where it is legal to carry guns and where the prevention of a potential mass murder would have been far more newsworthy than on the East Coast. You claim that such preventative action is so commonplace that it doesn’t make headline news – I don’t believe that for one moment but, even if was the case, at least a few cases would get reported even if not as headlines. Cite a few of them.

      • Frank Natoli

        Baltimore? The subject of David Simon’s “Homicide, a Year on the Killing Streets”? Simon was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, who got himself embedded with Baltimore police homicide for the entire year of 1984, then wrote a superb book on his experiences. If you think Baltimore is violent because of the Constitutional availability of firearms, you are naively mistaken in the extreme. Read the book; be enlightened.
        Oh. And don’t compare Simon’s “The Wire” to “Homicide”. The former was his penance for telling the truth in the latter.

        • For Whom the Troll Bells

          Frank, I think that both you and I know why Baltimore is so violent – it is the same reason that most of the violence in DC is confined to just a few blocks. The classic criteria for crime are motive, means and opportunity. I grant you that motive and opportunity are givens but much of the violence is gun related and the ready availability of guns provides the means.

          • Frank Natoli

            So because of the wildly disproportionate violence of a relative small minority of Americans, the solution is to render all Americans individually defenseless?
            Have not seen TV “Homicide”, was referring to Simon’s book, which I found extraordinary. You read it, for all intents and purposes you are with Baltimore Police Homicide for 365 days, and that was 1984; it’s much worse today.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Nope, there are societal defense mechanisms.

            You’re just showing that guns contribute to breaking those down, of course.

          • Frank Natoli

            How do YOU define “defense”?
            It would appear, from your comment, that you define “defense” in terms of isolating a society from “external” individuals, e.g., police.
            I define “defense” in terms of protecting a society from violent predators.
            As you can see, we don’t speak the same language, how typical of the political chasm separating blue from red.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            You’re making up a definition and trying to say I claim it.

            And no, I just speak British English, you speak American English.

        • For Whom the Troll Bells

          By the way, I do agree with you about “Homicide” and the “Wire”. To my mind, “Homicide” was one of the very best police dramas ever on TV – I gave up on “The Wire” after two episodes. Some years ago, I saw the old building on, I think, Fell Street where “Homicide” was filmed – it had rather a nice plaque commemorating the series. Sadly, I believe that it is now a hotel.

        • Leon Wolfeson

          “If you think Baltimore is violent because of the Constitutional
          availability of firearms, you are naively mistaken in the extreme”

          Then why do other countries not have the same issues?

          • fredimeyer

            why would other countries have ‘the same issues’?

            america is unique. size, wealth, diversity, laws

            switzerland has lots of guns and very very little crime. the population of switzerland is swiss, 90% make more than usd4000 a month, there is little ‘welfare culture’. criminals are put away

            in america one third the population is black or hispanic, or flat out illegal and they are all on welfare and let out of prison by obama if they do get arrested

          • PaulUK2901

            What’s so “unique” about the USA? It’s not the biggest country; it’s not the most diverse; its legal system isn’t the oldest; it is still the wealthiest, although economically China will soon be number one.; and it’s nowhere near being the most populated.

            However, the USA is the worlds fattest nation; it has the biggest percentage of its population behind bars; the USA leads the world in mental illness through anxiety, probably because it is also the worlds number one in civilian gun ownership.

            Truly unique.

          • fredimeyer

            aside from the stupidity of not understanding the word ‘unique’, you forgot to list another superlative: it excites the most envy and bitter jealousy from insignificant powers, once themselves grand

          • PaulUK2901

            Whatever.

            In your head it might.

          • PaulUK2901

            What is “unique” about the USA? No the US doesn’t excite the most envy. Nobody I know wants to move to the USA. I know lots who’d like to move to Australia, New Zealand or Canada, but never the States. There’s too many guns, too much stupid and far too much work. New Zealand has a far better standard of life than the USA will ever have. You need to travel the world more. The USA is nice to visit for Universal Studios or New York, but I wouldn’t want to actually live there.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Among other things, their stupid HB1 lottery…

            Companies in Aus, NZ and Canada hire Brits, lots of Brits.

          • fredimeyer

            you really are a thicko and should indeed go to australia. you fail to grasp the dictionary definition of ‘unique’.
            ‘nobody i know’ is an intellectually vacuous comment. the kind of people you know, well. but look at the undeniable statistics.
            america is the number one choice, not least for all the brits who want to escape.
            there is no arguing that for someone who like you on welfare for whom avoiding work, as you say, is the primary factor, america is not a good choice.
            so stay away, but don’t make stupid comments about things you do not understand.

          • PaulUK2901

            unique

            adjective

            1.

            being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.

            “the situation was unique in British politics”

            synonyms: distinctive, individual, special, especial, idiosyncratic, quirky, eccentric, isolated; More

            nounarchaic

            1.

            a unique person or thing.

            “some of Lamb’s writings were so memorably beautiful as to be uniques in their class”

            So what’s “unique” about the USA Einstein?

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Oh, right, you have no idea about the Swiss. Okay. You’re just a racist bigot who makes up things about Obama, hates the poor, etc.

  • BD Barney

    Is this what passes for journalism in the UK now?

    • copywriter

      I’m afraid it is. Sad, isn’t it.

    • Roger Hudson

      It’s a book advert.

    • gunnerbear

      It’s an advert for a book!

  • Frank Natoli

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/westgate-mall-attacks-kenya-terror#part-two
    “Officers from Nairobi police’s flying squad arrived at the scene but initially refused to enter. Meanwhile, armed volunteers from a neighbourhood watch scheme run by Kenyan-Indians in the nearby district of Parklands arrived.”
    Wow. Armed civilians. And not in “America is in thrall to a Hollywood fantasy, but with real bullets and actual blood” but in Africa.
    Hey, Martin, I can cure ignorance, but only God can cure stupidity.
    We Americans are always grateful for the push necessary to codify the Second Amendment. Lexington and Concord were, of course, gun control incidents, the Crown attempting and failing to disarm the Colonials. What a shame!

    • Morseman

      Hi Frank, Mr. Natoli:
      How many American gun owners are members of a well-regulated militia?

      • Roger Hudson

        Every american of sound mind should be able to have a muzzle loading musket just like the original militia.

        • Steven Wolf

          The Second Amendment doesn’t talk about muskets, it talks about arms and it applies just as much to modern arms as it does to antiques. After all you wouldn’t say that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the Internet would you?

          • Richard Lutz

            Good point. All able adult citizens of military age are members of the unorganized militia and should obtain the knowledge, training and equipment necessary to be effective soldiers should they need to defend their nation and its liberties from external and internal enemies, and in so doing help to deter tyranny and crimes against humanity.

        • Morseman

          Eggzacktly, with a firing rate of around three balls per minute.
          Try a school massacre with that…

        • SocratesWept

          And any journalist should be able to own a quill pen? Maybe with a license?

      • Steven Wolf

        All of them, according to the Constitution.

      • Frank Natoli

        I second Steve Wolf’s reply.
        Now a question for you. How many American gun owners are members of “the people”?
        As you surely know, the full text of the Amendment, not the fragment you quote, reads “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
        Nobody familiar with the English language and/or the law would suggest that “the people” was meant to imply some state controlled military group.
        Are you familiar with the English language and/or the law?

        • For Whom the Troll Bells

          The writers of getting on for 250 years ago did not always say what they meant or mean what they said and, even we we knew exactly what, it wouldn’t necessarily be appropriate for today. An equally famous phrase in US history is in the one that says “all men are created equal”. It was in a document signed by, amongst others, slave owners. Did the Declaration really mean “all men” or something more like “all men as long as they were property-holding, Protestant, free white males, over the age of 25”. And, if a literal interpretation of things written in those days must be maintained, it rather argues that women are not equal.

          • Frank Natoli

            If American history is so repulsive to you, how did you come to a nom de plume of American Ernest Hemingway’s greatest work? Answer: no one impresses you more than yourself.
            Contrary to your perception, Jefferson and Madison, Declaration and Constitution, took the English language with infinite reverence compared to 99% of those availing themselves of the Declaration and Constitution today.
            They chose their words with the most extreme consideration, and in the case of the Constitution with extended debate, and meant exactly what they wrote. In the present consideration, an armed populace is the most assured protection against the worst of all dangers, a tyrannical government. You choose to render yourself defenseless. Fine. Do not choose for me!

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            I have a deep respect for American history, as I do for English History. My point was that things written 250 years ago may not have had the same meaning then as those same words would mean today. I cited a part of the Declaration as an example of how words, however meticulously chosen, might be given different interpretations at different points in history or when circumstancs change. After all, even the Constitution has required over 25 amendments to keep it fit for purpose.

            I do not seek to choose for you. I assume that you are an American and, if so, you live in a democracy in which you can choose whatever you want if it is lawful. If you or any other Americans, wish to change any law, you exercise your choice through the ballot box. The same is true in the UK. However, it is also open to me or others who share my views to exercise our choices through the ballot box and, if that results in a law that, say, bans all privately owned guns, that is not choosing for you but choosing for me.

          • Frank Natoli

            What the words meant when they were written is well known. Both the Declaration and the Constitution were subject to extensive debate, the records of which are quite clear. The Declaration served as an explanation for the Revolution, and I regard it as one of the finest documents ever prepared by human hand. The Constitution served [also past tense] as the “supreme law of the land”. Knowing that issues would arise in a future that the Founders could not foresee, the Constitution is written with an amendment mechanism, that requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress, followed by 3/4 of state legislatures, to approve. The Founders understood that simple 51/49 majority rule was potentially tyrannical and properly insisted on a super-majority amendment mechanism. Note that the first ten amendments, the “Bill of Rights”, including of course the 2nd, were regarded by most at the Constitutional convention as totally unnecessary, since none of the base Articles gave the federal government any of the powers that the “Bill of Rights” explicitly prohibit.
            However, because there is no super-majority in America to render all law abiding citizens individually defenseless, the Left has simply disregarded the Constitution, via judges appointed by the Left. Almost all the massive legal changes in the last forty years occurred through such a lawless process.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            The thing is, a codified constitution means exactly what it says.

            “Interpretations”, twistings of it, are a major problem with the very concept of the codified constitution.

            You’re complaining about one issue relating to that while supporting arms outside organized militias, another. You’re part of the issue.

          • Frank Natoli

            Like Morseman, you also refuse to define “the people”, as in “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. And you accuse me of “twisting”. What kind of twist converts “the people” to a state controlled military organization?

          • Leon Wolfeson

            You’re refusing to admit the tie to militia, right. And militias don’t need to be state controlled, necessarily.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            No, because the government’s forces would just roll over you.
            As has been shown many times in third world countries.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Like in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan……

          • Leon Wolfeson

            You prove my point.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So you mean that when they said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed they meant:

            The right of all men as long as they were property-holding, Protestant, free white males, over the age of 25 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Well, ask yourself this: did they mean that black men or Native Americans had the right to bear arms?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Why?

        • Morseman

          Hi Frank:
          Yes, English is my first language.
          Like so many American pro-gunners, you conveniently drop the premise of your famous quote:
          “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
          Have a nice day.

          • Frank Natoli

            Your point, thus, in Morseman’s dictionary, is that “the people” means a state controlled military organization?

          • Morseman

            Forget it, Frank. You know very well what I was saying.
            Anyway, it is your country not mine. If Americans want to kill each other with firearms, let them do it.
            (30,000 deaths by firearm a year in the USA)

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, and firearms MURDERS are are around a quarter to a sixth of those in Mexico which has very strict firearms controls.

            And contrary to “liberal” lies, while the US is at the top of the gun ownership league tables, it’s not even at the top of the firearms deaths league tables, coming between 6th and 12th on various examples.

            And it comes below half way down the gun murder league table,

            More interestingly, of the other “Western” countries up at the top of the gun ownership league tables, Israel, Serbia, Switzerland, the first two come around three quarters of the way down the gun ownership league table, and Switzerland is almost at the bottom.

            And for al those concerned about gun “massacres”:

            Canada has much more stringent gun laws, and school shootings, it’s just that the MSM never report them, just as they never report the attempted gun massacres in the states foiled by gun owners.

            The biggest US school massacre in the US had double the fatalities of the biggest school shooting – yes, no guns were involved in the making of the biggest US school massacre!

            That’s if you ignore the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 – neither of which involved guns, and both of which included kindergartens.

            And in in Rwanda, where, despite the country practically falling off the
            bottom of the Guardian’s gun ownership league table they managed to kill 800,000 people in 100 days because they were a related, but different, tribe!!!

            That’s a faster kill rate than the H0locaust!

            Using nothing more lethal than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and
            rusty garden implements, plus the odd lump of wood and a few sharpened
            sticks.

            And if that isn’t enough to dispel the belief that you can’t mass kill without guns (and all the biggest mass killings don’t involve guns – arson, poisonings, pilot suicide-passenger murder, suspected train driver suicide, other vehicle killings…..) the term running “amok” was coined to refer to fairly commonplace knife or machete massacres!

          • Morseman

            People determined to commit suicide will always find a method.
            A handgun on your lap, however, while you reflect on what has gone wrong in life, is a quick way to end it all when really it might just have been a black mood that will pass.
            As I wrote, however, it is an American issue; if they want 30,000 firearms deaths a year of their own people, what should we foreigners do except feel sad at the waste of human life?

          • Mr B J Mann

            So you agree then that calls for assisted suicide in the UK should be dismissed out of hand and suicide should be banned to protect us from death, unintended injury and general sadness?!

          • Morseman

            Have a nice day.
            Good bye.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, when “liberals” are shown the unintended consequences of their ill thought out emotive beliefs the have to retreat to the nearest safe space.

            And it’s all my fault:

            I never gave a trigger warning!

          • PaulUK2901

            You’re an idiot.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I see that you’re so anti weapon you don’t even have a rapier wit to defend yourself with!

          • PaulUK2901

            Whatever? You’re still an idiot.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ah, I see that that’s the sum total of your “contribution”!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Don’t worry, Ms. Mann will be accusing you of being her alternate personality “Noel nosefloW” soon, by her record.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            No, you just shoot, right.

            As you whine about the liberals in your head, and wonder why people don’t want to be around your gun-waving…

          • mohdanga

            According to the 2013 CDC mortality tables, 21,175 Americans (51.45%) committed suicide using a firearm, 19,974 (48.54%)
            did not. Of the approximately 16,000 homicides, 11,000 were with guns, and of these, about 6,500 were black murders (almost exclusively by other blacks) which equates to a murder rate of about 15/100K, vs the white murders of about 2,700 or a rate of about 1.5/100K, or 1/10th of that of blacks. So the problem is mainly blacks killing blacks with a gun at a rate of 10x that of whites and people choosing a gun instead of some other method to commit suicide.
            But, as we know, the problem is really redneck Americans toting guns around and shooting each other up in the streets.

          • Morseman

            Thanks for the info. It is a tragic waste of human life, but apparently part of the American culture.

          • Morseman

            Some time ago a young doctor on German TV had just returned from a year working in a New England hospital ER.
            He said the Blacks shoot each other, the Hispanics knife each other, and the Whites beat each other up.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You’re overturning your own argument.

            It says that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,….”

            And: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

            But if you’re saying that “there are no militias any more” then that’s even more reason to ensure that right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            Especially as the reason why they though that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” was to protect the people from:

            “their function having been assumed by the National Guard” or some other government controlled body!

        • colchar

          You clearly aren’t familiar with the English language as is demonstrated by you completely ignoring the totality of that sentence while focusing on a single clause within that sentence. There is the American education system at work again.

          • Frank Natoli

            There is the American education system at work again.
            That’s right. Eight years of the Sisters of St. Joseph. Four years of the Jesuits. Four years in an engineering university. As a consequence, I conclude that “the people” includes me.
            And your CV? What educational system led you to understand that “the people” means a state controlled military organization?

          • Leon Wolfeson

            And which organized militia?

        • Leon Wolfeson

          You also used a fragment.

      • Mr B J Mann

        It doesn’t say anyone has to be a member.

        Just that as they are necessary, no one should be deprived of the right to bear arms.

  • Andrew Breckill

    How are they fantasists?, the guns are there, they are real, and they can buy them.

  • Rorschach

    There’s one thing to have a gun for self defence or hunting, but do some of these American’s build up a huge stockpile of weapons and ammunition? That goes well beyond so called “gun rights”.

    • Steven Wolf

      “It’s okay for one guy to have one or two cars for commuting or leisure, but the guy with the 100 car collection is definitely a weirdo and needs to be sectioned”. See what I did there?

    • Richard Lutz

      Good point. I am also concerned about the stockpiles of vehicles like cars that can be turned into massive mobile bombs are simply driven into crowds at high speed. How many people living in towns or cities need anything more than public transport, bicycles, scooters, or speed limited electric golf carts with massive foam bumpers on them to protect children. Sadly some people love their high speed killing machines more than they love children.

    • SocratesWept

      Different guns are for different uses.
      Why does it matter how many people have – you can only shoot one or two at a time anyway.

  • IainRMuir

    How many guns originally bought out of a high principled belief in self defence have ended up in the wrong hands, adding to the problem which created the need for self defence in the first place?

    And self defence doesn’t explain the need to have a gun which looks like a military assault rifle.

    Say what you like, a lot of people are ending up dead.

    • Steven Wolf

      To me it just looks like a modern sporting rifle. Technology moves with the times, so I want a modern looking rifle, not one that was made in the 1920s. It is cheaper, more effective for hunting, self-defense and target shooting.

    • Owen_Morgan

      And how many incredibly ignorant comments have been made, by idiots with no grasp of the facts? Well, yours, for starters. Hardly any gun crime in America is committed with legally held weapons. Most gun crimes in the US, in the likes of Detroit, Baltimore, New York (since Cretin deBlasio re-ruined it) and, of course, Obama’s sacred hellhole of Chicago, are committed in places which supposedly have the toughest anti-gun laws. Where it’s legal to own a gun, gun crime is rare.

      • For Whom the Troll Bells

        Where are all these factories producing and selling illegal guns? Almost every illegal gun started life as a legal one. More legal guns results in more illegal guns.

        • Richard Lutz

          You might like to Google “illegal gun factories”. Guns are illegally manufactured in many nations where the legal supply of guns is restricted or ownership made very expensive.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Yes, there are illegal gun manufacturers but you know as well as me that they produce in very small numbers and that the vast majority of illegal guns in the USA were from reputable mass-production companies like Colt, Smith & Wesson and Ruger. Even Saturday Night Specials are, for the most part, from legal companies like Raven.

          • Owen_Morgan

            Well, I point you back to the example of North Korea… Or Pakistan… Or Iran. Not “very small numbers” at all, in fact, but don’t let mere facts get in the way of your fantasy, will you?

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            What example of North Korea? Are you seriously saying that in North Korea – probably the most brutally and ruthlessly controlled nation on the planet – there are illegal arms factories churning out guns to be sold to criminals at home or somehow exported across rigorously patrolled land or sea borders to foreign criminals? Now that really would be fantasy? If you don’t accept “very small numbers” then give an estimate as to what you think the numbers are – 10,000, 100,00, a million? Anything to a couple of orders of magnitude will do.

          • 100

            But then what is the solution? They exist already. New gun legislation proposed on what seems to be a daily basis by the leftists in Washington would only disarm law-abiding citizens. I greatly doubt the criminals will be lining up at police precincts to turn in their weapons.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Frankly, in the case of the US, I don’t think that there is a solution. The national obsession with guns and shooting is so deep that it would take generations to overcome. The best hope is that gun laws and gun control will be incrementally tightened up, and that incremental steps will be taken to make the case for this through education and public information avenues. As for the rest of the Western world, for the most part, it already has introduced laws and law enforcement measures that greatly reduce the problem. That is why, for example, gun crime and gun suicides in Europe are so much less than in the USA; and the figures really are horrifying. What must be resisted are the Pavlovian responses from gun protagonists every time the words “gun control” are uttered.

          • 100

            “Frankly, in the case of the US, I don’t think that there is a solution. The national obsession with guns and shooting is so deep that it would take generations to overcome.[…] That is why, for example, gun crime and gun suicides in Europe are so much less than in the USA; and the figures really are horrifying. What must be resisted are the Pavlovian responses from gun protagonists every time the words “gun control” are uttered.”

            I think the most annoying thing about this argument from Europeans and Canadians is that they haven’t a CLUE how much of an apples/oranges comparison it is. It’s quite easy to pull up numbers on the internet and make these great leaps, then pontificate about Americans and their irrational “obsession” with guns, while being so far removed from the subculture within the black community from which these problems arise; problems that are entirely unique to our country and unfortunately result in gun crime statistics that are grossly disproportional to those of other countries. But it is for exactly THIS reason that we strongly protect – and will never budge – on our 2nd amendment rights.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Leaving aside gun crime for one moment, the gun suicide rate in the USA is over 40 times bigger than the UK; over 500 Americans die every year in gun accidents – there are almost none in the UK. You can’t blame all the gun problems of the USA on a black subculture.

          • 100

            Yet the overall suicide rate is right on par with the UK and other western European nations, with France being slightly higher. So obviously, people who wish to end their lives are still managing to find ways to do this even with self-inflicted gunshot wounds being off the table. And I don’t intend to sound dismissive about those 500 people each year, but really, I’m sure we could find examples of things that are specific to the UK which kill a proportionate number of citizens annually.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Wikipedia lists the most recently available WHO figures. This list gives the overall suicide rate per 100,000 people for the US as 12.1 and the UK rate at 6.2. Wikipedia has another list that shows the UK and US figures as being quite close although the US figure is still higher. Both lists show France with a figure higher than the US’s – if not for the underlying seriousness of the topic, this might be something to make a joke about. Interesting figures and food for thought!

          • Mr B J Mann

            That’s because even a member of the UK Olympic Pistol Target Shooting Team couldn’t deliberately commit suicide in the UK with their pistol, never mind shoot themselves accidentally.

            So what does your “point” prove?!

          • mohdanga

            500 out of a population of 320 million. Thirty thousand are killed in falls down stairs. Ban stairs!

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            I don’t think that’s quite right, mohdanga. The Center for Disease Control figures show that for 2013, there were just over 30,000 deaths from falls, but this is all falls, not just down stairs, and would have included falls in the home (other than on stairs, from ladders, from buildings, while rock climbing etc. Nevertheless, I take your point. It reminds me of a time about 30 years ago when I was working in the US and an office colleague (an American) made the comment: “they fed 50 rats an aspirin-based diet for a year and 15 of them died. In the same period, 30,000 Americans were killed by other Americans using guns. Guess which one they banned?”

            He went to West Virginia University and said that when cars crossed the border into West Virginia, the police would stop them an ask if they had any guns. If they didn’t, the police would issue them.

            Whatever ones views about guns, they can still be a source of amusing tales.

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, they’re not.

            Comparable areas in Europe and the US are, er, comparable.

            (And comparable areas in the US and, er, Africa, South America, the Caribbean are, errrrr, also comparable, but just saying that would make a “liberal” swoon!)

          • Owen_Morgan

            As long ago as 1980, North Korea was exporting its brutality to Zimbabwe. I imagine you’re on Mugabe’s Christmas Card list, but civilised people consider him a bit monstrous, actually. If you’re ever invited to a dinner party, you may want to bear that in mind.

            Anyway, when the North Koreans turned up to “train” Mugabe’s 5th Brigade, I don’t think they were handing out bamboo sticks. North Korea has been very keen on distributing firearms into the wider world. It has always been desperate for currency and exporting Russian-designed guns is just about the only thing it can do, apart from sharing nuclear secrets with Iran.

            You’ll probably be denying that, too, until the nanosecond before you’re –

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            North Korea and Zimbabwe have unpleasant regimes but both countries are members of the United Nations and are fully entitled to have their own military and arm it. All that is perfectly legal. They are also entitled to manufacture their own weapons or, if they cannot, purchase them from other countries. Again, all perfectly legal. They are, additionally, fully entitled to enter into arrangements with other countries to give or receive training, or to give or receive arms. You may not like it but it is not illegal.

          • Owen_Morgan

            If ever I want to communicate with an dictionary-definition cretin, I’ll remember to look out for you. In the meantime, I really can’t be bothered.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Thanks for that, Owen, I last heard that particular insult when I was at primary school many decades ago. It brought back some happy memories and it’s good to know that it has been recycled in today’s schools.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’ve never been in the military, nor to the States, but the “Kalashnikov I’ve fired was probably made in Pakistan, and the “Uzi” in China!

            (Note, I don’t shoot, never mind own guns, I only shot them because they were there!)

          • Captain Dryland

            I imagine that manufacturing a gun is something any averagely skilled engineer or workshop mechanic can do quite easily. A gun is nothing but a strong tube with one end blocked off, and some mechanism to admit a cartridge, and some mechanism to hit the detonator with a pin. If one is not concerned about slickness and speed of operation, or great accuracy, it must be possible to knock out a crude gun in a few hours given access to standard workshop equipment.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            You are right, but, as you say, it would be crude and inaccurate, and would additionally have a low rate of fire, be unreliable and unsafe. Also, a workshop mechanic’s production rate would be low, the risk of detection would be high and the penalties severe. But there’s always someone from the lowest end of the market and always someone to cater to it. I have no doubt that such illegal weapons are in circulation but they are a very small proportion of the total.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Alternatively if you could get hold of some mid to late 19th Century equipment you could knock out anything from a revolver to a machine gun!

          • Hagen vanTronje

            Quite correct,! during WW2 you could turn out Sten guns for seven shillings and sixpence apiece because they were ridiculously easy to make.

        • Owen_Morgan

          The world is awash with illegal guns. Do you think the Mexican drug cartels diligently fill out forms when they take delivery of guns from Venezuela, or Cuba, or Barack Obama? The only guns among those which came from legitimate gun-dealers were the ones which Obama’s administration pressurised Arizona dealers into selling, which would not, otherwise, have made it into Mexican hands. In “Fast and Furious”, the legal gun-dealers were the ones who drew attention to the illegality of the US government.

          There was a rapid rise in gun crime in Britain, after the Warsaw Pact fell apart. Had the gun laws in Britain suddenly become less strict? Errmm, no. There were just an awful lot of guns available from Central and Eastern Europe. You could never legally buy a handgun that was Hungarian Army surplus, although I recall that you could legally buy a T55 tank, but I’m pretty sure rather more ex-Warsaw Pact semi-automatics than AFVs got into circulation on the streets of Liverpool and Birmingham.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            The point i was making and that you have actually supported is that almost all guns were, in the first place, made and sold legally by reputable firearms manufacturers. They were purchased quite legally in the main by police forces, the military of licenced gun dealers. They then sold them, again quite legally in the main, and thereafter, the further down the supply chain, the more likely it is for a weapons to become illegal through being sold illegally or from being lost or stolen.

            Those guns that were surplus to Warsaw Pact forces were not made and supplied illegally to those forces, nor was the T55 tank unless you think that there are backstreet tank manufacturing factories. I have little doubt that many surplus weapons were sold off either illegally or in deals of questionable legality but the weapons were not illegal until that point.

            The worls, is indeed awash with illegal guns but the vast majority started life as legal weapons – a point that seems to escape most gun protagonists. There are, of course, illegal gun manufacturers around the world but their output is very small in comparison to that of Colt, Smith & Wesson or Ruger. Even the infamous Saturday Night Special is mostly from a legal manufacturer like Raven, even if their product is poorly made and not always that safe.

            As I said, the more legal guns, the more illegal ones.

          • Owen_Morgan

            I couldn’t be bothered to finish your twaddle. There are vast numbers of guns which have never been near a reputable gun-dealer. North Korea has one of the biggest armies in the world, with at least one AK-47 for each of its personnel. Do you think North Korea is a legitimate purchaser, or that its military acquires its hardware from law-abiding dealers?

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            The North Korean Army gets its guns from Government controlled arms factories in the country or purchases them from countries like China which have their own Government controlled factories.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Just like Africa.

            Whereas the Middle East gets their illegal guns from the US government!

          • colchar

            Dafuq does North Korea have to do with a discussion of gun ownership and gun crime in the US?

          • Owen_Morgan

            Legally owned guns in the US are nearly all made there, but illegal guns come from all over the world, including places like North Korea and Venezuela and Pakistan. The Mexican cartels import very cheap guns from plenty of different sources. Do you seriously imagine the Mexicans politely leave their guns behind, when they illegally cross the border?

          • IainRMuir

            “The point I was making and that you have actually supported is that
            almost all guns were, in the first place, made and sold legally by
            reputable firearms manufacturers”

            Exactly.

          • Owen_Morgan

            Well, that is slippery, isn’t it? Your definition of a “firearms manufacturer” and your definition of a “reputable firearms manufacturer” would, in fact, be the same, because it suits you to pretend that there can’t, in fact, be anything such as a legal gun dealer.

            Drug gangs in Los Angeles and New York – they can have guns. Islamic terrorists in Paris (are you really stupid enough to believe that those guns were obtained legally?) and San Bernardino get to have guns, too. I suppose you think that, if the occasional Parisian had had access to a firearm, the November killings would have been even worse, with some of the killers actually being killed, on top of the actual death toll. Has it occurred to you that armed Parisians might have stopped the terrorists in their tracks?

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            If you stopped ranting for a bit and started reading and, more importantly, understanding what others write, you would know that it was me that wrote about reputable firearms manufacturers, not IainRMuir. You seem to be either stupid or are willfully disingenous. I have never said or even implied that there can’t be anything such as a legal gun dealer. In fact, if you read my posts, You will see that, in one of them, I wrote “guns were, in the first place, made and sold legally by reputable firearms manufacturers. They were purchased quite legally in the main by police forces, the military or licenced gun dealers. They then sold them, again quite legally in the main, and thereafter, the further down the supply chain” . How on Earth do you interpret that as saying that the can’t be anything such as a legal gun dealer when I have actually said quite the reverse.

            in other posts, I have explained why Parisian citizens carrying guns would probably have resulted inmeven more casualties than occurred , and I have explained whu guns almost invariably start life as legal one; the fact that they might become illegal at some point doesn’t alter that.

            Now here’s something that all you brave, gun-carrying, macho fantasists might want to fhink about when you claim that you or other like-minded individuals would have stopped hostage or terrorist incidents like the Paris one. One of the big advantages, at least in most Western countries, that police and special forces have if they have to intervene with deadly force in a terrorist or hostage situation is the almost certain knowledge that anyone carrying a gun will be a perpetrator. Well done, you fantasists, you are now a target!

          • Mr B J Mann

            “in other posts, I have explained why Parisian citizens carrying guns would probably have resulted in even more casualties than occurred”

            Remind us?

            “One of the big advantages, at least in most Western countries, that police and special forces have if they have to intervene with deadly force in a terrorist or hostage situation is the almost certain knowledge that anyone carrying a gun will be a perpetrator. Well done, you fantasists, you are now a target!”

            Errrmmmm, no:

            One of the big advantages, at least in most Western countries, that criminals and terrorist forces have if they have to attack with deadly force gun free zones in a terrorist or hostage situation is the almost certain knowledge that anyone carrying a gun will be a perpetrator and that all law abiding citizens would have had to check in their weapons or leave them behind.

            Well done, you gun free zone fantasists, you are now a target!

            And note that even the shootings at “military” establishments were in gun free zones!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ahhhh, you’re saying there’s no point in gun laws because the world is already awash with illegal legally made guns!

            However, if you’re saying that if we ban legal manufacture then the illegal production won’t be that large, you’d be wrong.

            The reason there isn’t that much illegal manufacture is because the world is swamped with mass legally produced dirt cheap guns.

            If the market for illegally manufactured illegal guns opened up, then they would be mass produced (and come down in price) too!

            It’s called capitalism.

            Or do you propose banning that too?!

        • Mr B J Mann

          Yes, ALMOST every illegal gun started life as a legal one, owned by Messers Smith and Wesson, or Mr Kalashnikov.

          Then the American government buys crateloads of them.

          Then they parachute them to IS!S!

          And all of a sudden they are in criminal hands!

          But, guess what, people managed to make, not just revolvers and carbines, but automatic pistols and machine guns (proper ones, not self loading scarily so called “assault weapons” – why do the liberals need to do that?!) with the primitive machine tools of a century and a half ago, or more.

          Most competent engineering apprentices should be able to knock up a firearm given the plans.

          And housewives used to churn out sten guns on their kitchen tables in WW2!

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            80% of guns circulating in the US are manufactured by US factories and many of the rest are imported but were made by other factories in various countries. Very few are home-made. US Bureau of Justice figures.

            “And housewives used to churn out sten guns on their kitchen tables in WW2!”. What utter nonsence that shows just how little you know about firearms. I remember well the Sten gun – it was one of the first of many firearms that I was taught in a professional capacity to examine, service, repair and fire. It was simple, but to imagine that household kitchens have the lathes, milling machines, precision drills, jigs, Parkerising baths, heat treatment facilities, welding kit and gauges to make even basic Sten guns is ludicrous. Sure, some Resistance units had factories that manufactured crude versions of Sten guns but this was only a few hundred and they were of a standard that only the most desperate of organisations would accept.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Are you being deliberately obtuse?

            Or just trolling for the fun of it!

            There are millions of legal guns, plus illegal ones, from whatever legal or illegal source, already, in the States.

            And there are billions of legal guns, plus illegal ones, from whatever legal or illegal source, already, in the rest of the world.

            And even if you could magic all the guns in the US away, those that don’t obey the law could “magic” billions more in from the rest of the word.

            And even if you could magic all the guns in the world away, you could still MAKE some.

            And even if they aren’t as good as modern factory made ones, so what, if you only have a kitchen knife to defend against it?!

            And if there are no factory made, dirt cheap, alternatives available:

            The illegally made ones will get better, just as the ones made now are better than those of 200 years ago.

            And as for the rest of your uttter nonsense, we had lathes, milling machines, precision drills, jigs,
            heat treatment facilities, welding kit and gauges to make even basic
            Sten guns in my school metalwork shop.

            Admittedly, no Parkerising baths: we just blued things.

            But, no doubt, we could have got what we needed to Parkerise from the Chemistry lab!

            And that was in a Grammar School, not a Secondary Modern geared up for trade skills!

            And round our way we used to have a “model railway” club:

            That made fully working scale models of locomotives, accurate to the last tiny nut and bolt, in their garden sheds!

            Are you seriously telling me they couldn’t produce the techy bits for their wives to knock together into Sten guns (or better) on the kitchen table?!

            Though, admittedly, the product of modern Comprehensives, more used to heating and bending bits of plastic into CD / letter stands, might struggle to even make a pea shooter out of a Bic Biro!

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Not being obtuse, deliberately of otherwise and not trolling – simply reading your posts and addressing points raised. You didn’t need a rant to prove your ignorance about firearms or, indeed, machanical engineering. Your points are all over the place in your most recent response to me but I will address a few of them.

            I said that it was ludicrous to suggest that Sten guns were churned out by housewives on kitchen tables, because it would require equipment and tools that kitchens do not have. You say that that that was nonsense because such tools and equipment was in your school metalwork shop!

            Just look up what Parkerising is and, if you think that schools, even grammar schools, are likely to have the equipment to do it, then you truly are deluded.

            If you equate the making of model trains in a garden shed to the manufacture, let alone mass production, of even a simple firearm to be used by British or Allied forces, then there is no point in going any further with you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Distracting from the issues again.

            And if you think that manufacturing in minature an entire, fully working, exact scale model of not just an 1800s loco, but the most modern ones, is simpler and easier than knocking off a Kalashknockoff never mind a revolver, then yes, there is no point in going any further with me.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            You’re arguing with Ms. Mann, whose idea of arguments is to start accusing you of being her alternate personality, “Noel nosefloW”.

            You’re quite right, of course, and it was an issue.

            In some areas it was worked-round – the wooden mosquito aircraft got many carpenters otherwise unable to directly contribute to the war efforts into it*, but for guns…no.

            (*I knew one of them, a friend of my parents)

      • colchar

        Where it is legal to own a gun crime is rare? Your ignorance is astounding, truly astounding.

        • Owen_Morgan

          Crime is much rarer in States where gun ownership is legal than in those where it isn’t. There are hundreds of shootings every year in Chicago and Baltimore, for instance, places where it is supposed to be basically impossible to own a gun. Washington DC has been “gun-free” since forever, but, throughout the time of the Northern Irish Troubles, Washington’s killing-rate was higher than that of Northern Ireland.

        • Mr B J Mann

          US, top of the gun ownership league table, and despite the special problems it has it is STILL BELOW half way down the gun murder league table.

          Of the other Western countries at the top of the gun possession league table Serbia and Israel come three quarters of the way down, and Switzerland is near the bottom!

          By the way, the biggest US school massacre in the US had double the fatalities of the biggest school shooting – yes, no guns were involved in the making of the biggest US school massacre!

          That’s if you ignore the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 – neither of which involved guns, and both of which included kindergartens.

          And in in Rwanda, where, despite the country practically falling off the
          bottom of the Guardian’s gun ownership league table they managed to kill
          800,000 people in 100 days because they were a related, but different,
          tribe!!!

          That’s a faster kill rate than the H0locaust!

          Using nothing more lethal than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and
          rusty garden implements, plus the odd lump of wood and a few sharpened
          sticks.

          And if that isn’t enough to dispel the belief that you can’t mass kill without guns (and all the biggest mass killings don’t involve guns – arson, poisonings, pilot suicide-passenger murder, suspected train driver suicide, other vehicle killings…..) the term running “amok” was coined to refer to fairly commonplace knife or machete massacres in “gun free” countries!

    • Frank Natoli

      One can disarm law abiding citizens and render them defenseless. This is what Britain has democratically chosen to do.
      But one cannot disarm criminals. Mass murders all over the globe, most horrifically in Paris, are a direct consequence.
      Your papers are full of stories of individuals being cautioned by police for merely yelling at yobs who the police refuse to exercise any control over whatsoever.
      This is what you prefer, and this is what you get. Most of us prefer to be capable of self defense. Those who do not, live in Democrat controlled cities where they are defenseless and have to turn their homes into prisons, often with barred ground floor windows, always with the best locks.

      • IainRMuir

        “This is what Britain has democratically chosen to do.”

        Yes, and we have democratically decided to have fewer shootings than you do. Legal guns have a habit of becoming illegal further down the line. That is the point you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

        France has more shootings because it has more guns.

        Grow up.

        • Mary Ann

          You are about 5 times as likely to die from gunshot wounds in the US than you are in Europe and more than ten times than Britain.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

          • 100

            The country is much bigger, you know. It very much depends upon WHERE you live in the US.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And that is a:

            list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population in one year.

            It should be noted that the following list includes suicides, accidental fatalities, and justifiable homicides.

            Now find me a sortable list of firearm-related criminal homicide figures.

            That includes all 200 plus countries.

          • Pioneer

            Those figures are meaningless.

            To give you a clue, almost 2/3 gun deaths in America are suicides.

            Canada has similar suicide rate, though mostly other methods are used there.

            Some places in America are violent, others are not.

            Example, Plano Texas (Republican) is absolutley bristling with guns yet the rate is 0.4 per 100,000. – a lot less than the UK.

            Compare to :

            Detroit (Democrat) with strict gun controls. 54.6 per 100,00.

            Black Americans commit almost 50% of the gun murders, yet are only 13% of the population.

            Can you figure out why? Here’s a clue – the Democrat plantation.

            Victimhood, grievance mongering, hopelesseness, welfare dependency,race hustlers – all created and encouraged by the Democrats.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Just over a century ago the UK had absolutely no gun controls, widespread gun ownership, and almost no gun killings. Now it has lots despite a ban on handguns and very strict controls on rifles and shotguns.

          And the US has had more gun crime when it had less gun control and less gun crime when it had more gun control.

          And it has more gun crime where it had less gun control and less gun crime where it has more gun control.

          Those are the points you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

          Grow up.

        • Pioneer

          You are correct, it is criminals who kill people. Almost always with illegally obtained guns.

          There are well over 300m guns in America – impossible to gather those in now. Also the borders are porous and guns can be obtained very easily from Mexican smugglers.

          Gun controls on legal owners will not reduce gun homicides. Making it difficult for law abiding citizens will put them in more danger.

          That is apart from the fact it is fundamental that citizens can carry arms – the primary purpose being to defend themselves against a tyrannical overreaching government.

    • Richard Lutz

      Good point. Guns need to be securely stored and the criminals who misuse them given very long sentences for doing so (rarely the case as many politicians want to disarm the general population, not stop criminals misusing guns). Pray tell what difference does it make what a gun looks like? Military guns tend to be more reliable and robust than sporting guns which is why they are better for defensive use.

      • Mr B J Mann

        Also, as they are mass produced out of cheap materials rather than hand-crafted antique looking things they are affordably by more than the huntin and shootin set.

    • SocratesWept

      Why does it matter what it looks like?

      • Mr B J Mann

        It matters because military style weapons are mass produced out of cheap materials for the military, or on the same pattern as, military weapons, rather than hand-crafted antique looking things they are affordable to the masses.

        Also, if they look like automatic-fire military assault-rifles even though they are single-shot self-loading rifles and in some countries only have a single feature that looks like one, the “liberals” can demonise them as “ASSAULT!!!!! WEAPONS!!!!!!!!! and demand they be banned!!!!!

    • mohdanga

      Mostly young blacks, according to gov’t statistics, but it’s ‘racist’ to say so, so nothing is ever done.

  • Steven Wolf

    The Shot Show looks amazing, I would love to go one day. Here a Brit who supports firearms ownership and self-defense(even though in the UK we can’t have anything for self-defense).

    • For Whom the Troll Bells

      How about a bit of defence of the English language?

    • Leon Wolfeson

      Incorrect. Perfectly possible in Northern Ireland.

      Where there isn’t America’s gun issues.

  • Tickertapeguy

    Thank God for the 2nd amendment to the US constitution that gives the right for private citizens to own guns

    Those who advocate gun control or the elimination of guns held by private citizens should consider this:
    -During the 1940’s Berlin banned the right of private citizens to own guns. It made it easier to herd millions to death camps. The exception being the Warsaw Ghetto uprising where smuggled guns kept the Gestapo at arms length for months

    -Every time advocates against the 2nd amendment speak up they point to Europe, but only during peace times and not when Paris is attacked by terrorists.

    -Advocates against the right of private citizens to own guns have no problem in arming private citizens of other nations who are fighting their government as in Syria, nor do they apply this issue to themselves. Government officials have the luxury of armed security guards while the rest of use have to fend for ourselves.

    • Mary Ann

      How many people are shot in the US every year?

      • 100

        Many of those are in self-defense. As Paris learned painfully last year, the criminals intent on violence will get their guns regardless.

      • Tickertapeguy

        I googled “death by Guns” and got this from the Guardian.

        “The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world – an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership – and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer – 54.8 per 100 people

        • But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate – that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people

        • Puerto Rico tops the world’s table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides – 94.8%. It’s followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean”

        • For Whom the Troll Bells

          If you are going to make comparisons, you should make them as near as possible to like-for-like, or the comparisons have no relevance.

          • Tickertapeguy

            Mary’s question was “How many people are shot in the US every year?” If she intended for me to obediently tell her what she already knew she had another thing coming. No I will give her a response befitting her question.

          • 100

            Then why do you all make comparisons with European countries? Last I checked, there wasn’t any significant number of 3rd or 4th generation black Americans residing in the UK, but I’d love to see what happened to your crime stats if you tried it out for a while.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            We make comparisons with European countries, and Australia, Canada and New Zealand because we share with the USA a legal system derived from English common law; have democratic institutions; an established rule of law, efficient and incorrupt police forces and judiciary; independent newspapers and other media; good education systems; mostly white populations; and religions that have long been central to their history and culture.

            On the issue of gun control, comparing the USA or, indeed, western countries with lawless, poverty-stricken, third world countries with corrupt institutions; riven with tribal, ethnic or religious conflict, and with no tradition of a democratic rule of law will certainly result in some bizarre figures which, if carefully selected, might show just about anything.

          • 100

            Well I suppose I will come back and resume this discussion in a couple of years then, once your point about “mostly white populations” can be debunked. Speaking of, did you know we’re only 62.8% now? In both 2014 and 2015, the majority of babies born were Hispanic.

            Not at all relevant to the topic at hand, of course. Just felt like lamenting.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            I was not aware that the US figure was 62.8% but I am not surprised at it – based on my own observations while travelling in the US, I would have guessed at something like that.

            Ref your last point, if only it was that Europe just had borders that were unprotected – we’ve got leaders that invite people to join us en masse. It’s as though the doors of Fort Knox were not just left open but were covered in signs saying “please help yourself – empty trucks with drivers available on request”.

          • 100

            No we certainly have that problem, as well…at least at present, and for the last 7 years. The Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case, as we speak, concerning Obama’s recent executive order – and last-ditch effort before leaving town – to shield 5 million illegals from deportation who are parents of citizens (anchor-babies) or lawful permanent residents. Thankfully this was challenged by Texas, in concert with 25 other states, and has been blocked by lower courts. Here’s hoping at least one of his many unconstitutional actions will finally be overturned.

          • And when fire arms were common in the United Kingdom) (and they were very common indeed and totally legal) the murder rate was no higher than it is now – in fact it was lower.

            Ditto Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Guns were, indeed, more common in the UK 50 years ago or more but I doubt that they were “very common”. In any case, other factors were at play that flaw any attempt to draw the conclusion that you have. Firstly, most men were of generations that had served in the Armed Forces, had seen the horrors of gun violence and had been inculcated with discipline and self control. Secondly, there was much more respect for law and order in days gone past. Thirdly, communities were much more cohesive than those of today, felt that illegal gun use was detrimental to the good of the community and would “discourage” it. Fourthly, gun licences were needed and these were not cheap or easy to get, and drew the attention of the police – many illegal weapons were kept in drawers, never to be mentioned far less taken out and used. Finally, there is no tradition of gun use for crime in the UK and never has been in any serious sense. I have omitted that fact that the death sentence, almost certain in the case of a shooting death, may have been an enormous deterrent to carrying a gun to commit a crime, but I am not myself certain about this.

          • Mr B J Mann

            He didn’t say 50 years ago, he said when they were very common (and totally legal).

            Which was a century ago.

            When they were very, very common.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            And I said “50 years ago or more” – a century ago was, the last time I investigated, more than 50 years. I said “50 years or more” because, firstly, the 1966 Firerams Act was the most stringent law for gun control ever passed and resulted in a large reduction in the number of weapons circulating and, secondly, until then, there were a number of firearms brought back as “souvenirs” by Servicemen.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Feel free to continue avoiding the points and distracting from the issues.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So how come the r-ape figures in places like Rotherham have skyrocketed?

            And in Sweden?

            Is it cos we are no longer European?!

            And does the US have mostly white populations?

            Perhaps you should separate out the areas of the US that doesn’t have “mostly white populations” and see if your comparison holds up better or worse.

            If you want to do it scientifically, of course.

            Or on the issue of gun control, do you prefer comparing the UK and Europe with the areas of the USA that don’t have mostly white populations and, indeed, are pretty much lawless, poverty-stricken, effectively third world countries, with corrupt institutions; riven with tribal, ethnic or gang conflict,
            and with no tradition of a democratic rule of law because they will certainly result in some bizarre figures which, if carefully selected, might show just about anything you “liberals” want.

          • How about towns on the Mexican-Texan border – equally hispanic on both sides.

            The murder rate on the noble Gun Control Mexican side of town is always many times higher than on the evil Texas Gun Rights side of town.

            In the United States itself – gun control areas always have higher murder rates than gun rights areas.

          • For Whom the Troll Bells

            Gun control requires not only robust laws but an efficient, effective and incorrupt police and judiciary to enforce them. I honestly do not know what the Mexican authorities are like but, unless they are up to the same standard as those in the US, the figures do not show anything to support your argument.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So would you prefer Switzerland, Serbia and Israel, which are the other countries at the top of the “Western” countries gun ownership league tables?

            Two of them are three quarters of the way down the gun murder league table.

            Switzerland near the bottom.

            Oh, and the US is below half way on the UN listing I saw (unfortunately I’ve lost the link – feel free to find it yourself!).

            Oh, and the Yemen ownership figure is a wild guestimate and could be half the Guardian figure (or 50% higher!).

        • hugh_36

          Comparing small Caribbean islands with a country which proports to be a first world democracy and a population of 300m is wrong. Compare the USA with Europe, Australia or even Canada and see how it stands up. However at the end of the day it is the choice of the US as a democracy and deaths at a rate which appear insane to the rest of the world are simply the price of being an American. Whether the parents of the kids who are alive today but will be dead by next weekend in meaningless gun accidents will think that is a moot point.

          • Tickertapeguy

            um. not comparing. just pointing out.
            the “PetroCarrib” is now gone. the effect will be millions more illegal aliens pouring into the US. In a way it does effect us directly
            Yes the massive US economy and our stimulus packages to bail out failing banks including “lehman” brothers and Madoff are now being done by China
            China’s major banks are bl**ding profusely as money flows outside. Beijing is trying to shore it up by pumping in billions of dollars of her reserves and they still are losing
            Same with Europe where her banks admitted to 1 trillion dollars of bad loans about a week ago and they continue to rise.
            Mid East lost a lot on the stock exchange and her banks are also losing a lot.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Why?

            Compare it with Russia, which is the nearest in size, population, technology, and political status.

            I think you’ll find (if you can find the figures) that they have fewer guns, and more murders.

            There is NOWHERE in Europe, Australia or even Canada to compare with the gun capitals of the US (not yet, anyway).

            So feel free to remove those areas from the equation and recalculate.

            Or, if that’s a bit too illiberal for you:

            Add in a sprinkling of small Caribbean islands with Europe, Australia or even Canada and see how it stands up!

          • Pioneer

            Death rate is misleading you. It includes suicides. Look at the homicide rate.

      • Many “Gun Control” nations have a much higher murder rate than the United States does. And in the United States itself the high murder rate areas tend to be “Gun Control” areas – such as Mr Obama’s beloved Chicago.

        • hugh_36

          I’m afraid you are deluding yourself. Compared to any other western democracy firearms deaths in the US are off the scale. The USA will never change though, guns are too linked to the self image of the country, so deaths in the thousands is simply a price most Americans are prepared to pay.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Compared to any other western democracy firearms deaths by blacks and hispanics in the US are probably even more off the scale.

            Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

            Shouldn’t you liberals be banning them first:

            After all, if it saves just one life!!!

            Won’t you think of the children?!?!?!

      • Mr B J Mann

        How many were, literally, butchered in Rwanda in one hundred days?!

      • Pioneer

        FBI figures for 2011 reveal 8,167 gun homicides.

        Of those, about 8% were legal gun owners. Not much different from the number killed by fists, and a fraction of those killed by knife.

        The proposed “gun control” measures can only apply to legal gun owners, of course.

        Obama and Clinton are spreading their usual falsehoods.

    • colchar

      You think the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising lasted months? Real resistance lasted for nine days. Nice to see that the American education system is doing such a stellar job.

      • Tickertapeguy

        To quote the Wiki (which is a product of the US, along with this internet you are using)

        “The uprising started on 19 April when the Ghetto refused to surrender to the police commander SS-Brigadeführer Jürgen Stroop, who then ordered the burning of the Ghetto, block by block, ending on 16 May.”

        So you are wrong. I maybe incorrect as to the length of time but I am not in regards to the issue of guns.

        • For Whom the Troll Bells

          According to the link below, the most intensive German assault started on April 20th (to “honour” Hitler’s birthday) and, on May 8th, the command centre of the resistance had fallen and its leaders committed suicide. That sounds like 18 days of what Colchar called “Real resistance”. Whatever the case, it was an heroic fight against tyranny but I don’t think that it has much relevance to the issue of gun control today.

          http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/warsaw-ghetto-uprising-begins

          • Malcolm Stevas

            One of the earliest things the Nazis did on attaining power was to enact far-reaching “gun control” legislation. Go figure.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Was that in Germany?

            Or the US!

          • It is absolutely relevant – you are either on the side of the Gun Controllers or their innocent victims. Colchar is on the side of the former, and Tickertapeguy is on the side of the latter. As for the United States – Mr Obama’s old friends Bill Ayers and the other Comrades (the last Weather Underground murder was in 1981 – of a security guard) made it quite clear that they wanted to murder tens of millions of people (as their Comrades in the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China had done) – but, alas, the American population was (and is) armed. Till the American population is disarmed the “Progressive” dream of the murder of tens of millions will have to be put on hold – and most American Marxists (and they are Marxists – check their academic textbooks, what “Critical Theory” is really based upon) will have to continue to pretend to be “liberals”.

      • Not nice to know you would have supported the German National Socialists with their “Gun Control” against the Jews. Although, of course, you would describe yourself as an “anti Zionist” rather than an antisemite (and some of the worst Jew haters have themselves been Jewish). By the way the American “education system” is dominated by the same “Progressive” ideology (and methods) and the in England and Wales and in Scotland. I know of no American State that has a conservative “education system” – the Feds would never allow it.

    • Chamber Pot

      Increasingy the NRA should point to Europe as an example of what happens to the law abiding when they are disarmed – your women and children get pack raped in an epidemic of disorder orchestrated by a corrupt and out of touch left wing establishment ?

      • Tickertapeguy

        We are. Europe is spoken more often as an example of a disarmed population. those women who have been brutalized in Europe had full access to the police and security. It did not help them at that moment.
        The other thing about gun control is that it can only apply to law abiding citizens. It cannot apply to the criminal or the terrorist. Here some of our sheriffs are telling the people to be armed. In a Paris like situation had a few of them had guns I believe the terrorists would have been shot and many saved.

        • Chamber Pot

          Please ask the NRA to set up a political party or support a political party in the UK with a programme to legalise the right to bear arms.

          Our political establishment responds readily to financial incentives and support for such a programme will continue to grow.

          • Tickertapeguy

            CP
            That is not a bad idea
            but
            We have had that right since the day the Constitution was written It is part of our heritage. It is not part of yours. I could just imagine the backlash from the rest of the UK of a foreign gun tooting American yahoo coming to the UK to sell this “uncivilized” thing to them.

            Then I could see our own anti gun lobbyists joining ranks with that of your nation to point to the “evil” “diabolical” acts of the NRA to spread our poison to such civilized nations like the UK. they will have a field day.

            this is a personal battle which each English person has to fight for.

          • Chamber Pot

            I think you mistake the public mood.

            The rise in gun purchases in Germany after Cologne is a clear indicator that the German public doesn’t trust the authorities to tell them the truth or the police to protect them.

            It is inevitable that the British public will follow as things get worse.

          • Tickertapeguy

            Tried to answer your comment but my comment is blocked. I doubt if you will ever get that opportunity of owning that thing in England when even comment discussing the issue is barred. My point is made

          • David

            We don’t trust any of the scum. they lie, decieve, cheat, swindle, defruad & are just a bunch of obnoxious vile, odious lumps of lard. the higher up the pol;itical food chain they are, the worst they are. cameron is a good example. A proven liar & cheat.

          • We had a Bill of Rights of our own – but it is forgotten now. Before the First World War there were millions of people in the British National Rifle Association and a network of “Constitutional Clubs” – but something broke in this country with the First World War and we have never recovered.

          • David

            Brit Constitution, is not forgotten. many of us are still aware of it and it’s power, if used appropriately. obviously many are unaware of it, as the brit treacherous government continue to ignore it, don’t mention it and don’t educate people on it. which is the way the American government is going, by dumbing down education. It needs to be constantly conveyed to others, so that it’s not forgotten, others will know of it it may not be much use at moment, things change and some point will arrive where it will prove useful, if people know of it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, the US rights are based on the UK right to bear arms, which, unfortunately, has been whittled away to almost nothing over the past century.

            What they would be campaigning for is the RE-establishment of the unlawfully removed British right on which theirs is based, on the basis that we have, or had, a common law, and the infringement in the UK threatens the security of the US law!

          • Tickertapeguy

            You are wrong. It was what the British soldiers did to the Colonists. among them included
            going into private homes and helping themselves to lodging and food. that led to the 4th amendment.
            The 2nd amendment was an after thought and the British under King George had no such law, no such clause to allow the British people the right to own firearms. The 13 colonies became states and these states had this right
            that make the US the first nation state in modern history to allow her people this right.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Whatever!

            The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights 1689, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

            http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm

          • Tickertapeguy

            Oh I see
            You go to the preamble of the US constitution
            You take the word “concepts”
            then you come to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment sprang from the British bosom of the right to bear arms. Well now I understand. You British are so lucky
            Then you as a British citizen must have this right long before we did… going all the way back to the Magna Carta. wow.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You got tickertape where your brains should be, boy?!

          • Tickertapeguy

            and here comes the personal attacks. Ooo I am terrified with your guns and all lol

          • David

            It’s just as much part of our heritage as it is yours. We had access to personal weapons until the globalists decided to order us about. Then Brit poxy Government stopped us by stealth, cunning, duoplicity and sheer lies, fruad, deciet. becuase that’s what they are, cheats, liars fruadsters, scum.

        • Leon Wolfeson

          Lots of people would have been shot. Quite likely more, which is what happened when unarmed civilians start firing. Oh, and they’re all targets when the police respond.

      • Leon Wolfeson

        Oh, you want to lie and try and justify lots of deaths on that basis.

    • True – accept that the 2nd Amendment does not “give” people a right, it is the official acceptance of a pre existing right of self defence (and to defend others) existing in natural law. This can be seen in the Ninth Amendment.

      • Tickertapeguy

        I agree on principle but take the 2nd amendment away and we become like England. Any nation or a violent group can take on her people.
        if not for the US England would be goose stepping to the language of German

        • David

          Cost us everything to have you do so. forced to dismantle empire, so america could be the nation of hedgemony. plus we had to pay for every item given to us by America, arms, weapons, etc. it was lend lease, not we give it to you free.

          Then their were the many loans, all charged at interest. No, i don’t mind paying for stuff, but, do get annoyed at the implication, America supplied & supported us for no cost.

          American government were ruthless, & made sure they extracted every ounce of flesh they could. Even the regent oil co, which was dismantled to allow American Comapanys to take the oil over.

    • David

      Fight every step of the way to protect your amendments. Never let them take your right to bear arms away at any cost. this whole gun control thing is a precursor to a far more seriuos issue.

      • Tickertapeguy

        We are. Many believe that the 2nd amendment should be made into the 1st. Secession will happen if the 2nd amendment is struck out. Texas and many other states already have active secessionist movements based on that issue, border issue and a whole range of other issues. the mood of America is very angry. Read Breitbart news. Google “Secessionist movements in America”. most started within the last 7 years.

      • Tickertapeguy

        David
        One more issue that I just realized. There were several articles about the rise of the Robots and how they will take over. It was even covered in this paper.
        the only nations where the people will have a chance to fight them back would be America and maybe Israel. Even the police maybe Robots but if the people are armed we will blow them to kingdom come or form an instant militia against them. the rest of the world will fall easy prey to such an age.

    • Leon Wolfeson

      Ah, yes, your god who kills so many so mentally ill people can have guns.

      As you ignore the fact that a few private guns can’t stand off an army. Not in WII, far less today. Moreover, guns are useless against terrorists with bombs.

      • Tickertapeguy

        American revolution was won against a well trained army . it was called ‘the British army” or “the red coats” yes we had guns and we won that war. So you are wrong.

        Right now we are arming Syrians to take on Damascus. Before that we armed the Mujadin to take on the Soviet Union and guess what? they won. So you are wrong yet again

        If you think a disarmed population like that under the National Socialist Party of Germany during the 1940’s is better than an armed population you are again wrong. Dead wrong (without meaning “dead” as a pun)

        If you do not want a civilian population to be armed you have the world as your oyster. Most of the world’s population are completely disarmed. Guns are still better against a terrorist with a bomb than not. But the issue of the 2nd amendment is the right of citizens to arm ourselves. when it was written the guns were flintlocks, not semi automatics. We still have a right to arm ourselves with a whole range of weaponry.

        When those European women were brutalized no one came to their rescue. Not the police or the national guard. Try that with a 72 year old Texas woman holding a shot gun.

        Where did God come into this?

        • Leon Wolfeson

          It was won by organized military forces.
          Which is exactly what’s being organized today, etc.

          It’s requires massive air support for poorly organized militias to take ground against organized armies, even ones of low quality – as seen in Syria.

          As you want to, what, have dark skinned people being shot? Hmm! Because of course in your plan, of course the criminals will also have easy access to guns. And you invoked…

          • Tickertapeguy

            Churchill armed the British Citizens to take on the German invasion in 1940 to 1941. Yes British citizens and what remained of the British army set up a force against a much better trained German army.

            The American revolution was fought by the colonialists and they did not have an army. They were volunteers. So are the Syrian fighters against Assad’s army and so were the Mujahadin

            As for your racial twist tell that to the Jews of Israel who like the Americans have the same right. You would not dare because you are a hypocrite. You would allow the people of Israel a right we have cherished since the early 18th century

            Gun violence among the black community is mainly among black on black murders. Most (95% plus) murders are done by blacks against blacks. Again you would not tell that to a black person for you are a hypocrite. You are fine that they have guns (legal or illegal) but if
            a non black or a non Jew has a gun out comes the racial attacks. Feeble on your part.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Dad’s Army? Hmm!

            And the American revolution was done by well-armed and trained men. Etc.
            As I said, the untrained militias of Libya, who needed massive support…

            As you show your racism, and blame me for your issues. As you bring your Jewhate into everything, and say black people are responsible for suicides, etc. – I’m against racial attacking nuts like you owning guns, the best way to do that being….

          • Tickertapeguy

            Go back to the thread of this chat. you are the one who brought up race and it is people like you that will make sure the rest of the UK stays unarmed.
            for if anyone demands that right you will be there as the idiot of the place to call that one a racist when it is you that is the one who is a racist, a hypocrite and a double talker the colonialists did not have a standing army you idiot.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Keep blaming me and Jews like me (“people like you”) for your hates. As you keep repeating “standing army” like it makes a difference – the Americans had well-trained militias.

            Which was the point of the second amendment you ignore the wording of so freely.

            And I don’t want mentally ill people to have guns, SO EVIL, as you deny your mentioning black people and blaming them for accidental discharges and suicides…

            (In fact, I consider UK gun and knife law too strict, but not like you’d care…)

          • Tickertapeguy

            I do not have to
            When you tell the elite, the politicians and those who preach about banning guns that they should do away with
            their well paid armed security
            their gated communities also protected by armed security
            then come and preach to me. You tell that to Cameron or Obama as Trump did.
            See they NEVER live according to what they preach. they live according to the way they want.
            :But
            they have mealy mouthed double talking back stabbers like you to make a mockery of the average person having the same rights they take for granted. See what a hypocrite you are?
            From Putin to Xi Ping to Cameron to Obama are well protected with legions of armed security for the rest of their self centered lives but they always have people like you to make sure to remove that right from people like me.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, you’re mad you can’t so easily overthrow…right!

            I am not your sort of hypocrite, arguing as you are against keeping weapons out of the hands of mentally people, and as you conflate well-trained bodyguards with random people with guns.

          • Tickertapeguy

            I am not an elite
            I do not have the money and power of those who want to take that right from me.
            and I do not have you to stand up for me. you stand up for them

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, you think you’re many elites.
            I stand up for mentally ill people not having guns.
            If you feel this applies to you…

          • Tickertapeguy

            Do you know why Merkel is safe while German women are brutalized by these arrivals? because she has a legion of armed security between her and anyone else
            the average German girl does not. she does not even have you to defend her right to own a gun for you will be there after she has been brutally violated to call a racist for even thinking of buying a gun and kiss the feet of Merkel for letting them in.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah yes, selective caring about crime, check.
            Conflating trained bodyguards with random people with guns, check.

            As you want me to make her less safe, check.
            The girl, a pawn for your pro-gun agenda and your dislike of democracy…

          • Tickertapeguy

            You would watch your own mother being brutalized than allow her the right to own a gun.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Let’s see.

            One, thanks for your sad fantasies.
            Two, it wouldn’t help, as she wouldn’t shoot anyone. All it would mean is more criminals with guns.

            Three, what I actually want and you are objecting to is keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.

            Why do you think mentally ill people need guns?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Unfortunately, noeL nosefloW, your definition of insanity is daring to disagree with you!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So your unfortunate personality is disagreeing with you, or whatever.

            That’s nice. Thanks for the hate.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You really, really, should stop using your favourie fix, noeL nosefloW:

            Your nostrils have dribbled all over your keyboard again, causing it to produce the usual garbage!

            As usual!!!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Look, your talking to your your alternate personality about your drugs usage…is your issue, Ms. Garbage.

            So, why do you think mentally ill people need guns?

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’ve never said I think you need guns.

            Not that anyone would let you near one!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So, you’re making wild accusations as ever, and noting your bigotry. As ever.

            So – Why do you think mentally ill people need guns? That’s the position you’re supporting.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I don’t think you need guns.

            It’s you, in your deranged mind, who thinks I think you need guns!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So you blame me for your fantasies. Right.

            You’re the one here who talks to your alternate personality, in your posts.

          • Mr B J Mann

            .l.. Nutty noe.l.. noseflow..VV.. ……….

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Yes, as you say…yourself, spamming insults to yourself…

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, you definitely shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near guns, noeL nosefloW!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            See, you know your alternate personality, and hence you, shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near guns.

            Nothing to do with me, right.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Nutty noe.l.. noseflow..V V.. .l..

          • PaulUK2901

            Just making stuff up doesn’t really work in a rational argument, you know that don’t you?

          • Tickertapeguy

            It does work for the thread of thought of “Leon Wolfeson” has been consistent. That shows he (or she) was not throwing random comments at me, but was singularly focused on the issue.
            He stopped when I made it extremely personal. the last retort to Leon was that he would not allow his own mother to have a gun if that would prevent her from being brutalized.
            If he said he would I would call him a hypocrite
            if he said he would not I would call him cold blooded. He had no more moves to make. None.

          • PaulUK2901

            Wow!! You have it all worked out, don’t yer?

          • Tickertapeguy

            Actually I think as I debate and I like to debate. Given that I do know enough to carry on a debate but when I answered you I hadn’t figured out that I actually had him cornered.
            I lashed at him with a personal comment, mainly due to the fact that those who oppose guns seldom make it personal.
            It is always easy to remove that right from others, but harder when that person is forced to confront it on a personal level in a public forum.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You’re saying that IS!S have air support when taking ground against organized armies?!

            How did the Yanks keep that under the radar?

            Stealth fighters?!

            But did they really have stealth fighters supporting the mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan?!

            By the way, noeL nosefloW, have you ever re-read any of the “contributions” you’ve “issued” when not under the influence?!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So, you didn’t read my post. Unsurprising.

            As you talk to yourself and talk about your substance abuse issues.

          • Mr B J Mann

            8< – – – – –

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Yup, you can’t actually come up with an argument Mz. Mann, right.

          • Mr B J Mann

            8<- – – – – – –

            .l..

            V..

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Yes yes, you admit you have no argument, Mz. Mann, the lady who refuses to say why she wants mentally ill people to have access to guns!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Why should I want to allow nutters like you to have guns? You aren’t even sane enough to distinguish a man from a woman!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Look, Ms. Mann, why are you being sexist?
            And then you accuse me of your issues, when you constantly talk to your alternate personality on here!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Nutty noe.l.. noseflow../V.. .l..

          • Mr B J Mann

            .l..

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Continue to prove my point, please, Mz.

          • Mr B J Mann

            ..l.
            /,, ..V

      • Tickertapeguy

        This comment will be removed like my last one so here goes
        Personal experience. I had to aim a pistol at an intruder. That intruder did not stop, but hesitated. He was not sure that I would pull the trigger. So I called the police while aiming my gun at him.
        I told the police what kind of a pistol I was aiming and that the intruder was in my home. Only then did he leave.
        I had the pistol
        and
        I had the law on my side
        Had I pulled the trigger on that pistol it would have made a massive hole in him because of the way the bullet spins. One shot and that person is dead. Unless I aimed at his feet he would be dead and I had that right.

        • Leon Wolfeson

          ….And at that sort of range, you’re far better off with a decent blade or staff.

          • Tickertapeguy

            I have a collection of guns and the one I mentioned would shoot across a house or garden I also have a collection of other weapons including many kinds of swords. lets leave it at that. One issue about owning guns is that you do not broadcast on the internet what kind of weaponry you have.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Mm-hum. I’d still take a good staff, personally, and have disarmed someone with a weapon with one before. (A blade, not a gun, but he’d not have had a chance to use that either)

          • Tickertapeguy

            One more thing. I come from a medical family and know the complete effectiveness of a syringe, needle and a deadly solution.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            I’m going to assume you’re just an idiot, and not making a threat.

          • Tickertapeguy

            We both already have come to that conclusion a while back so do not be redundant.
            Before that lovely event a black man broke into my home and held a gun to the back of my head. then I did not have any guns. (the person I aimed my gun was a Jewish Soldier who was renting from me)
            there was another person in the house. and a dog. We had to battle out way from room to room. while calling the police. it took the police 45 minutes to get to us even though they can hear him hollering at us that he is going to kill us with expletives.
            We ran through the back yard and into my tenant’s place. He too did not have any guns. We all armed ourselves with kitchen knives as we waited, terrified, of what is going to happen to us
            when the police finally arrived he did not believe us. When he did he hastily pulled out his gun, then dropped it and had to fumble around for it. then he called for back up. within 10 minutes the entire place was swarming with police cars.
            the man had just got out of prison and broken into my home. He was taking his time piling up all the goodies (TV, CD player. computer etc.) at the doorstep.
            Only then did I decide to arm myself. you idiot.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Oh, so you didn’t just leave. Right.
            And you decided to take on a dangerous criminal when you could have been safe. Right.

          • Tickertapeguy

            First lets keep this chat civil even if we do not think much of each other.
            I told you what led to me having guns. then I could not leave as the person was in the house and the house is fenced in by other houses.
            the 2nd case was when I finally got a gun and even then I had to call the police for that soldier to leave.
            One more thing. Here in the US it is becoming common where a place (joint) is cased (watched) then about 10 to 15 people burst into that place and rob the place (always a shop owned by some family) rob it, often kill the shop keeper and are out within a few minutes. The security cameras catch many but they hide their faces with hoods and they are fast.
            what they do not want to face is a barrage of bullets. not even a gang wants to face that even if they are armed. unless they are really drugged out. then it is a fight to the finish. Always big or small towns, the police take at a minimum 15 to 20 minutes to arrive. A lot happens within that time. Anyway it has been an experience chatting with you. bye.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So you didn’t do basic planning?

            I could smash one of the big windows here (Indeed, there’s a item stored specifically FOR doing that safely) and be outside and down a drain pipe in seconds.

            In fact, if you don’t know other ways out there’s a *major* fire safety issue!

            And the reality is that those criminals succeed in your heavily armed society, and indeed come in with major violence *because* of the prevalence of arms. Guns haven’t worked, but have ensured that those communities are hostile to the police.

          • Tickertapeguy

            I was about to answer you why I did not leave
            1) we were waiting for the police
            2) We were exactly afraid he would set fire to that house
            3) it was a shotgun house. meaning each room was behind the next. 19th century home
            4) windows were tall french windows that even if you break them you still have to go around to the front and still you have problems 1 and 2
            Obviously you have not been in a case that I have been and are in no position
            to judge me
            to judge the US culture
            or
            to make any comments about guns since the British themselves were armed by Churchill to take on the Germans for an ungrateful sod like you.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            1. Excuse.
            2. Excuse.
            3. Excuse.
            4. Excuse.

            You chose to put yourself in danger, because of poor planning, that’s all there is to it and you have no sympathy from me. I’ve planned and am quite secure without needing a firearm, thanks.

            And ah, equating a war with peace…well, the war you want…
            I certainly will judge people who want mentally ill nuts to have guns – that’s what I’ve argued against.

  • Richard Lutz

    Lee Child said “All the FBI guys point out that civilians with guns in practice never succeed in seeing off home invaders. They’re always too groggy, or they forget where the gun is”, when in fact this manifestly false even if she and some FBI employees want us to believe otherwise.

    Even the anti-gun sponsored Hart survey (‘Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America’, Aldine de Gruyter Press, 1991) showed that 783,000 Americans used guns defensively each year (criminals flee or surrender more than 95% of the time without a shot being fired); while a study covering a 15 year period (1977-92) by John Lott and David Mustard found that American states which adopted Florida type right-to-carry laws had (on average) an 8.5% fall in their murder rate (‘Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns’, University of Chicago, 1996).

  • marc biff

    Wish i could own one.

    • Mary Ann

      You could always move to a country where you are allowed to.

      • marc biff

        I would rather the problem didn’t move to my country in the first place.

    • David

      Middle east, they still have slaves & trade in them. Won’t hear that on BBC. It’s still big business in africa & middle east.

      • marc biff

        A gun not a bloody slave, i have got one of those in this country we call them apprentices.

  • Christopher Midkiff

    You should understand that us Americans don’t care what people outside of these United States think about our Bill of Rights, most specifically the 2nd Amendment. You can say what you want, but deaf ears are who you are preaching to.

    • colchar

      Which says an awful lot about you, and none of it good.

      • It says that most Americans believe in the things that most British people used to believe in – and not so long ago As for your belief that slavery is “good” – well go to the local Miss Whiplash, I am sure she will be happy to put you in chains and give you a good lashing.

  • SocratesWept

    What a snidey, patronising article from an effete mangina.
    Free men can own guns. Slaves cannot.
    Europeans need guns now, more than ever.

    • colchar

      You really are a special kind of stupid aren’t you? And yes, that was a rhetorical question.

      • SocratesWept

        You’re welcome.

      • And you are a subhuman scumbag. Or can you only dish out insults, but not take them.

    • sussexoracle

      Should ‘free men’ be allowed to own nuclear weapons? or is that a freedom too far?

      • Do the Swiss “own nuclear weapons”? No, so strop trying to change the subject.

        A useful weapon is one that kill an attacker – without killing the innocent at the same time.

    • Leon Wolfeson

      Ah yes, gotta have more guns reaching the extremists hands after all.

  • 100

    Just last week in my home state, a 28 yr old man was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot of his apartment complex by a teenager while unloading groceries from his car. With the victim on his knees and a gun to his head, the thief reached into his pants pocket to steal the man’s wallet and the victim, whose hand was resting on a gun nestled inside his jacket pocket, shot him twice in the chest. Imagine the thief’s surprise. He took off running a little ways and then fell down dead in the breezeway of an adjacent apartment building, a revolver beside one hand and the man’s wallet in the other. A fortunate scene considering Al Sharpton would’ve likely come to town and ensured the victim was charged with a hate crime otherwise.
    I tell you this story simply to say that these things happen all the time and I’m glad us “good guys” are able to protect ourselves. Each time we do, we deter future crimes like this for would-be criminals out there who still feel like they have something to live for and decide it’s not worth it.

    • colchar

      If guns deterred future crimes America would be the safest country in the world but they reality is that they don’t and it isn’t.

      • Malcolm Stevas

        Your grasp of cause and effect is pitifully limited, almost childlike.

      • 100

        It did here, and that’s all I care about. The rest of the country’s low-income black neighborhoods will all have to learn on their own…and again each subsequent generation, as it would seem.

      • Then why is it that in towns on the border of Texas and Mexico (equally hispanic on both sides of town) the murder rate is many times higher on the noble Mexican “gun control” side of town than on the evil Texan gun rights side of town. The murder rate in the United States was actually FALLING for many years – before Mr Obama started his recent war-on-guns (not the murder rate in some cities is going up).

        • Leon Wolfeson

          Easy – drug smuggling.

  • colchar

    Some state (I forget which one) recently allowed open carry. On the very first day of open carry one of these gun nut idiots was robbed at gunpoint – and it was his gun that the thief took!

    • Malcolm Stevas

      Youu are very ignorant. Both open and concealed carry have been common in a large number of jurisdictions for many years. Findings tend to suggest they help to deter street crime. It is not at all uncommon for US police officers to be assaulted and relieved of their sidearms: your comment carries no force whatsoever.

  • Captain Dryland

    The ‘armed citizen’ debate is a very interesting one. The USA has millions of guns in the hands of citizens, licensed and unlicensed. Just as, if one were to expose millions of citizens to LSD a proportion of them would have psychotic and antisocial reactions, then it stands to reason that if one is to make guns available to millions of citizens that some of them a

    • Malcolm Stevas

      For me the argument isn’t quite so utilitarian, but a matter of personal choice, political liberty and individual freedom. When my grandparents were young there were virtually no restrictions on gun ownership. Gun crime was less common than it is today. I do not claim any positive correlation between these things, though there might be one. But the current regime simply favours the criminal: laws affect only the law abiding, and gun laws simply do not impinge on criminals’ ability or desire to arm themselves.
      Never mind facing an assailant armed with a gun – for most of us, a young fit thug would be likely to overwhelm us with his bare hands. Stick a gun up his nostrils and he’s probably going to run away, or stop trying to break into your house…

    • sussexoracle

      The British are not disarmed- they are unarmed. Big difference. Most of us haven’t ever held a gun, much less owned one. The only time I see guns is when I am in London and the cops at strategic points have them. Sadly, that is a fairly recent development.

      • Mr B J Mann

        The current generation maybe. But a century ago controls were non existent, ownership commonplace, and gun crime rare to non-existent.

        What you describe took a couple of generations to achieve!

        How long will it take for you to lose any other freedoms?

        Look at how the right to smoke in public places was whittled away.

        The final legal move skipped the promise to retain the right of some pubs to choose to be smoking pubs and went for a total ban.

        And now local councils are banning outdoor smoking right left and centre.

        Now, you might not want a gun.

        You might not be a smoker.

        But how does it go?

        First they came for……..

    • David

      I’ve been threatened with a gun, it’s not nice and yes, wish i had a gun at time. It was in london back in late 70s. We should have the right to carry arms as far as I’m concerned. it will be so in a few more years, the way things are going.

  • Owen_Morgan

    How much of an ignoramus do you need to be, to scribble for the Spectator, these days?

    • Chamber Pot

      How about a complete iggy ?

  • Malcolm Stevas

    Standard British-journo piece on guns/America, par for the course: sickly fascination + childlike wonder mixed with snotty disdain. I always wanted to visit the SHOT Show but never made it – though I’ve hunted in N.America and enjoyed everything about it tremendously.

    I know hardly anything about Lee Child except that he’s apparently very popular. His opinions on guns for self-defence are skewed. Like most others with similar views, he neglects to mention the very high figures for citizens defending themselves from assault or robbery with a personal weapon – which never gets fired. This is what mostly happens, since seeing that a potential victim is armed is usually enough to deter the average predatory scumbag from persevering.

  • Francis Turner

    That statement by Lee Child ‘All the FBI guys point out that civilians with guns in practice never succeed in seeing off home invaders. They’re always too groggy, or they forget where the gun is.’ is trivially proven wrong. All you have to do is search in the US news and you’ll find a story almost every day where a home invader is driven off or shot (or both). For example http://www.wbrc.com/story/31084945/new-info-burglary-suspect-dies-after-being-shot-by-homeowner-2-suspects-still-at-large

  • JabbaTheCat

    Another case where a former CNN journalist saved his and his wife’s lives by shooting dead an assailant…
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/01/us/new-mexico-motel-shooting

  • Ade

    SHOT is a trade show, isn’t it? They don’t sell direct to the public, from what I’ve read elsewhere…

    • Mr B J Mann

      Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      You don’t mean an anti-gun, pro-control nutter was lying when he wrote:

      “The simple fact that even I, a rank amateur, could go and kit myself out like Rambo — and I was seriously tempted by the multiple grenade launcher”!?!?!?!?!?!

  • The claims in this article (that firearms are useless in home defence and that no firearm owner has ever stopped a mass shooting – by shooting the attacker) are false. The fact that the writer of the article attributes the false claims in the article to a novelist (who, in turn, claims the “FBI” told her) does not alter the fact that the claims in the article are false (for example it is no accident that mass shootings tend to happen in “Gun Free Zones” – when a would-be mass shooter tries such a atrocity in a place where there are armed people they themselves are shot). Mr Andy Martin should do some basic fact checking before writing an article – although I suppose he can not help the sneering style of writing ( a certain sort of British people appear to be unable to write, or speak, in any other way – I am British myself and I still find it odd that people do not clearly say what they mean and justify what the say by logic and evidence – instead communicating by sneers called “irony”). As for the United Kingdom – firearms were common here before the First World War (there were millions of people in the British NRA). The murder rate in Britain was no higher than it is now – in fact it was lower than it is now. American cities were much more violent than British cities – but that had nothing to do with there being more firearms (there were not more firearms in American cities than in British cities). Today in the United States it is much the same – such places as New Hampshire and Vermont (with no “gun control”) have very low murder rates, and places such as Chicago (with lots of “gun control”) have very high murder rates.

    • David Stirling

      I’m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of people who live in New Hampshire and Vermont compared to the sort of people who live in Chicago

    • QuébecCityOliver

      Mass shootings do not occur in GFZ. Though, you and I would have to agree on what a mass shooting is in the first place.

      So far this year (using the definition of at least 4 people hit by bullets), there have been at least 12 mass shootings in the USA – none took place in a GFZ.

      Correlation does not imply causation. Also, Chicago was much worse in 1990 and 1991 with over 800 murders. NYC cracked 2,000 murders in the early 90s. Now it is below 400. So, the gun laws reduced the violence (using correlation).

  • Hagen vanTronje

    Gun Crime in the UK used to be quite low and the reason is that we had Capital Punishment which was a massive deterrant. I read that career criminals would refuse to go on a job if anybody was armed, they preferred squirty bottles of ammonia, incapacitating but not lethal.
    Gun Crime in the USA is mainly black on black but this fact is seldom mentioned! also the reason why schools in the USA get more than their fair share of massacres; is that shooter feel safe in a gun free zone, nobody to return fire !

    • hugh_36

      Your arguments are entirely wrong. To suggest that massacres take place in schools because no-one shoots back is idiotic as in almost every school shooting the perpetrator, is killed often by their own hand and clearly has no intention is escape or survival.

      • Hagen vanTronje

        To make an effective gun free area you would need to install metal detectors that sound an alarm when a metallic object is detected.
        This has not been done (cost ?), so the only way to stop a shooter is by shooting him/her first.

      • Icebow

        They didn’t commit suicide, whether or not by cop, before the other shots they fired. Idiotic?

      • Mr B J Mann

        No, YOUR arguments are entirely wrong. To suggest that massacres take place
        in schools because shooters intend to kill themselves before they manage to kill anyone else is more than idiotic.

        It is moronic!

        As, BY DEFINITION, in almost every school shooting the perpetrator is killed, often by their own hand, AFTER shooting their victims, and so clearly has no intention of escape or survival AFTER completing their attack.

        They don’t shoot everyone else first by accident.

        If they only wanted to shoot themselves, they could do that at home.

        If they wanted “death by cop” they could have attacked a cop station.

        Or just fired out of their window at home and waited for the cops to arrive.

        They want to commit a massacre, and THEN go out in a blaze of glory.

        If they are likely to get shot first and go off like a damp squib they aren’t going to bother with that target.

        That’s why (unless they ARE committing “suicide by cop”) they don’t attack police stations, firing ranges, gun shows, or places with concealed carry laws.

        They ALWAYS attack gun free zones (including the “military” but still gun free targets).

        Oh, and any “statistics” which show “most” “mass killings” don’t happen in gun free zones are fiddled with figures with multiple domestic, or gang related, shootings!

        • QuébecCityOliver

          Police or armed guards are posted around many schools in the USA. Columbine had an armed guard. The first person shot in the Norway shooting was an armed policeman. The Las Vegas (revolution) shooters only shot people who were armed.

          Also, Gun crime in the USA is a very specific category. In reality, suicides are far more common than gun crime. But, judging by who the police kill, it seems that whites are the primary target and the police kill more hispanics than blacks, too.

          Deterrents have proven not to be so. That Hagen even brings up shows he has not looked into the evidence. Rational actors do not exist in economics or crime.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And where was THE armed guard.

            And why wasn’t the guy in Norway instantly shot by an armed population?!

            More to the point:

            How many kids lives were saved by a dead cop?!?!!!!

            Just as in the Hungerford shooting in the UK the killer was free to wander around all day picking off sitting ducks at wil!

            I’m not familiar with the revolution shooting so I’ll pass on that, but as for the rest, as I,ve already said:

            Can we have the RATES for each demographic?

          • QuébecCityOliver

            Deputy Neil Gardner was on duty and fired shots and failed to hit one of the shooters.
            Deputy Paul Smoker was the second officer and he also exchanged shots but missed the target.

            Hagen’s point is based on the idea that a deterrent or good guy will work. It is flawed because, many times, the good guys (returning fire) are unable to stop the bad guys.

            Though, if you want to see an example of what Hagen (and you – Mr. Mann) think should happen, check out the Barbershop shooting in S. Carolina on Jan. 22, 2016 – there are videos of it on the web. But, accidents kill more than defensive use.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Sorry, but what on earth does “But, accidents kill more than defensive use” mean?!

            Do you mean fewer citizens die while using their guns to defend themselves than die in accidents?

            Surely that’s a good thing?

            Or do you mean fewer criminals are killed in self defence than by accident?

            Why is that a bad thing?

            Do you want millions of petty criminals shot dead by the public?!

            Bit harsh?!

            Surely the “liberals” would prefer safety achieved with NO criminals killed?!?!!!!

            Speaking of which:

            How common is burglary of occupied premises in the UK?

            And how rare in the States?

            At least in those where gun ownership is common!

            And why might that be?!

            And why is it that random/mass shootings usually happen in gun free zones?!

            And, please, no BS “statistics” of domestic/gang violence shootings swaying the figures to non gun zones!!!!!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So you ignore what he said.

            Accidental shootings kill a lot of people in America, but you don’t care, clearly.
            And then you make some claims about burglary…hmm!
            Then you wonder why shooters come to areas with lots of people…hmm!

            Then you dismiss the sort of violence caused by your gunner ideology…

          • Mr B J Mann

            Shouldn’t you be tucked up in your special jacket and nicely sedated in your specially comfy padded room by now?!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, more wild accusations of mental illness, to try and suppress discussion.

            Now to cover up a discussion of accidental shootings.

          • Mr B J Mann

            .l.. Nutty noe.l.. noseflow..VV.. ……..

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So you insult your other personality and prove my point.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Ah, why didn’t untrained civilian shooters start blasting way… hmm!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Because Norway has very strict gun laws and you can’t carry guns around for protection, why else do you think, nutty noeL nosefloW!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So you insult your other personality and ignore my point utterly. Right.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You’re are a sick person, nutty noeL nosefloW!

          • PaulUK2901

            Is this moron always this nutty?

          • Leon Wolfeson

            Sadly she is, yes. ASCII art spam, repeatedly talking to her other personality…

          • PaulUK2901

            She’s off her chops. Lmao!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Hmmmmmmmmm. I address your point utterly, and YOU utterly ignore the fact and post that *I* have ignored YOUR point:

            Proof tat you are posting random ridicule without even reading what you are “replying” to!

          • Leon Wolfeson

            No, I’m not your other personality. As you evidently talk to it again.

      • David

        Gun free zone, how can anyone shoot back? enlighten us, oh great one?

  • logdon

    Around here in the Welsh borderlands guns are aplenty.

    I go to my local country store for kindling, cat food and hardware stuff and there could be someone buying a large box of shotgun cartridges. And rifles used for deer and boar shooting are readily available.

    I’d say in order of manly priority there’s the woodburner stove, the 4WD and then guns.

    However, the point I make is that gun crime is virtually non-existent. The game shot is not for fun but the cooking pot.

    If were’re looking for scapegoats, it’s the person not the weapon.

  • Terrified

    Violent and bloody realistic video games that desensitize who are really still children. Pulling the trigger on a gun instead of a game controller is merely the next logical level…

    • QuébecCityOliver

      Funny how it doesn’t do it to kids in the UK, Canada, N.Z. and Australia but it does to American kids.

      However, your correlation isn’t even valid in the first place. Violent crime (and especially murder) has declined significantly from the peaks it reached in 1990 and 1991.

  • Liberanos

    The fact that UK gun deaths are around 30 per year, as opposed to US gun deaths which are around 32,000 per year, does not have quite the shock appeal you’d think it ought to in the US. I’ve seen several views where commenters have admitted that, since the overwhelming majority of the deaths are black, they’re not so concerned, and in any case, believe it’s not going to affect them…particularly if they’re armed.

    • Mr B J Mann

      And how many suicides, pro rata, in the UK.

      Most of those deaths are suicides.

      Then there’s the lawful killings by cops and householders.

      And then most of the rest are “black on black”, or “hispanic on black”, etc, drug gang killings……

      If you want a true comparison, add in the firearms fatality figures for the British Carribean Islands to Britain’s:

      After all, everybody includes the figures from the parts of the US with a crime legacy going back to slavery in colonial times!

      • QuébecCityOliver

        Accidents are a bigger problem than self-defence.

        How do I know? Evidence. Check out the Gun violence archive.
        Accidents – at least 52 dead. Like the 4-year-old who shot and killed himself on Jan. 19, 2016 in Texas.
        Defensive use – at least 42 dead. Like the armed robber in South Carolina on Jan. 22, 2016 shot by two CC holders.

        And suicide vastly dwarfs both.

        And you are wrong, less than half of murders are carried out by blacks. Over half are carried out by whites. Also, cops kill twice as many whites as blacks.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Now give us the rates as you have a the facts at your fingertips.

          Throw in suicides by other means.

          And accidental deaths ditto,

          Oh, and can we have the figures for hispanics?

          Or are they in with the blacks?!

          Or the whites!!!!!!!

    • David Stirling

      Why does it surprise you that law-abiding white gun-owners don’t want to have their rights taken away just because blacks and hispanics keep shooting one another?

  • Leon Wolfeson

    Americas issues are cultural.

    Other nations with high gun ownership don’t have the same issue.

    For that matter neither does Northern Ireland, where outside sectarian violence there is little gun crime despite much much higher gun ownership.

    • David Stirling

      The reason America has a lot of murders is blacks, and to a lesser extent hispanics.

      Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the murders.

      • Leon Wolfeson

        Ah yes, blame people you see as inferior right, those evil Blacks causing suicides and accidental shootings.

        Ignore my point and show your eugenics.

        • Ron Todd

          I would think that the majority of shootings in this country are either black on black or police shooting black gangsters.

          • QuébecCityOliver

            Not shown by the evidence.

            Over half the people killed by police in the USA are white and another quarter are hispanic. Most victims and perps of murder in the USA are white.

            If you are looking for a correlation, male is much superior than race.

            Also, the most likely victim (and shooter) in the USA is a 40-70 year-old white male. Suicides are a far more significant problem than murder.

            But maybe you didn’t mean shootings, but if you did then suicide is the problem, not murder.

          • Ron Todd

            I am talking about shootings with the intent to kill another person in the UK.

          • fredimeyer

            suicides are never a problem. they are the solution

          • Leon Wolfeson

            So you don’t think, just follow your dogma, right.

          • Ron Todd

            Just because I don’t reach a conclusion that you approve off doesn’t mean I am not thinking.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            No, I agree you might think on other issues. But as you said, not on this one.

        • fredimeyer

          it has nothing to do with your pc notions of ‘inferiority’.
          it is a straightforward reading of crime statistics

          WHY is indeed another matter

          • Leon Wolfeson

            I’m not espousing your PC, as you try and claim crime statistics read “hate”.

  • fredimeyer

    like so many articles here, this is a cheap trick by somebody trying to promote a book. the joking attitude merely exudes stereotypes and cliches. this guy’s book must be very badly written.

Close