How on earth is the father going to live with himself, and the 5yr old daughter?

[darth los]

As a general suggestion, a well founded comment or conversation typically doesn't start with a response to someone of, "Absurd logic." Possibly they have a valid point to make? GOTTA LOVE THOSE REPUBLICANS!!

[Craig]

We used to have an air rifle that fired these: The rifle itself was nothing special, but no doubt deadly under the right circumstances. Then of course there's other, more powerful airguns out there. The incident in the article is still of course a tragic, but not blameless accident, with only the parent to blame. On to this other debate: Allowing the public to buy guns (with the proper background checks of course) makes them more accessible to everyone, that includes criminals or potential criminals. Criminals will of course always get guns through illegal means, but when every law abiding citizen has a gun or has the right to have one, there's many more possibilities for criminals (or potential criminals) to get their hands on one. Of course there's the deterrent to all criminals that his victim is potentially armed, which on the flip-side could inspire him to go 'packing heat' as well. Nevertheless it still doesn't negate the fact that guns are more accessible, I think that was the thought behind Liams statement 'criminals are people'. It's true, having guns availiable to the British public could indeed be a deterrent to some forms of crime, but I think it would, without a doubt, also be gateway to more gun-related incidents, criminal or not. Maybe we (or our government) would simply rather have horrendous amounts of lower-level crime* than have slightly less of this crime, but everyone** shooting each other, and themselves. I'm not saying I agree with this because I'm pretty neutral about everything political, I'm just saying I think that's the way it is. *Of course knife crime is notorious in some parts of the UK as well, but the government is famously on a crusade against that as well. **Of course I use the term everyone as an exaggeration for increased levels of gun-related incidents, criminal or not as I've already said.

[Neil]

How do these assertions stand up to the fact that the homicide rate in England was lower before the adoption of gun control than it is now? And that the overall crime rate was MUCH lower? Don't know... That's an interesting stat though (if true) - Got a link? Maybe the fact the population has grown by XX%? Maybe dependant upon other issues (eg: unemployment?) Seriously though, I absolutely convinced, if gun ownership in the country was the norm, we have far far more deaths... I just cannot see how it would have the opposite effect... Actually it was completely correct. Crime does not equal murder. Murder is only one type of crime. The overall crime rate, and even the overall violent crime rate, is higher in England. The kinds of crimes that ordinary people are actually likely to become victims of -- auto theft, robbery, burglary, etc. -- are much more common on your side of the pond. Maybe so... But if you're comparing different crimes figures, I know I'd rather have my car broken into seven times than be murdered twice

[strayrider]

The child is dead. No one is to blame except for the father. Khardis, you and I are on the same side concerning the gun issue. Do not think that I am attacking you in any way, shape, or form when I point out an error you are making. The kid was killed with an AIR gun, not an AIRSOFT gun (which fires plastic BBs at relatively low FPS, while the air gun fires metal BBs or lead pellets at various FPS depending on the gun it was fire from). It would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to kill anything with an airsoft gun, while even the weakest air gun could kill providing it hit the right spot (directly in the eye at point-blank range, for example). I'm certainly not an expert on all of this, but I have been shooting guns of all types for 30-years. -stray-

[Craig]

Seriously though, I absolutely convinced, if gun ownership in the country was the norm, we have far far more deaths... I just cannot see how it would have the opposite effect... A reduction in some forms of crime but more deaths overall is sort of the the 'bottom line' point I was trying to make with my above post, but I hate to be blunt because it doesn't leave much room to be flexible or open-minded.

[Neil]

Khardis, you and I are on the same side concerning the gun issue. Do not think that I am attacking you in any way, shape, or form when I point out an error you are making. Seems a very sad state of affairs when someone has to prefix a simple point they want to make with this sort of thing. Hmmm... Talk about having to walk on eggshells...

[Chic Freak]

The overall crime rate, and even the overall violent crime rate, is higher in England. I do realise that crime =/= murder. Last time I was studying criminology and homicide in particular was 2000, so perhaps I do need to update myself. At that time though, the USA and Russia were among the highest countries in the world for murder, and England and Japan among the lowest. It seems strange that a country with an extremely high homicide rate could also have an extremely low rate of violent crime overall. Perhaps a lot has changed in 8 years. I will check when I get the time.

[Yojimbo]

Guns do not kill people. People kill people, though guns make it easy to kill people. Knives also do not kill people, but they too make it easy to kill people. Cars do not kill people, though a stupid person behind the wheel can kill people. Tractors do not kill people, yet a Jihadist in the middle east managed to wipe out a whole bunch of civilians with one quite recently. In the UK and in Japan where guns are highly restricted, assaults and murders with knifes are a common occurance. In both of these countries, there is talk of banning knives as well. I have no doubt that if guns were legalized in those countries that assaults and murders with guns would increase. Again, people killing people. Should we perhaps ban tractors, or cars as well, since they have resulted in death? Banning stupid people would probably do the trick much better, but what government could possibly do that? In this particular instance, a ban on a stupid person might have done the trick! It occurs to me that many of these arguments of UK gun policy vs. USA gun policy have been debated at length before, with no real resolution, so I do not doubt that we will not come to an accord here. All the same, our bantering about our different political/philosophical views will not change the fact that the real culprit in the death of this child was a neglectful parent. This child could have just as easily been killed and wouldn't be any less dead if he had been left in a car with the windows rolled up on a hot day, or if the parent had neglectfully given the child antifreeze to drink mistaking it for gatorade, or if the parent simply dropped the child on his head by accident one morning. I think we are getting hung up on the fact that there was a "gun" of sorts involved in this situation. So in trumpeting our own philosophical views let us not lose sight of the real cause of this child's death, which was having an idiot for a father as Strayrider pointed out.

[Publius]

Don't know... That's an interesting stat though (if true) - Got a link? Maybe the fact the population has grown by XX%? Maybe dependant upon other issues (eg: unemployment?) Seriously though, I absolutely convinced, if gun ownership in the country was the norm, we have far far more deaths... I just cannot see how it would have the opposite effect... No, population growth has nothing to do with it, because I'm talking about the RATE of murder and other crime (e.g. murders per million population). That allows for apples-to-apples comparison: 10 murders in a population of 1 million is equal to 100 murders in a population of 10 million. Here's a link for you: A Century of Change: Trends in UK statistics since 1900, House of Commons Library Research Paper 99/111, 21 Dec 1999. Take a look at page 14 of the paper (page 15 of the PDF file). The chart on the upper left of the page shows "indictable offenses known to the police (per thousand of population) in England & Wales 1900-1997." You can see that in 1900 an Englishman's chance of being the victim of an indictable offense was roughly 1 in 400. That barely changed up until the '30s. During the '90s, an Englishman's chance of being the victim of an indictable offense was nearly 1 in 10. The chart on the upper right shows "homicides per million population in England and Wales." You can see that the rate for the first quarter of the 20th century (with low gun control) was substantially lower than the rate for the last quarter of the century (with strict gun control). Maybe so... But if you're comparing different crimes figures, I know I'd rather have my car broken into seven times than be murdered twice Granted, but for the average law-abiding citizen in the U.S., being murdered is just not really a realistic concern. It looks to me like for the average Briton, being mugged, burglarized, or having your car stolen is very much a realistic concern. Those kinds of crimes affect ordinary innocent people more than murder (did you know that most murder victims in the U.S. have criminal records?), and those kinds of crimes are much more common in the U.K. I do realise that crime =/= murder. Sorry, I must have been confused because Khardis explicitly distinguished the murder rate from the overall crime rate when he said that the UK's overall crime rate was higher, but you said he was wrong because the UK's murder rate is lower. It seems strange that a country with an extremely high homicide rate could also have an extremely low rate of violent crime overall. And yet it is true. For starters you can look at the paper Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective. Key quote: "The four countries with the highest overall prevalence victimisation rates in 2004 are Ireland, England & Wales, New Zealand and Iceland. Other countries with comparatively high victimisation rates are Northern Ireland, Estonia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Mexico, Switzerland and Belgium. All these countries have overall victimisation rates that are statistically significantly higher than the average of the 30 participating countries. The USA, Canada, Australia and Sweden show rates near the average." Compared to the UK, the US had higher rates of murder and sexual assault, lower rates of robbery and assault (which are more common offenses), and significantly lower rates of property crimes.

[strayrider]

Seems a very sad state of affairs when someone has to prefix a simple point they want to make with this sort of thing. Hmmm... Talk about having to walk on eggshells... Neil, I've been visiting these boards since their inception those many moons ago, I do not, nor will I, "walk on eggshells" for anyone (except, maybe, my wife). LOL. My intent was to simply inform the young man in question, Khardis, that I was not attempting to nullify his point in the ongoing "debate" (which has always been a hot one here on HPotD), but to simply point out that he had erred concerning to type of gun that had caused the death of the child. This slight error in no way makes him wrong concerning the "gun control" issue in general. The child's death was tragic, yes, however it should not be used to punish the citizens of an entire nation. The father in question is an idiot. He is to blame. Let him suffer the guilt of the result of his stupidity and neglect while he sits behind bars for the rest of his life. Better he rot in prison, than to allow him to walk free and possibly procreate once again. -stray-

[Neil]

No, population growth has nothing to do with it, because I'm talking about the RATE of murder and other crime (e.g. murders per million population). That allows for apples-to-apples comparison: 10 murders in a population of 1 million is equal to 100 murders in a population of 10 million. Here's a link for you: A Century of Change: Trends in UK statistics since 1900, House of Commons Library Research Paper 99/111, 21 Dec 1999. Take a look at page 14 of the paper (page 15 of the PDF file). The chart on the upper left of the page shows "indictable offenses known to the police (per thousand of population) in England & Wales 1900-1997." You can see that in 1900 an Englishman's chance of being the victim of an indictable offense was roughly 1 in 400. That barely changed up until the '30s. During the '90s, an Englishman's chance of being the victim of an indictable offense was nearly 1 in 10. The chart on the upper right shows "homicides per million population in England and Wales." You can see that the rate for the first quarter of the 20th century (with low gun control) was substantially lower than the rate for the last quarter of the century (with strict gun control). Very interesting! Cheers! But I can't see it being quite as straight forward as the raw figures suggest. The chart shows "indictable offenses known to the police", and maybe this is a hint to the trend. Maybe due to better methods, and almost certainly better technology over the past 30-40 years, the police now know about more indictable offences, than in earlier periods in the past century? eg: Maybe in 1928 chances are alot of crimes simply went unreported as people expected nothing to be done/achieved. Or maybe they were reported, but the report simply didn't register such to be 'counted'. See where I'm coming from? Additionally, I believe a lot of guns disappeared from the UK in the 1920s when registration was first introduced. Yet, homicide rates dropped after this... Now, people will always try tp kill other people, and guns make this easier. Ever heard of a drive by knifing? I think if you look in the US, most murders involve a gun, and the reason must simply be because it's an easier way to achieve the goal... I have little doubt if guns were freely available in the UK, they would get used, and murders/deaths would certainly rise... If you intended mugging someone, or robbing a shop, and had the choice of using a knife, a baseball bat, or a gun, which would you use? At the moment guns are hard to come by. If they were available in large numbers, they we be easier to come by. I prefer the idea of your average herion addict who is commiting crime to feed their habit not getting hold of a gun easily... The same holds true to the mentally unstable. I don't want them getting a gun either - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7595178.stm The father in question is an idiot. He is to blame. Let him suffer the guilt of the result of his stupidity and neglect while he sits behind bars for the rest of his life. Better he rot in prison, than to allow him to walk free and possibly procreate once again. -stray- Interesting... I hadn't actually thought about the outcome of the case... Personally I think he won't end up in prison for what is a stupid accident... But as my OP said, God knows how he (& his daughter) will come to terms over the years to come with it...

[Publius]

The chart shows "indictable offenses known to the police", and maybe this is a hint to the trend. Maybe due to better methods, and almost certainly better technology over the past 30-40 years, the police now know about more indictable offences, than in earlier periods in the past century? eg: Maybe in 1928 chances are alot of crimes simply went unreported as people expected nothing to be done/achieved. Or maybe they were reported, but the report simply didn't register such to be 'counted'. I suspect that you're right that that explains at least part of the trend. But I find it hard to believe that offenses are 40 times as likely to be reported now than 80-100 years ago.

[Neil]

I suspect that you're right that that explains at least part of the trend. But I find it hard to believe that offenses are 40 times as likely to be reported now than 80-100 years ago. Can't say... I suspect there is a big factor of:- - How likely to be reported. - How likely to be recorded in such a way it gets included in a report 50yrs later. I suspect records were all locallised and many things just weren't included. Probably for the latter quarter of the century with technology everything was far more centralised and dealt with far more accurately. So who knows... Maybe it has increased, maybe it's gone down, it's a hard call... Personally I really wouldn't like to call it...

[SymphonicX]

Its cheap to suggest that women who have historically been physically and still are physically weaker then men and who have been the brunt of the victims of male aggression should appreciate the power of a firearm which gives them the power to over power possible aggressors? Really? Thats cheap? How? It's cheap because you're using your view that women are a weaker sex to undermime her safety and somehow strengthen the fact that you're a gun-lover. The chances of her being attacked are fairly slim and to use rape or abuse as a way to make her scared into owning or believing that guns are the right choice is ****ing WEAK dude. Not bothering with your tired rhetoric anymore. Go away.

[Neil]

The chances of her being attacked are fairly slim and to use rape or abuse as a way to make her scared into owning or believing that guns are the right choice is ****ing WEAK dude. This 'gun empowers you' argument is of course 'ideal scenario' stuff. In an ideal world, you pull your gun out on your assailant, and ride happily ever after off into the sunset. There's no issue that your gun is not easily to hand, or the fact the assailant is already armed and ready (they most likely have the advantage of surprise)... While it undoubtably can and does happen, I suspect there are just as many cases when the scales don't work in favour of the innocent victim. I suspect in many cases an assailant will find his position is far improved with a gun in his possession... So while gun ownership can tip the scales in one direction, it's just as likely to tip it the other way as well. So in conclusion - A women can try to run away from a man who does not have a gun... I'm yet to see a women who thinks she can outrun a bullet...