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

Yojimbo

01-Sep-2008, 09:13 PM

What on Earth was he doing leaving an air rifle unattended near two very young children anyway, what an idiot.

While I am in favor of responsible gun ownership, I have to agree with Liam on the above point. Yes, what the hell was this guy thinking?

what's more important, to be diverted by a hobby, or to always take care of your family & to not take any risks with their safety?

Liam, I do understand and respect your position, though one of the primary reasons I possess firearms is to do exactly what you mentioned: in effect, I have firearms so that I can always take care of my family and not take risks with their safety. That being said, I do not have any young children in my house, and certainly extra precautions would have to be taken to ensure that if there were children about that this sort of situation would not occur.

I was brought up to respect the danger of a firearm, and because I had this respect for firearms and the knowledge that they can inflict permanent injury I would have never, as a child, played around with a gun. I do agree that having a weapon, even an air gun, in the possession of a dolt who would leave it where a child could access it unsupervised is an unforgivable situation.

See, this is a perfect example of "guns don't kill people, stupid people kill people". The father killed his own son for being stupid enough to leave a gun around small children. You could argue that it's techinically not a "gun", but obviously it can be lethal....

I agree bassman, whether or not it is technically a gun is inconsequential. I would consider his equally as stupid if he had left his child in a hot car, or his kid in the front seat unattended with the engine running, or left a crossbow, butcher knife or a chainsaw where one of his children could get their hands on it.

Completely tragic and completely avoidable!

Guns are soley designed to kill people and animals as easily as possible.

Yes, this is absolutely true, though they can in some circumstances be used as a deterrent to violence. But I do see your point about the inclusion of a projectile firing weapon made this situation a lot more deadly than if the kid had gotten her hands on a pair of scissors or a kitchen knife.

Bub666

01-Sep-2008, 11:52 PM

While I agree this is a perfect example of guns don't kill people,people kill people,It's still very sad.

Khardis

02-Sep-2008, 12:44 AM

I agree, this is actually a perfect example of why that tired "guns don't kill people" mantra is invalid as an argument in favour of gun ownership by the general public.

Guns are soley designed to kill people and animals as easily as possible. They are one of the least physically and psychologically demanding ways for the average person to kill another person and as such are far more dangerous than other potential weapons, e.g. knives. It is unlikely that the five year-old would have accidentally administered a fatal head injury to her brother with a knife, if one had been available, but it was only too easy to do so with a gun.

1. It wasn't a gun, it was an airsoft "gun" thats only a gun so much as a slingshot or a rubber band stretched and flung from your finger is a "gun".

2. as a woman, I would have thought you would have appreciated the fairness of firearms that give YOU the power to defend yourself from much more powerful men who may want to abuse you in any given situation simply because you are a woman and they are stronger.

3. This is a case of a human accidently killing a human, if the father had left a pair of scissors there, the other kid could have died from running and tripping with them in their hand. Does that mean scissors kill people too?

Chic Freak

02-Sep-2008, 07:23 AM

1. It wasn't a gun, it was an airsoft "gun" thats only a gun so much as a slingshot or a rubber band stretched and flung from your finger is a "gun".

A rubber band stretched and flung from her finger wouldn't have killed a child.

2. as a woman, I would have thought you would have appreciated the fairness of firearms that give YOU the power to defend yourself from much more powerful men who may want to abuse you in any given situation simply because you are a woman and they are stronger.

If I had legal access to guns, then so would he, so I still wouldn't have the advantage on my hypothetical assailant.

3. This is a case of a human accidently killing a human, if the father had left a pair of scissors there, the other kid could have died from running and tripping with them in their hand. Does that mean scissors kill people too?

Well, pairs of trousers have been know to kill people, in that sense. But like scissors, that is not their main function.

slickwilly13

02-Sep-2008, 07:54 AM

I don't mean to argue, but there was no mention of an airsoft gun. It said airgun. And a pellet was removed. Which leads me to believe it was a high powered pellet gun. It was probably not your cheap $20-$30 BB gun, but one that is higher powered around the $80-$100 + range. I worked at a sporting goods store years ago. And we had a large variety of air guns. The most expensive ones were higher in power and kind of loud for a BB/pellet gun. And with a toddler that small it wouldn't take much to put a pellet in his brain. Which is what happened in this case, unfortunately. Cheaper guns usually barely break the skin. But they will go through a bird's body. Or a rat's. As for airsoft guns, I have been shot by them point blank before. And they sting like hell.

_liam_

02-Sep-2008, 01:33 PM

1. It wasn't a gun, it was an airsoft "gun" thats only a gun so much as a slingshot or a rubber band stretched and flung from your finger is a "gun".

That's like sticking your hand in a passing woman's vagina, and then saying in court that if that counts as sexual assault, so does sticking your finger in someone's ear.

It's not as bad as it could have been, but that doesn't render it trivial, or sufficiently different enough from similar cases to warrant a different approach or reaction

Khardis

02-Sep-2008, 02:25 PM

A rubber band stretched and flung from her finger wouldn't have killed a child.

And neither would an airsoft gun unless it was hit just right, imagine a rubber band with a paper clip on it.

If I had legal access to guns, then so would he, so I still wouldn't have the advantage on my hypothetical assailant.

Absurd logic. The criminals already have guns, illegally. And criminals as far as i know are barred form buying legal guns.

Well, pairs of trousers have been know to kill people, in that sense. But like scissors, that is not their main function.
SO stabbing someone to death with scissors makes them less dead than if they were shot?

That's like sticking your hand in a passing woman's vagina, and then saying in court that if that counts as sexual assault, so does sticking your finger in someone's ear.

It's not as bad as it could have been, but that doesn't render it trivial, or sufficiently different enough from similar cases to warrant a different approach or reaction

guns, or firearms are not shot with air. Airsoft toy guns are. And I cant stress "toy" enough. I had one when I was 6, several in fact. There is either more to this story or its an incredible but horrible coincidence. I have been shot in the head with air soft guns and they bounce off. And we weren't using plastic pellets we were using copper BBs.

And I did hear often "you'll shoot your eye out". Came close once or twice, but I made it through. Which is why I think there must be more to this story than just the airsoft gun or what type of airsoft gun it was. Because those things are incredibly weak.

Neil

02-Sep-2008, 02:34 PM

Absurd logic. The criminals already have guns, illegally. And criminals as far as i know are barred form buying legal guns.

Oh God... here we go again :rolleyes:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Please realise some people in other countries have a very different take on gun ownership... And you never know, as those people live in those countries, their opinions may actually be more informed and therefore right for that country :rolleyes:

guns, or firearms are not shot with air. Airsoft toy guns are. And I cant stress "toy" enough. I had one when I was 6, several in fact. There is either more to this story or its an incredible but horrible coincidence. I have been shot in the head with air soft guns and they bounce off. And we weren't using plastic pellets we were using copper BBs.

I believe it was an air-pistol in question, which typically shoots a diabolo pellet, unlike the round ones found in BBs? I believe these pellets travel better/faster/more accurately than BB ones?

My dad owned an air rifle, which do to its higher than normal power, he had to have a gun license for...

As for the cause of death, maybe the pellet went through a weak spot in the skull into the brain?

Khardis

02-Sep-2008, 02:38 PM

Oh God... here we go again :rolleyes:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Please realise some people in other countries have a very different take on gun ownership... And you never know, as those people live in those countries, their opinions may actually be more informed and therefore right for that country :rolleyes:

Yeah that would be a funny thing, if people weren't allowed to comment on other countries policies, it would sure be interesting to use that against all the Brits here who always have something to say about American policies.

Either way, you guys over there in Jolly Old once had the right to bare arms. Then it was taken away. You had an essential freedom taken away, if you don't mind that, then good for you. Others do. Including friends of mine who are British and live in the same country and are informed and think its bull**** that they have been disarmed and now with the countries crime right are helpless to defend themselves.

I believe it was an air-pistol in question, which typically shoots a diabolo pellet, unlike the round ones found in BBs? I believe these pellets travel better/faster/more accurately than BB ones?

My dad owned an air rifle, which do to its higher than normal power, he had to have a gun license for...

As for the cause of death, maybe the pellet went through a weak spot in the skull into the brain?

Just because you were required to get a license over there doesn't mean they're really guns. I mean hell they banned guns outright over there.

Neil

02-Sep-2008, 02:46 PM

Yeah that would be a funny thing, if people weren't allowed to comment on other countries policies, it would sure be interesting to use that against all the Brits here who always have something to say about American policies.
The issue simply is when you find a comment/point made by someone you're not happy with, you jump in with both feet and with a real attitude.

As a general suggestion, a well founded comment or conversation typically doesn't start with a response to someone of, "Absurd logic." :rolleyes:

Possibly they have a valid point to make?

Just because you were required to get a license over there doesn't mean they're really guns. I mean hell they banned guns outright over there.

Huh? The point was that you were equating an airgun to a rubber band? And suggesting it is not lethal at all? Where in fact they can be dangerous in unfortunate circumstances... As this story shows...

I suspect the child died in a similar fashion to this case? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4965744.stm

Additionally I was also trying to clarify that maybe BBs are not as powerful as typical air rifles using diabolo pellets?

SymphonicX

02-Sep-2008, 02:59 PM

1. It wasn't a gun, it was an airsoft "gun" thats only a gun so much as a slingshot or a rubber band stretched and flung from your finger is a "gun".

2. as a woman, I would have thought you would have appreciated the fairness of firearms that give YOU the power to defend yourself from much more powerful men who may want to abuse you in any given situation simply because you are a woman and they are stronger.

3. This is a case of a human accidently killing a human, if the father had left a pair of scissors there, the other kid could have died from running and tripping with them in their hand. Does that mean scissors kill people too?

1) Come on. That's stupid. An air rifle fires metal pellets. An elastic band can NOT penetrate a skull.

2) A cheap shot at women.

3) Scissor accidents happen all the time. Scissors weren't designed to be fired, detonated, or projected at speed. There's definitely a design element in firearms which allows this to happen, isn't there?

And neither would an airsoft gun unless it was hit just right, imagine a rubber band with a paper clip on it.

Absurd logic. The criminals already have guns, illegally. And criminals as far as i know are barred form buying legal guns.

SO stabbing someone to death with scissors makes them less dead than if they were shot?

guns, or firearms are not shot with air. Airsoft toy guns are. And I cant stress "toy" enough. I had one when I was 6, several in fact. There is either more to this story or its an incredible but horrible coincidence. I have been shot in the head with air soft guns and they bounce off. And we weren't using plastic pellets we were using copper BBs.

And I did hear often "you'll shoot your eye out". Came close once or twice, but I made it through. Which is why I think there must be more to this story than just the airsoft gun or what type of airsoft gun it was. Because those things are incredibly weak.

You're a bit annoying.

No "toy" gun will break skin.

There are air guns that can take chunks out of brick walls, I've fired one. They are evil. Some are powered by compressed gas. I saw one designed like the robocop gun that fired three round bursts.

_liam_

02-Sep-2008, 03:24 PM

Absurd logic. The criminals already have guns, illegally. And criminals as far as i know are barred form buying legal guns.

Mate don't talk about logic when you are totally ignoring the fundamental logic of the situation to begin with

1. less gun laws mean people can get guns easier

2. criminals are people

3. therefore less gun laws means criminals can get guns easier.

You can say a criminal would seek out a gun anyway, but that's a hypothetical possibility, as opposed to the cold hard fact i'm stating.

Anyway, it's easier in the US to get guns than it is in the UK, and far more crimes are committed with guns. Hmm, how does it work?

You can still get rifles & shotguns in the uk, and I can get hold of a deringer pistol for 125 pounds in the st pauls district of bristol, yet our rates of firearms related crime are much much lower.

Why do you think that is? It may just be because it's harder to get hold of weapons, juuust maybe

Neil

02-Sep-2008, 03:29 PM

Mate don't talk about logic when you are totally ignoring the fundamental logic of the situation to begin with

1. less gun laws mean people can get guns easier

2. criminals are people

3. therefore less gun laws means criminals can get guns easier.

You can say a criminal would seek out a gun anyway, but that's a hypothetical possibility, as opposed to the cold hard fact i'm stating.

Anyway, it's easier in the US to get guns than it is in the UK, and far more crimes are committed with guns. Hmm, how does it work?

You can still get rifles & shotguns in the uk, and I can get hold of a deringer pistol for 125 pounds in the st pauls district of bristol, yet our rates of firearms related crime are much much lower.

Why do you think that is? It may just be because it's harder to get hold of weapons, juuust maybe

I've been through this with Khardis a number of times...

As I've said to him before, I'd love a gun. I'd love to know I have it to fall back on in an emergency. However, I do not need it at the expense of knowing every nutter in the country stands a far greater chance of being armed too.

If the UK was to allow gun ownership akin to the US tomorrow, I don't think anyones would argue that gun related deaths would do anything else but rise alarmingly. And I for one believe I would feel less safe...

Now, I in no way suggest these thoughts should be applied to the US, or indeed any other country.

Now, any chance we can get a little more back on topic... :)

SymphonicX

02-Sep-2008, 03:34 PM

This tired old debate is like abortion, and more fittingly, Marmite....it splits a room right down the ****ing middle!

Khardis

02-Sep-2008, 04:42 PM

The issue simply is when you find a comment/point made by someone you're not happy with, you jump in with both feet and with a real attitude.

As a general suggestion, a well founded comment or conversation typically doesn't start with a response to someone of, "Absurd logic." :rolleyes:

Possibly they have a valid point to make?

Huh? The point was that you were equating an airgun to a rubber band? And suggesting it is not lethal at all? Where in fact they can be dangerous in unfortunate circumstances... As this story shows...

I suspect the child died in a similar fashion to this case? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4965744.stm

Additionally I was also trying to clarify that maybe BBs are not as powerful as typical air rifles using diabolo pellets?

One does jump into a topic with "absurd logic" when someone is using absurd logic. She is contending that if guns were legal all criminals would have them. I am contending that criminals do have guns since they don't care if they're legal or not. The only one in the equation who changes is the law abiding person. And if she was being attacked by a man having a gun on her person would level the playing field.

1) Come on. That's stupid. An air rifle fires metal pellets. An elastic band can NOT penetrate a skull.

Add a paper clip or a tack to it.

2) A cheap shot at women.
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?

3) Scissor accidents happen all the time. Scissors weren't designed to be fired, detonated, or projected at speed. There's definitely a design element in firearms which allows this to happen, isn't there?

No one wants to answer the question though, if you are killed with scissors are you any less dead than if you're shot with a gun?

Y
ou're a bit annoying.

No "toy" gun will break skin.

There are air guns that can take chunks out of brick walls, I've fired one. They are evil. Some are powered by compressed gas. I saw one designed like the robocop gun that fired three round bursts.

Those sound fun care to show me some links to them so i can check them out? Doesn't sound like you're talking about airsoft guns though that at most run on a pump or CO2 cartridges.

Mike70

02-Sep-2008, 04:50 PM

jeez. why can't we just chalk this up as the horrible accident it is? it isn't that hard to understand. kids unfortunately get their hands on all manner of stuff they shouldn't have and guns are no exception to this.

if this child had died because of eating bug poison, running with something sharp or playing near some dangerous machinery, would this debate still be raging? i doubt it. guns are one of those hot button things and when an accident happens with one, everybody wants to jump on it and cry foul.

mista_mo

02-Sep-2008, 05:02 PM

whether an air soft rifle constitutes as a firearm is irrelevant to this discussion. Either way the Child died due to parental neglect, be it from cutting himself with an easy to reach knife, shooting himself with an easily accessible "firearm", eating bug poison, or falling down the stairs. It is irrelevant, this supposed adult and parent should have had enough sense to not place potentially dangerous objects around their home within easy reach of their children.

I'm not a parent, but it's f*cking stupid to do something like that.

Khardis

02-Sep-2008, 05:04 PM

Mate don't talk about logic when you are totally ignoring the fundamental logic of the situation to begin with

I will try to take you through this in clear language so you can understand why you are wrong.

1. less gun laws mean people can get guns easier
Incorrect. Its easier to buy a gun illegally than it is to buy one legally. If all criminals decided tomorrow to get legal guns instead of illegal guns there would be less crime because they have to have a license, clean record, enough money to buy the gun, and the ability to demonstrate they aren't insane. Criminals don't buy their guns legally, they buy them illegally, therefore they aren't affected by gun control laws at all. The only people who are effected by gun control laws are people who intend to buy guns legally. These are not the people who commit gun crimes statistics have shown time and time again.

2. criminals are people
Irrelevant

3. therefore less gun laws means criminals can get guns easier.
Again, wrong. This is absurd logic. I already told you, criminals don't buy guns legally. When you purchase a gun legally you have to be licensed. In order to get that you have to go through a background check and get finger printed. Then when you buy a gun you register at the time of purchase, and once you do that the guns ballistic print is kept on file with your finger prints and your name and address. If that gun is used in a crime it can be checked against a database of those files. Leading the police to the owner of the firearm.

Your analogy doesn't work because its like saying the modern infrastructure makes it easy enough to pump out a car from any factory in 20 minutes from parts, making it cheaper and easier for people to buy cars, Amish are people, therefore Amish people will buy cars and use cars. When in fact you know that the Amish don't buy OR use cars, despite that they're still "people".

You can say a criminal would seek out a gun anyway, but that's a hypothetical possibility, as opposed to the cold hard fact i'm stating.
You aren't stating a fact, thats the thing you are stating a false pretense without factoring in reality. The "hypothetical" possibility you are talking about isn't too hypothetical when the majority of guns used in crimes by criminals are actually purchased illegally.

Anyway, it's easier in the US to get guns than it is in the UK, and far more crimes are committed with guns. Hmm, how does it work?

Yeah, far more. Funny how there isn't zero gun crime in the old UK eh? We also have way less crime per capita in the United States are your rape and murder victims less raped or less dead because their attackers attacked them with knives instead of guns? And if those victims hadn't been denied the right to legally own a gun who knows how many of them could have saved themselves.

You can still get rifles & shotguns in the uk, and I can get hold of a deringer pistol for 125 pounds in the st pauls district of bristol, yet our rates of firearms related crime are much much lower.
I like how you say cute things like rates of firearm crime... much lower. You know you'd think there would be zero gun crime in England what with guns being illegal and all. Oh and good thing you said you have less gun crime rather than saying you have less crime. Because you would only be right about the 1st point, as for crime overall, you are much much more likely to be the victim of a crime in England than in the United States. Which is odd because the United States has a larger number of people from differing backgrounds which can cause contention whereas England is largely homogenous still.

Why do you think that is? It may just be because it's harder to get hold of weapons, juuust maybe

I think there is less gun crime in England because there has always been less gun crime in England. Culturally your people never really needed guns the way our fledgling country did to survive. At least for the general populace. But I wouldn't be standing on the mountain screaming victory just yet, England has a horrendous crime rate for a country of that stature. Much of it is because you did ban guns and criminals are fairly invulnerable now. Much easier to choose to rob a house when you know they aren't armed, then when you don't know if they are armed.

whether an air soft rifle constitutes as a firearm is irrelevant to this discussion. Either way the Child died due to parental neglect, be it from cutting himself with an easy to reach knife, shooting himself with an easily accessible "firearm", eating bug poison, or falling down the stairs. It is irrelevant, this supposed adult and parent should have had enough sense to not place potentially dangerous objects around their home within easy reach of their children.

I'm not a parent, but it's f*cking stupid to do something like that.

Exactly. This child died because of neglectful parents. We don't need to ban airsoft guns or anything, we just need to chalk this up to horrible bad luck and bad parenting.

Neil

02-Sep-2008, 05:45 PM

One does jump into a topic with "absurd logic" when someone is using absurd logic. She is contending that if guns were legal all criminals would have them.
Are you sure... Re-read her post... I don't think she said anything so black-and-white of the sort...

She's basically stated my exact issue with general ownership of guns... If she's allowed easy access to them, so then are all the fruit cases...

No where has she stated the what you suggest... You're putting words into peoples' mouths simply to justify your arguments...

Add a paper clip or a tack to it.
Tell you what, let's stand 30 feet apart, you armed to the eye-brows tacks and paper clips for your super-bad-arse elastic band, and me with a just an air rifle...

We'll then proceed to take turns at firing at each other and see who walks away first... Hell, you can even go first!

For goodness sake... Can't believe you're not letting this one drop :rolleyes:

mista_mo

02-Sep-2008, 05:46 PM

Well, to be fair, neither are you Neil....

Neil

02-Sep-2008, 05:53 PM

I think there is less gun crime in England because there has always been less gun crime in England. Culturally your people never really needed guns the way our fledgling country did to survive. At least for the general populace. But I wouldn't be standing on the mountain screaming victory just yet, England has a horrendous crime rate for a country of that stature. Much of it is because you did ban guns and criminals are fairly invulnerable now. Much easier to choose to rob a house when you know they aren't armed, then when you don't know if they are armed.

Absolutely! And I guarentee if guns were freely available, things like house breakins etc would drop... However, the price would be the people left desperate enough to break in (eg: smack heads) would arm themselves just incase...

I also guarentee marital arguements ending in a moment-of-anger shooting would rise.

I also guarentee accidental deaths from guns would rise.

I also guarentee more robberies would be commited using guns, and more shootings during robberies would occur.

Yes, some crimes would go down, but I (personally) believe the price in human lives would be just too high to introduce guns just to reduce those, or try and give paranoid people a belief that a gun makes them safer or more empowered... (in the UK)

Well, to be fair, neither are you Neil....

True, but I'm not the one suggesting an elastic band with paper clip is comperable to an air rifle...

Sometimes a duck, really needs to be called a duck :)

Publius

02-Sep-2008, 07:08 PM

Absolutely! And I guarentee if guns were freely available, things like house breakins etc would drop... However, the price would be the people left desperate enough to break in (eg: smack heads) would arm themselves just incase...

I also guarentee marital arguements ending in a moment-of-anger shooting would rise.

I also guarentee accidental deaths from guns would rise.

I also guarentee more robberies would be commited using guns, and more shootings during robberies would occur.

Yes, some crimes would go down, but I (personally) believe the price in human lives would be just too high to introduce guns just to reduce those, or try and give paranoid people a belief that a gun makes them safer or more empowered... (in the UK)

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?

Chic Freak

02-Sep-2008, 07:16 PM

Khardis, I don't think you've actually understood what your quoting in your posts here.

It would be "absurd" of me to suggest that killing someone with a gun makes them "more dead" than killing someone with a pair of scissors; so absurd that that is probably why no-one responded to your comment.

What I said was, a gun's sole function is to kill people and animals. This is not the sole function of other potential weapons (scissors, broken bottles, pillows) and they also do not provide such a quick and easy way of killing people- so easy that even a five year-old girl could do it by accident. This is why guns are more dangerous than scissors.

Also, Neil was quite clearly not saying that you are not allowed to comment on other countries' social policies. Even if you do rather like the idea of a hypocritical liberal to argue with, Neil isn't it.

I honestly don't know if "all" criminals in the US have illegal guns. Very few here do, and that is because there are, by comparison to the US, very few in circulation. The reason there are so few in circulation is because they are illegal. According to your logic, the UK should have just as many illegal guns per person in circulation as the US, but this is simply not the case.

It's not "funny" that the UK doesn't have zero gun crime, but it is very telling that whenever someone is shot dead by a gun, it ends up on the news, because it is such a rare occurence.

Your assertion that there is "way less crime per capita in the United States" is completely incorrect. The opposite is true. England has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, not far behind Japan.

Publius

02-Sep-2008, 07:30 PM

Your assertion that there is "way less crime per capita in the United States" is completely incorrect. The opposite is true. England has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, not far behind Japan.

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.

darth los

02-Sep-2008, 08:12 PM

As a general suggestion, a well founded comment or conversation typically doesn't start with a response to someone of, "Absurd logic." :rolleyes:

Possibly they have a valid point to make?

GOTTA LOVE THOSE REPUBLICANS!! :thumbsup:

Craig

02-Sep-2008, 08:12 PM

We used to have an air rifle that fired these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Air-gun-pellets.jpg

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

02-Sep-2008, 08:26 PM

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

02-Sep-2008, 08:30 PM

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.

:D

-stray-

Craig

02-Sep-2008, 08:31 PM

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

02-Sep-2008, 09:27 PM

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... :rockbrow:

Talk about having to walk on eggshells...

Chic Freak

03-Sep-2008, 12:05 AM

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

03-Sep-2008, 01:01 AM

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

03-Sep-2008, 01:20 AM

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 (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf), 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 (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf). 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

03-Sep-2008, 04:39 AM

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... :rockbrow:

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

03-Sep-2008, 08:04 AM

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 (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf), 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

03-Sep-2008, 04:42 PM

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

03-Sep-2008, 08:14 PM

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

05-Sep-2008, 09:38 AM

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

05-Sep-2008, 10:02 AM

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...

Khardis

05-Sep-2008, 10:04 AM

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.

I am sorry that you feel that disarming females is better so that they're totally at the mercy to those around them. WHy are you so afraid of females arming themselves anyway? Physically women are weaker than men, its why they have things like women's self defense training here they teach women how to get away from.... men.

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...

Uhh Neil, criminals cant have guns in your neck of the woods, they're illegal remember? And when something is illegal its impossible for it to exist. And I just have to laugh at how weak you actually see women. You don't even think a woman is strong enough to pull out a pistol she trains with often and defend herself with it, of course you believe that she is just going to have it taken away right?