Latest American Shootings

flash222004

Well-Known Member
When I turned on the news this morning in the Ops room my heart sunk when I saw the latest reports of the shootings in Aurora, US. I am a relatively new FAC holder having had my licence for around 8 months and was considering putting in for a variation for another couple of calibres to look forward tousing at the end of my tour and with the intent of using one for my DSC1. Although only having my own FAC for a few months I was brought up torespect firearms and how to use them safely, something I hope to install in myown children when they are ready to shoot. Surely these latest murders in the US musthave a knock on effect on when it comes to forces considering new application sand variations in the UK. Is there anything being done to try and sway the UK public towards supporting a system that seems to for the main stop the kind of atrocity’sthat are happening in the US, where it seems possible for anyone to possess all types of weaponry with little or no restrictions.
 
Last edited:
It is a tragic occurrence and our thoughts should be with the family and friends of the injured and deceased.

It will inevitably fuel the anti-gun debate and you raise valid points but now is probably not the time to raise those issues whilst the victims are still being mourned.
 
You touch upon the kind of first thoughts that most people have. Make no mistake it is a terrible, terrible thing and no sane person would think otherwise.

Without detracting from that last sentence, those very first thoughts are one of the huge problems that legitimate shooters face - because those very thoughts are so powerful and on the face of it persuasive.

This debate has raged on and will undoubtedly continue to do so. There are no easy or quick answers and seemingly glib phrases can risk the appearance of ignorance or insult. Though much discredited in the media, the cliche ' guns dont kill people, people kill people' stands quite close scrutiny as a truism.

I believe it was Jeff Cooper ( and there's much that he and I would not agree on ) coined the word 'Hopolophobia' - the fear of an inanimate object. Firearms per se are a machine, a tool, the effect they wreak is entirely at the whim of humans - both in how used and the 'mindset' surrounding them. Very similar parallels can be drawn with cars.

History and studies show that no amount of legislation/ control - regardless of the subject - whether it be firearms, drugs, cars, alcohol, bankers or dogs - ever effectively tackles the effect that was perceived to be the problem in the first place.

The so named Gun Culture in the States is a symptom of a wider societal circumstance - not all of it negative.

The great philosopher ( if quite anti gun ) Terry Pratchett put it rather well ( paraphrasing ) ' we need to rub against and bounce off others people, in this way we are constantly reminded that we are part of a larger whole and reminded of our belonging. If we isolate ourselves, then strange creations come into being and this is not good, sometimes its extremely bad - people forget ... they are people'.

Aside from the imposition upon many thousands of legitimate shooters - some who become criminalised via administrative error only; the most terrible cost of the majority of firearms legislation is that for nearly a century it has fudged the need to seek a cure, by merely addressing a perceived symptom. In the UK we have a supposedly 'tight control system' - it may well prevent some spur of the moment stupidity but it actually puts us all at greater risk. Because 'society' believes the control works - or if it doesn't, then tightening it will. With that placebo, effort and will does not exist to actually address the root problems. So instead of seeking a truly effective control system ( and guess what - ban all guns isn't it! ) or tackling the criminal use of firearms, drugs, dogs, bankers etc effectively we bimble along - until the next time.

UK shooters suffer a double whammy - not only are we ostracised/ pilloried but many of us realise we are citizens too! We and our loved ones are just as likely to be walking down the street when the next nutcase with a grudge kicks off.

I suffered a very close personal loss due to violent crime. An implement was used, never in all the years have I once believed that the implement was to blame or that strict controls on that implement before, then or since would have made one jot of difference to the event.


Please understand that I am not directing any criticism at you or your post, merely trying to state a point of view to consider.

As shooters is behoves us all to research the facts and act at all times - by deed, word and thought in a manner that stands the fiercest scrutiny.
 
V - typing away whilst others posted. I agree about respect for the grieving and hope the post above is read in a general context - indeed, I specifically refrained from specific references to any event other than my own.
 
Moray Outfitting, a very well considered and well written post.

The same emotions of grief and mourning can be associated with victims of road accidents, air crashes, drug and alcohol deaths, dogs, etc, etc, but we continue to fly, drive, drink and own dogs. The debate will continue as to who is to blame for any tragic and untimely death, and people always want someone to blame.
 
V - typing away whilst others posted. I agree about respect for the grieving and hope the post above is read in a general context - indeed, I specifically refrained from specific references to any event other than my own.

You have put the argument across very well in respect of the school of thought that, 'it's not guns that kill people...'.

I have seen many violent crimes over the years and never once thought that by restricting the ownership of weapons further you would in turn save lives. The reason for that is that with the exception of a tiny fraction of incidents when a gun is used it is done so by a criminal. In other words someone who has access to non controlled weapons regardless of the restrictions placed through legislation.

I remember about 25 years ago when there was a gun amnesty in Scotland to allow the surrender of illegally held weapons. There was not a queue of criminals lined up at cop shops wanting to hand I their sawn offs and tommy guns. There were in reality a handful of weapons kept back by ex military from some campaign they had been on, or a surviving relative surrendering a weapon found when clearing a property of a deceased relative.

The problem is, and and always will be, the circumstances where someone who owns a weapon legitimately simply 'flips'. I don't mean to sound disrespectful with such a flippant remark, but that generally without warning is what happens. Dunblane, Hungerford, the recent two incidents in the Noth of England. Could they have been avoided by stricter gun laws? I doubt it because perceived as sane is perceived as sane.There are no scales of sanity to look at for a pass as suitable in gun ownership.

Should someone wake up one day and want to exact some warped revenge on society, will not having a gun prevent them in doing so? I doubt it. Think back to one example we will all be familiar with, Nicky Reilly...

They will learn to make a bomb by looking at the Internet or purchase a samurai sword and walk into a nursery and attack defenceless teachers and children, it happened just after Dunblane if you cast your minds back..

What if they decide to mount the kerb in a transit van and mow down a bunch of kids walking to school? How do we prevent that from happening?

Tighter legislation will only make those of us who need a weapon to carry out a lawful management job subject to more scrutiny in achieving ownership. It would obviously have a huge impact on the leisure approach to stalking and vermin control.

It will however not prevent criminals accessing guns. And it will not stop a lunatic whom may have previously had access to weapons carrying out an atrocity, because simply other means will be sought...
 
Last edited:
It is a tragedy; a horrific act of violence by a very disturbed individual. My heart goes out to the victims' families.

I thought the interview on Newsnight with the US forensic psychologist was insightful. He referred to what may drive these disturbed individuals. He also highlighted the case of Switzerland as having one of the highest levels of forearm ownership per capita and yet much lower incidence of violent crime per capita than the USA. He said that one factor was the comparatively homogeneous nature of Swiss society compared to the USA where there was much greater inequality, but also highlighted a very different 'wild west' attitude (in some parts of society) in the USA. [Edit: bearing in mind that this was said in the context of the whole interview, not as an isolated remark]

Regardless, what drove this clearly very disturbed individual is unknown and ultimately individuals must take responsibility for their own actions. As for legal gun owners, it is down to us to show the utmost respect at all times, behave responsibly at all times and hold ourselves to the very highest standards at all times.
 
Last edited:
Gents, I can only apologise if my post came across as insensitive and it goes without saying that my thoughts are with the families of the victims. Everyone’s comments certainly make interesting reading and aresomething I will take on board to look at the issue from a different angle infuture. It’s just difficult and upsetting at the thought of a sport that I grewup with and am passionate about being marred by the actions of another.
 
Last edited:
I caught a segment of news this morning - on the BBC - where a commentator reading from a news paper said that there had been over 800 deaths in the UK in the past year due to shooting!!! Even he seemed to think that was an astonishing figure.
Did anyone else catch it?
 
Flash - I didnt read anything you need to apologise for - and genuinely my post wasn't intended or directed as any form of criticism of you.

In fact I thought it was a very useful reminder of a perfectly understandable reaction and very indicative of how most people will think. Its is no criticism of those thoughts either - they are completely natural. The intent was really to encourage everyone to look a bit deeper. Because, whether from this time or the next, all shooters will sooner or later have those very same points raised.

In addition, lets not forget where you are posting from at the moment!
 
I think everyone is sorry to hear of these deaths, the fact that the media skip over is that homicides in the USA with firearms has dropped considerably in line with the relaxation of gun laws in some states.
 
Thoughts and prayers with the families and victims, horrible state of affairs. And it is too soon to be debating the whole firearms ownership thing but I feel I need to say something...

With regards to the gun debate... it is very difficult for us, as shooter, to see the issue clearly and be truly objective about it...

The whole inanimate object argument only really works from this side of the coin... Guns may be inanimate mechanically but they do have a profound psychological impact on most 'users' some more extreme than others..

They DO make one feel more powerful, secure, safe etc... any of you who were pistol shooters back in the day and shot PPC etc... tell me you didn't feel slightly 'different' when you had your pistol straped to your hip or in a shoulder rig! if not, you are in denial!

The issue with firearms is that they really only have one design purpose and to some with a propensity towards harming others may just tip them over the edge.. Get in a car and one doesn't immediately think 'ooo I could kill 20 people with this' one does not view each club in a golf bag by the lethality in an assault... however, put a firearm in many peoples hands and the thought will immediately switch to 'I could kill xxx with this!' whether they ever would or not.. like it or not guns may be inanimate but they are also extremely emoitive!

This was demonstrated recently when my brother in law (who is a non shooter) was looking at my guns... his point of reference was 'so how far could you kill someone with this one? and what about this one!'

Put an assault rifle in someone's hands and there is always a chance that they see reality like a computer game! Killing with a firearm is killing by remote.. pull the trigger and someone falls down in the distance... there is no interaction, one doesn't get blood on one's hands, there is little emotion generated....

I have recently jumped over the fence from vehemently supporting the whole 'inanimate object' argument to opposing it! I love shooting and would be horrified if I lost my beloved passtime BUT... is the right to own firearms really more important than the 12 lives that were lost in that shooting? I think not!

The 'what about the number of people killed on the road' argument holds no water either... road deaths, in the main, are due to accident, poor driving, alcohol & drug abuse' etc... not malicious intent.. perhaps the correct comparrison sould be... how many deaths caused by firearms vs caused by drivers deliberately using vehicles as weapons.. deaths by firearm tend to be through wilful, malicious intent... not by accident, alchol/drug induced or not.

Please don't misunderstand me.. I am all for legal, vetted, ownership of guns.. in the states however, the potential damage could be limited... The only people with access to assault weaponry should be the military! restricting them would probably have not prevented the incident but the death and injury toll would have been much lower without!

'Guns don't kill people. people kill people!' Yeah..... but thats' a little like the 'money doesn't make you happy' argument... That may be so but it sure does help!
 
Last edited:
Vipa

We are all individuals - across the board, whether shooters or anything else. It is incredibly hard not to generalise about anything/ anyone - again not just shooting related. Thats the way human brains and society in general works.

This is intended as a debate not an argument, please read it in that context.

It is always difficult because all right thinking people are deeply uncomfortable with any form of discussion like this when the overwhelming urge is to not impose on the grief of others. But past experience shows that the debate marches on - whether we get involved or not. Having been in the awful situation of having the police turn up to break news that turned my world upside down, the best defence I can put for continuing the debate is that they ( the grieving )squarely have much else on their mind right now. The point I put forward originally about controls being a placebo and ultimately putting us all at greater risk is particularly relevant as shooters previously sat by out of respect - to find the argument had concluded largely without them. My belief is we failed - not just ourselves and our sport - but crucially society. By not speaking up we allow poor law to pass - law that ultimately doesn't protect us all. Others have the excuse of ignorance - we should know better.

I think your comments are perfectly valid and extremely useful in terms of illuminating a type of view/ mindset in the whole debate. I personally disagree, but fully respect your view. Equally accept that the first sentence of this paragraph can be fully turned around and said of my position.

Your comments regards inanimate objectification near perfectly demonstrate the very definition of Hopolophobia. That word itself arguably only represents a hypothesis - but one to which I subscribe.

I agree that some people are clearly and demonstrably 'affected' by certain objects. I would argue it does equally apply to other things aside firearms - from my past, I never felt my 1256cc Beige, vinyl roof ( I know - I apologise ) Vauxhall Chevette was going to get TWOC'ed when it was parked near XR3i's and Cosworths.

I would argue also that in current society someone who chooses to drink or partake drugs then drive has committed an action of malice/ intent - if only through the omission of care for others.

In terms of the feelings engendered by firearms - this again cannot, I believe, apply across the board. My fave philosopher Terry Pratchett again covers it well in 'Men at Arms' and his contention that the 'Gonne' in the story has a character and influence upon the holder. You are absolutely right - many are so effected to a greater or lesser extent. Its not everyone and its not all the time. Denial? No, just a believe that you over simplify an important issue.

Your comment also highlights a very useful point. One that had escaped me entirely until I was actually having a debate with a fervent anti-gun individual - long story short, that person relayed that the 'power' feelings you mention were a major fear FOR THEM - in that THEY wouldn't trust themselves with such a tool of power - so THEY were terrified that others - whom they assumed thought just like them - could have such a tool. Given the degree of aggression that person displayed, I found myself in wholehearted agreement that THEY should never have such access! But we are not all the same. The straight forward statistics of gun numbers/ ownership v incidents demonstrate this. Though it is perhaps the best argument against unfettered firearms access.

From your position on 'inanimacy' it is a perfectly logical move to bring up firearm type. There has long been this argument that certain types of firearm are badder/ more evil/ more prone to adversely influence than others. Such is life - a good number of pheasant shooters/ clay guys/ target shots/ stalkers ( by no means all ) effectively sold the pistol shooters down the river in past times. Those very arguments about mindset and what the point of them was being the main thrust.

Go back to original design/ intent and we face draconian controls on many things - for safety's sake. A cricket bat ( risking Duke of Edinburgh parallels ) is basically a club. A club was designed to be a weapon. The history of man is littered with objects being employed for undesigned purposes - for good and ill. We have Noble peace prizes for this very reason.

Once you argue that a type of firearm is unnecessary then you are a very short step to why any are needed. Throw in that only the military require them - or government employed , 'highly selected' wildlife controllers - but only until such time as effective contraceptive drug delivery to wildlife becomes the 'humane' method of control - and where are we left? Take firearms out of the debate and the type of society that arrives at that point is in atrophy - THX1138 for film buffs.

As to the most emotionally charged aspect of Vipa's post - 'is your hobby/ job really worth one person's life - let alone 12'? Often followed by - 'How on earth do you people look at yourselves in the mirror'? The truth is we can look at ourselves in the mirror because - a. we dont really think about it very much. This doesnt mean we are bad people, just we are people. Tens of thousands of people die every year ( more probably ) to sustain the way in which each and every one of us CHOOSES ( by act or omission ) to live our daily lives. b. outwith the sound bite of that original question - your individual ownership of your firearms harms no one - other than those affected by your acts. You did not kill 12, 24 or however many people have been killed in these separate atrocities over the years - the person who chose to do it did - whether in malice, sickness or otherwise.

Vipa - I truly hope you see this as an open and good natured ( despite terrible source ) debate and in no way a personalised thing. If anything I have written steps over the bounds of a contra-view, then I give my unreserved apologies. I think your post is valid and extremely useful in adding to the debate.
 
All very valid and well put thought/points Moray.

What is "TWOC'ed" ?

My specific issue here is with 'type' of weapon... I agree with your comment re types of firearm and slippery slopes, however, I am not suggesting that certain types of guns are badder/more evil etc.. What I am suggesting is that certain types of firearm have no practical purpose to civilians that cannot be served in a different way and therefore have no real place.. If we take your viewpoint forward, the same could be said of hellfire missiles, Tomahawks, fully operational cheiftan tanks... at the other end of the spectrum (a little daft.... or is it) how about a small tactical nuclear device? there are many out there that could afford such items.. should we accept that freedom should mean individual/civilan access to anything and everything?

Would you be happy knowing that such items were in civilian hands?

I am a shooter.. shotgun, rifle, target, stalking, clays, game... back in the day I was a very active pistol shooter too.. please don't think of me as an anti.. I am exactly the opposite...

My only real point is that there needs to be a line in the sand beyond which civilians do not go, wealthy or not! That line already exists in the states, civilians would not be able to purchase and own the types of weapons I mentioned but I don't hear anyone from the pro-gun lobby complaining... Personally, I just think that line should be re-assessed and moved slightly south.

I dread to think what Bird MAY have done with hardware like that available to him!
 
Last edited:
Vipa

Many thanks - good to show that a valid debate can proceed to benefit of all.

TWOC'd - now thats just a blatant attempt to be ageist - between you and YDS Jon claiming he'd never heard of William Holden! :D Taking Without Owners Consent - stealing a car - popular pasttime in the 1980's ( best defence a beige Chevette ).

Having done a quite a bit of time in military circles and with defence contractors there is something of a perverse reverse in terms of lethality - a fully automatic in the hands of an untrained operator is potentially far less lethal than a 6 shot revolver shot with care.

Tanks are available in the states as here - sans the operating main gun. Imposing and terrifying, but outwith the context of a battlefield environment, far less potential lethality than a heavy recovery truck/ van filled with LPG etc.

Hellfire/ Sidewinder/ Cruise/ Exocet - again within battle environment arguably effective. The requirement of suitable programming software, safety interlock programmes and not least a launch platform - whether land based rail system or a small warship - along with required targeting radar/ satellite interlink; massively cramps effectiveness for solo or small group of crazies! ;)

Genuinely I wouldn't lose very much sleep over those.

Despite frantic bounty and buy back efforts by the US, Stingers et al remain available to various terrorist groups, as do 'conventional' weaponry by the boat load. Money is not a major object to such organisations. Yet their weapons of choice tend to be 'black book' improvised efforts.

There are numerous reasons for that - not least counter insurgency measures as much as logistics. But it remains that high lethality products can be produced in a shed with items from a DIY store/ Supermarket - and the knowledge to do so is widely distributed.

All the above is focussing on the object - back to debate above. The issue is with the person. Think of a dedicated individual with practised skills armed with a 308, firing pure target bullets - by example say a stalking rifle of a type very commonly employed by most of us here. Make his rifle single shot and assume restrictions absolutely limit him to obtaining 100 rounds. Place him in a position with height, good view, collateral soft targets and targets. What damage could he do in comparison with a man driving a tank or utilising an assault type weapon?

For me it comes back to the individual not the tool.
 
What I am suggesting is that certain types of firearm have no practical purpose to civilians that cannot be served in a different way and therefore have no real place...[...]...My only real point is that there needs to be a line in the sand beyond which civilians do not go, wealthy or not! That line already exists in the states, civilians would not be able to purchase and own the types of weapons I mentioned but I don't hear anyone from the pro-gun lobby complaining...

But where does the line start and stop? Don't forget that there was a furore over the ban on so-called 'assault rifles' in the US. When the ban was revoked/expired the huge surge in popularity of AR-15 type rifles and 'high power' rifle competition resulted you could argue, at least in part, because people realised that their government might easily ban them again in future, but would have a very tough job of disarming an already 'armed' population.

We should also remember that we have grown up in a culture where for generations we have been disarmed by the government and accept the fact that the military should be armed while civilians should not. This is partly why we would not accept having an armed police force. In the USA, the Constitution was set up so that the population would be armed and form a militia to maintain its freedom against the threat of government oppression. There is a big difference in the US psyche for this reason. This is also why successive governments in the USA have been unable to ban handguns, for example, and how they were so easily taken away in GB almost with the stroke of a pen.
 
I think Admin should send our global heartfelt condolences to The Mayor of the town, in order to that he/she may convey the same to the families of the deceased, that said of course, some may think these sentiments coming from shooting community inappropriate. As has already been said on this site, it is not guns that kill people, as a legal advisor I have represented 13 individuals who have arrested, charged, & convicted of Death By Dangerous Driving, all of them under 25 years of age, is it me, or is there a generation thing going on??
 
I think Admin should send our global heartfelt condolences to The Mayor of the town, in order to that he/she may convey the same to the families of the deceased, that said of course, some may think these sentiments coming from shooting community inappropriate. As has already been said on this site, it is not guns that kill people, as a legal advisor I have represented 13 individuals who have arrested, charged, & convicted of Death By Dangerous Driving, all of them under 25 years of age, is it me, or is there a generation thing going on??

I'm sure every successive generation feels the same.. I remember putting my parents through sheer hell at times Nd I'm absolutely sure they had more than a handful of sleepless nights and yet I now view today's youth as something almost 'feral!' I'm sure when they are all grown up and have teenage kids of their own they will feel the same way about them!
 
Back
Top