So would banning guns in USA have prevented this childs death

I think it would be near impossible to accurately foresee how a general policy could affect a specific incident.

But only an idiot would argue against the fact that less guns would mean less shootings. People regularly say in this forum 'people will always find a way', but lets be realistic - they don't. Moments of anger pass and people move on.
 
ecoleman said:
Guns are banned in the UK. People still get shot.
Click to expand...

Guns aren't banned in the UK. Ask any farmer.

"More tightly regulated" is more accurate, same with the thread title.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
A popcorn thread on my day off.
Excellent!
Click to expand...
Is it against the rules to run a book on here? I am thinking 10/1 the thread is closed before post 282 :exit:
 
andy700 said:
Yes they do, but at a rate of 30 times LESS than the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34424385

Nearly 10,000 killed and 20,000 injured by guns in the US so far this year.
I think the UK has the gun laws about right.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the population of USA is also far greater than the UK.
The issue is that the people that use guns for illegal activities will always be able to lay their hands on a gun, especially in the US as guns are easily smuggled over boarders.
 
ecoleman said:
I do realise that, but for the general public they are banned. Farmers may own guns but are not allowed to carry them in public.
Click to expand...

No they're not.
 
Of course, on the other hand if guns are not banned in the UK and anybody can purchase a firearm, then clearly banned guns in the US is not the answer.
 
ecoleman said:
So you could walk into a shop and purchase a firearm and carry that around town with you?

I'm not talking about farmers that have a licence for shooting on their farm, or for sports.

I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. Just being pedantic.
Click to expand...

No you couldn't.
But you said guns are banned to the general public, and they're not. You didn't say anything about licences to carry.
That's not me being a pedant, it's just a correction.
 
ecoleman said:
Of course, on the other hand if guns are not banned in the UK and anybody can purchase a firearm, then clearly banned guns in the US is not the answer.
Click to expand...

Guns are not banned in the UK but that doesn't mean anyone can buy one.

A bit like cars.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I do understand that certain people can own a gun in the UK. When I say they are banned, I mean they are not available to the general public like they are in USA or SA.

That doesn't change my point that the criminal folk will always find a way to get a gun, just like they do in the UK and if they can't get a gun, they'll grab a knife.

Drugs are banned, but that doesn't stop a multi billion $ drug trade or John Doe on some London Estate taking coke or smoking pot.
Some people get banned from driving. It's doesn't stop them from driving. Quite simply because the type of people that take drugs, drive while disqualified or walk around in gangs with guns or knives have little regards for any laws.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Okay. I do understand that certain people can own a gun in the UK. When I say they are banned, I mean they are not available to the general public like they are in USA or SA.

That doesn't change my point that the criminal folk will always find a way to get a gun, just like they do in the UK and if they can't get a gun, they'll grab a knife.

Drugs are banned, but that doesn't stop a multi billion $ drug trade or John Doe on some London Estate taking coke or smoking pot.
Some people get banned from driving. It's doesn't stop them from driving. Quite simply because the type of people that take drugs, drive while disqualified or walk around in gangs with guns or knives have little regards for any laws.
Click to expand...

Now that's absolutely right.
Those determined to will always source a gun....just like junkies and their drugs.
 
Actually my original post was aimed at the fact this wasn't a criminal (unless proved different).
This was a road rage incident where the aggrieved part opened up with a handgun and killed the young girl.

So if the US banned the private ownership of guns would the person who carried out the killing have had the handgun? and thus have committed the childs murder?
 
Mr Bump said:
Actually my original post was aimed at the fact this wasn't a criminal (unless proved different).
This was a road rage incident where the aggrieved part opened up with a handgun and killed the young girl.

So if the US banned the private ownership of guns would the person who carried out the killing have had the handgun? and thus have committed the childs murder?
Click to expand...
Based on what's been said in some posts, if he hadn't a gun, he'd have jumped out and stabbed her. Yeah, right.
 
Mr Bump said:
Actually my original post was aimed at the fact this wasn't a criminal (unless proved different).
This was a road rage incident where the aggrieved part opened up with a handgun and killed the young girl.

So if the US banned the private ownership of guns would the person who carried out the killing have had the handgun? and thus have committed the childs murder?
Click to expand...

I can't answer that question, but as an ex firearm owner in SA, I had plenty of training and respect for the firearm that I was carrying.
The firearm wasn't with me all of the time and I only ever carried it when I knew I was going to travel to a particularly dangerous area. I would never have dreamt of using for something as stupid as being angry at another driver.

I think that anybody that is willing to pull out a firearm and fire randomly into a neighbouring vehicle for such a trivial matter could not be deemed a normal, law abiding citizen.
 
ecoleman said:
That's not what I was implying at all.
Click to expand...
Ok, the point I was making was that if guns were banned, that child would likely be alive.
Unless the guy was a criminal, and had an illegal gun. Even then, as has been pointed out, criminals in the UK have guns, but dont run around killing kids at college, or road rage victims etc.
They usually shoot each other.
 
ecoleman said:
So you could walk into a shop and purchase a firearm and carry that around town with you?

I'm not talking about farmers that have a licence for shooting on their farm, or for sports.

I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. Just being pedantic.
Click to expand...

1.2 million people in the UK regularly shoot according to the UK NRA.

ecoleman said:
Okay. I do understand that certain people can own a gun in the UK. When I say they are banned, I mean they are not available to the general public like they are in USA or SA.
Click to expand...

But see above they are, you just need to qualify to have one, convince the local constabulary that you need one for valid reasons.
In the US, if you buy one from a store there are checks, forms to complete and in some states, a cooling off period before you can return to buy the gun.

In the UK, it's easy to rent a handgun from criminal elements for some, going rate is around £250 a day, with £5 a round.
 
ecoleman said:
I can't answer that question, but as an ex firearm owner in SA, I had plenty of training and respect for the firearm that I was carrying.

The firearm wasn't with me all of the time and I only ever carried it when I knew I was going to travel to a particularly dangerous area. I would never have dreamt of using for something as stupid as being angry at another driver.

I think that anybody that is willing to pull out a firearm and fire randomly into a neighbouring vehicle for such a trivial matter could not be deemed a normal, law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...

But we only have you're word for that. What happened if you thought you were threatened but were mistaken?
Why carry the gun, why have one at all for that purpose. At least in the UK you have one for a purpose, i.e.r for sport, or pest control. We don't carry our guns around 'if we travel to a dangerous area...'
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Ok, the point I was making was that if guns were banned, that child would likely be alive.
Unless the guy was a criminal, and had an illegal gun. Even then, as has been pointed out, criminals in the UK have guns, but dont run around killing kids at college, or road rage victims etc.
They usually shoot each other.
Click to expand...

So could have run the car off the road killing all occupants in a blazing inferno, could have contacted aliens and had them abducted, could have not got into the argument, so many could haves.
A gun just makes it easier, but having seen the actions of some in this country without guns, who can honestly say what the outcome would have been.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Noye
 
Byker28i said:
So could have run the car off the road killing all occupants in a blazing inferno, could have contacted aliens and had them abducted, could have not got into the argument, so many could haves.
A gun just makes it easier, but having seen the actions of some in this country without guns, who can honestly say what the outcome would have been.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Noye
Click to expand...
I know that, that's why I said likely rather than definately.
Kenneth_Noye was 19 years ago, not 19 mins, hours or days as is likely in America.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
But we only have you're word for that. What happened if you thought you were threatened but were mistaken?
Why carry the gun, why have one at all for that purpose. At least in the UK you have one for a purpose, i.e.r for sport, or pest control. We don't carry our guns around 'if we travel to a dangerous area...'
Click to expand...

Well let's drop you off in Alexandra without a firearm and see how you fare.
 
Last edited:
Dont forget that this was an apparent 'Road Rage' incident, so its extremely unlikely that this 4 year old little girl was the target, right? If the gun laws were a lot tighter, and the attacker had a knife /baseball bat etc instead, the attack would have had to have been more focussed on the intended target. So, the attacker gets out of their car, goes to the other drivers door and stabs/beats. Its quite likkely that the outcome would be the same (death) but there is also a possibility that the other driver would have survived a stabbing/beating a lot easier than they would have survived the shooting.

So in this case 'Guns allowed' = death of an innocent 4 year old, 'No guns allowed' = The possible death of an adult.

Maybe a simplistic way of looking at it, but makes sense to me.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Don't think it would matter how you behave in some countries
Click to expand...
But it does. Manner and approach weigh heavily in dangerous situations, including where you choose to put yourselves.

I'd suggest having a gun and travelling around a perceived dangerous location would make a person have a different demeanour to if one wasn't carrying. That perception by others may or may not have an effect on how that person reacts, how people then react to them.

In the case of this story, who knows what lead up to the fatal shooting, we don't have many details, lots of assumptions based on the fathers statement.

"The father told authorities that he was trying to exit I-40 when a car forced him out of his lane, according to a police statement.
“The two drivers exchanged words when Torrez pulled out a gun and shot,” the statement continued. “Lilly was hit at least once in the head.”
http://nypost.com/2015/10/22/gunman-confesses-in-road-rage-killing-of-4-year-old-police/

So what caused the rage, why did the gunman shoot. It might be he felt threatened, fired a warning shot which ricocheted, we don't know yet. Why did the father feel inclined to stop and get into an argument. If he'd have shrugged if off and not stopped would his daughter have still been alive?

So many if's.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
So in this case 'Guns allowed' = death of an innocent 4 year old, 'No guns allowed' = The possible death of an adult.

Maybe a simplistic way of looking at it, but makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Why if he's having an argument with the Father would he deliberately aim at the child? surely guns allowed = possible death, same as stabbing someone
In the story of the swordsman running amoke in Canada, the police shot him and he's alive. Guns don't mean instant death.
There's no difference in the death of a child or an adult - all deaths in this way are terrible and have long reaching consequences.

The real story here is of an antisocial person doing a terrible thing. The chosen implement was just a tool, nothing else. It's the persons actions.
 
Byker28i said:
Why if he's having an argument with the Father would he deliberately aim at the child? surely guns allowed = possible death, same as stabbing someone
In the story of the swordsman running amoke in Canada, the police shot him and he's alive. Guns don't mean instant death.
There's no difference in the death of a child or an adult - all deaths in this way are terrible and have long reaching consequences.

The real story here is of an antisocial person doing a terrible thing. The chosen implement was just a tool, nothing else. It's the persons actions.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of anti social people in UK , but they don't shoot, stab, blow up, run down, etc etc on an almost daily basis though in the way that people are shot in america
 
Byker28i said:
Why if he's having an argument with the Father would he deliberately aim at the child? surely guns allowed = possible death, same as stabbing someone
In the story of the swordsman running amoke in Canada, the police shot him and he's alive. Guns don't mean instant death.
There's no difference in the death of a child or an adult - all deaths in this way are terrible and have long reaching consequences.

The real story here is of an antisocial person doing a terrible thing. The chosen implement was just a tool, nothing else. It's the persons actions.
Click to expand...

I didnt say he did aim at the child. In fact, I made reference to the fact that if this was a road rage incident, the attack wouldnt be focussed on the child, so not quite sure how you got to where you ended up. I also said In this case 'Guns allowed' = Death of a 4 year old...as that is a fact.

The one thing you have got correct is that there is no difference in the death of a child or of an adult, and your reference to the attacker.
 
jakeblu said:
Uk gun deaths per 100.000 0.26
US gun deaths per 100,000 10.5
Click to expand...

US is about 16th in the list of countries deaths through guns
800px-List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.jpg


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

But the US has the highest gun ownership per capita in the world
800px-GunsPer100_10052015.png


Full figures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country


Serbia has the second highest ownership yet rates much further down the list of deaths.
Bobsyeruncle said:
So less guns means less gun deaths.
Not much of an argument there.
Click to expand...

So it doesn't relate

However the UK has a different social relationship with guns.

That's not saying that the US doesn't need to tighten their controls, they really do need to introduce uk style control, plus take weapons and licences away from people
 
Last edited:
Nikon_Nick said:
I didnt say he did aim at the child. In fact, I made reference to the fact that if this was a road rage incident, the attack wouldnt be focussed on the child, so not quite sure how you got to where you ended up. I also said In this case 'Guns allowed' = Death of a 4 year old...as that is a fact.

The one thing you have got correct is that there is no difference in the death of a child or of an adult, and your reference to the attacker.
Click to expand...

Sorry and playing devils advocate..
'Guns allowed' = Death of a 4 year old...as that is a fact. wasn't the only possible outcome. You make it seem as though it's inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top