Where gun crime can lead to...

Status
Not open for further replies.

rusty bubbles

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
92
A terrible tragedy today in the UK,. when a wife and mother, fearful for her family's safety. kept (illegally) a loaded .38 snub nose in the house. She went out , and her 17 year old son found it, and shot his little 16 year old sister in the head-accidentally.
She died hours later from the wound. the boy is to be charged with manslaughter - or similar-
Mom is to be charged with all manner of things, but ominously- illegal possession of a firearm- penalty -5years in jail

I won't comment on the blame for all this- the family must be shattered with grief for poor little Sis

In my mind , it is the fear of illegally armed criminals,that forces law abiding citizens to take such precautions-and usually with no knowledge of firearm safety. it's a catch 22 situation don't you think?
 
Catch 22? NOPE!

it's a catch 22 situation don't you think?

No, I do not think it is a catch 22. I think this was the intent of the law all along. It is a means of greater control over ALL the SUBJECTS of the realm.

You have no choice but to rely on Big Brother (i.e. your Daddy, your Banker, your Doctor, your milk cow, your Nanny, and your GOD).

They are absolutely and completely subject and dependent.
 
Great Britain is no longer great.
The United Kingdom is longer united.
The laws are no longer for the benefit of the people.

Oh, Lord! Let us fight such legislation here!
 
I think I see Rusty's point...

If guns are outlawed, who is left to teach gun safety to the "outlaws" who choose to keep them in defiance of the government?

Truly a tragedy, in at least three ways: First and most importantly, a child is dead. Second, a woman who only wanted to have the means to defend her family is probably going to prison; and third, there is more propaganda for those who claim that ordinary people have no business owning firearms. Horrible.
 
I think I see Rusty's point too and where it is taking Cnorman.

That 16-year-old girl is dead, her 17-year-old brother is likely to be convicted of manslaughter for killing her, and their mother almost surely will be sent to prison too. This family is destroyed. Its survivors must live with their guilt.

The public will blame the mother most because her violation of the law set things in motion and the brother will be blamed for his crime.

And yet the mother's instinct, as Rusty pointed out, was to protect her family and she obviously knew that she could not prevail over deadly force without having access to a firearm. There's insufficient information to know just what motivated her son. Absent malice towards his younger sister it would be understandable if he was curious, careless, and ignorant.

Some time ago England decided to put the genie back into the bottle by imposing rules and beliefs that assume it's possible to force everyone to behave as if firearms don't exist for them. But firearms do exist and there are many, many millions of them. It is impossible to make them all disappear or to remove them from the face of the Earth. England might as well decide to wish away untaxed Scots whisky, rebel music, the I.R.A., and anything else its rulers oppose at the moment.

Hairless' Third Law of Human Behavior is whatever is made illegal goes underground, survives forever, and causes inifinitely more harm because people lose all opportunity to exercise educated judgment in handling it. Prohibiting gun ownership does not make guns disappear. What disappears instead is people's judgment about how to use guns properly.

Of course people like Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, and Chuck Schumer will never understand the disasters they want to impose on the people of the United States, but of course they're not interested in such issues. They're doing something else. It's a pity that so many American moms--a million of them is what's claimed, I think--are eager to have their country and their families rush along that path. Ignorance is not a useful goal for mothers to set for their families. Ignorance makes people defenseless and often kills them.
 
she wasn't protecting her family she'd buried the weapon in the garden
now I don't know about you but if I was holding a weapon for self defence it wouldn't be buried at the bottom of the garden
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/newsheadlines/article-23414685-details/Boy+admits+shooting+sis

The gun was being kept by the boy's mother and had been buried in the back garden of the family council house in Gorton, Manchester. The boy was playing with the gun when it went off, killing his sister Kamilah.

more of a case of somebody connected to criminal types holding a weapon for them than misplaced home defence.
deserves the 5 years in jail
 
consequences of prohibition

"In my mind , it is the fear of illegally armed criminals,that forces law abiding citizens to take such precautions-and usually with no knowledge of firearm safety. it's a catch 22 situation don't you think?"

No it's not the fear of criminals that forces such decisions. It's the fact that there is no option to legally own a fiream that forces people to become criminals in order to protect themselves. You seem to be implying that STRICTER gun control, expansive enough to disarm the "illegally armed criminals" (in the UK, the mother is one such illegally armed criminal herself) would have averted the tragedy by making the mother less fearful, and eliminating her percieved need to keep a handgun for self defense.

But how about a different scenario, one in which people were allowed to own personal weapons for self defense, and thus could practice openly with them and avail themselves of safety and proficiency training? To store them with an eye towards security rather than secrecy? Without the taint of forbidden fruit that makes them so exotic (and tempting to play with) to teenagers? Most seventeen year olds are more than mature enough to learn safe and responsible gun handling - but those things are hard to teach in an atmosphere of secrecy and fear of prosecution. The root cause of this tragedy was not the fact that the mother owned a gun, but the fact that it was stored improperly and neither she nor her teenage son were allowed to become proficient or responsible gun owners under britain's repressive gun laws.

And why is it only "illegally armed" criminals that are scary to a single mother?
How about criminals armed with axes or cricket bats, or just superior size, physical strength, or numbers?

And what degree of social control (oppression) would be necessary to guarantee that no criminal goes armed - after all, guns are already illegal yet there is still fear of illegally armed criminals.

Gun prohibition in Britain is about as successful as alcohol prohibition was in the united states. Alcoholism, alcohol related crime and corruption all increased under prohibition. Likewise, irresponsible gun use and gun related tragedies flourish wherever guns are prohibited.
 
Woody B-Seems I went off at half cock. I didn't know that she could have been holding the gun for criminals - I had assumed that living where crime is rife,she had the gun for home defense- your version sounds more likely.-

Squinty- "Gun control" these are weasel words that really mean "Render the people helpless"- like sheep going meekly to the abbatoir. Nice , if you are the Police, armed to the teeth, or like the politicians, protected by bodyguards with large caliber weapons.

Charlton Heston is my hero
 
its the UK shtf unlikely a reason more likely linked to criminal gangs. Not like civilians can access handguns easily or legally.:mad:
even when they were legal it was a completely different culture.
I feel this incident is more like the accidental shootings then antis use in the states that turns out to be drug related gang shootings :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top