US: Boy shoots himself in head with submachine gun at gun show

[Detroit City]

Then why isn't every other country which has been invaded or colonised at some stage obsessed with guns?

because those cultures were populated mainly by pacifists....

the US was seeded with violence-loving englishmen along with other europeans who then went on to massacre the native americans, enslave africans and then create nuclear weapons and get eventual world domination

 

[Fedayn]

because those cultures were populated mainly by pacifists....

What? And you're evidence for yet another sweeping statement is what exactly?

 

[Bakunin]

the majority of americans don't own any firearms....its just the vocal and powerful minority that do.

and that right to bear arms comes directly from protecting the fledgeling nation from the british

A policy that made perfect sense, in the absence of powerful standing armed forces, but makes no sense now given that the US is among the strongest military powers in the world. The 2nd Amendment is a completely outdated concept that made perfect sense at the time but is in dire need of overhaul now.

which is quite ironic since had the US not intervened in the European theatre in WWII you would be German right now wearing leaderhosen and eating sauerbraten and loyal to the fourth reich

Ahem, the US wasn't the only power that fought the Nazis beside the British, you know. I seem to recall the occupied countries having their own armed forces , the Soviet Union losing some 20 million people and the many countries from what was the British Empire taking heavy casualties as well.

I agree. They should have a special category of the Darwin awards for parents this stupid.

I went to an archery event and some spectator managed to run their friend through. They had to airlift the guy out. The guy who knifed him did a "Look at this knife Vern!" with the point outward.

BTW, this was probably already illegal in some way. I know where I live no one is allowed to load, shoot, or have loaded a gun at a gun show.

IIRC, the gun laws vary depending on which state you happen to reside in, don't they. Gun law being a largely state rather than federal legal isusue.

the "point" is that that same american "culture of violence" that was begat by the British is also the same thing that saved the UK's ass in WWII

Again, while the support of the US was vital, it was far from the only factor (the fact that the German armed forces were bled white on the Eastern Front beinf equally important, IMHO. Come to think of it, where were the Americans in 1939, by the way? My grandfather served in WWII and, while his generation were grateful for American support, he did say that there was a feeling among many British people of:

'Oh, there you are. Nice of you to finally join us.'

 

[Detroit City]

A policy that made perfect sense, in the absence of powerful standing armed forces, but makes no sense now given that the US is among the strongest military powers in the world. The 2nd Amendment is a completely outdated concept that made perfect sense at the time but is in dire need of overhaul now.'

why is the royal family still around? they're not needed...but there is a matter of tradition, innit.

i mean don't get me wrong here, i am totally anti-guns but i'm just telling you why the gun culture exists here

 

[XR75]

Then why isn't every other country which has been invaded or colonised at some stage obsessed with guns?

You could flip the question around and ask why is the UK obsessed with disarming people?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Them damn americans: what next, eh?

 

[editor]

You could flip the question around and ask why is the UK obsessed with disarming people?

People are only 'disarmed' if they've expressed their overwhelming desire to load up with macho weaponry in the first place.

Have you any evidence of any expressed need by the British public to tool up with Uzis?

 

[_pH_]

why is the royal family still around? they're not needed...but there is a matter of tradition, innit.

different thing altogether. the royal family doesn't cause children to get shot unnecessarily (only pheasants, and maybe the odd beater here'n'there)

 

[editor]

the majority of americans don't own any firearms....its just the vocal and powerful minority that do.

Quite a big - and well tooled up - minority though. The place is awash with popguns!

There are more than 200 million legally-registered firearms in the United States, and an estimated 80 million gun owners.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/450138

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The Red Army, the Soviet planned economy and the Russian Winter having nothing to do with said 'saving' then?!

Some; but without the Allies entering Germany from the West, there would have been nothing to stop the Soviets from taking all of the territory that had been held by the Nazis: ie all of western europe.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

People are only 'disarmed' if they've expressed their overwhelming desire to load up with macho weaponry in the first place.

Have you any evidence of any expressed need by the British public to tool up with Uzis?

I believe that the disarming of the British population took place early in the Twentieth Century, when the UK govt was trying to put down the unrest in the south of ireland.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Quite a big - and well tooled up - minority though. The place is awash with popguns!

It's not the presence of guns that causes the violence: it's the nature of the people. Canada is full of guns, but our murder rate is a fraction of that in the US.

 

[dylanredefined]

The Red Army, the Soviet planned economy and the Russian Winter having nothing to do with said 'saving' then?!

Acutally the royal navy and though it pains me to say it the Royal Air force
saved our arses.
America saved the rest of europe from the nazis .And its industry helped russia bet the Nazis . Spam jeeps trucks etc

 

[editor]

It's not the presence of guns that causes the violence: it's the nature of the people. Canada is full of guns, but our murder rate is a fraction of that in the US.

You don't think population density, poverty, inequality, and city sizes play any part in that then, and it's all just down to the Canadian's 'nature'?

 

[editor]

I believe that the disarming of the British population took place early in the Twentieth Century, when the UK govt was trying to put down the unrest in the south of ireland.

So they took the guns away from the cold dead hands of Scotsman because of, errr, unrest in southern Ireland?



Why do you think the Brits haven't asked for them back?

 

[Dillinger4]

the "point" is that that same american "culture of violence" that was begat by the British is also the same thing that saved the UK's ass in WWII

Your posts are some of the rubbishest I have seen on here. And that is an achievement, of a kind.

The NRA didn't win WW2.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You don't think population density, poverty, inequality, and city sizes play any part in that then, and it's all just down to the Canadian's 'nature'?

Not 'the Canadian's nature', the nature of people and societies. The Swiss are heavily armed as well, and have low violent crime rates also.

There is a difference between an american mentality, a canadian mentality, and a swiss one, amongst others, and part of that is exhibited when the citizenry has weapons in its hands.

These crime statistics have held wrt the national differences for many years. In other words, the US figures were the highest, even before various societal breakdowns etc occurred there, over the past twenty or thirty years.

 

[dylanredefined]

I believe that the disarming of the British population took place early in the Twentieth Century, when the UK govt was trying to put down the unrest in the south of Ireland.

* Actually it was late 20 early 30* govt worried about threat of revolution*first banned machine guns .Because so many workers could afford one of those .And then weapon type after weapon type .** Not sure if disarming population is correct but then we had two masscares from legal firearms .and thats more than enough .** If you want to shoot got enough type of rifles air weapons and shot guns to find some thing to suit . You can use airsoft if you want to play soldiers .** And if you really ,really cant live without fireing a machine gun you can join the forces .

 

[rover07]

Acutally the royal navy and though it pains me to say it the Royal Air force
saved our arses.
America saved the rest of europe from the nazis .And its industry helped russia bet the Nazis . Spam jeeps trucks etc

Yes the RAF and british navy managed to hold off Germany in 1940...but it was the invasion of the Soviet Union which saved britain.

And the Soviet Unions defeat germany owed very little to the West.

 

[editor]

There is a difference between an american mentality, a canadian mentality, and a swiss one, amongst others, and part of that is exhibited when the citizenry has weapons in its hands.

So you still think there's some inherent, hard-wired mental differences in the people of the different countries, and this manifests itself when a weapon is placed in their hands? How very curious. So what happens when an American visits Canada and is given a gun to hold? Does he go all Yankee gung-ho gun crazy because it's part of his mentality?

And what's your thoughts about the Brit 'mentality' which has overwhelmingly rejected public gun ownership for decades?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

. So what happens when an American visits Canada and is given a gun to hold?

We confiscate their guns at the border. You think we're so stupid as to allow fully armed americans to run loose in our country?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So you still think there's some inherent, hard-wired mental differences in the people of the different countries, and this manifests itself when a weapon is placed in their hands?

You've added 'inherent' and 'hard wired' to what I said. I didn't say them.

There are cultural and societal differences, based on a lot of factors, including shared history, the cultural mythos etc. America sees itself as a 'frontier culture', even today when it obviously is not. Americans pride themselves on the possession of an aggressive spirit, on individualism, on self sufficiency, in a mix that's different from Canada definitely, and the UK probably.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

To repeat something I've said before, I grew up in a place where every pickup truck had a gun rack in the window, with a .22 and a shotgun in each and every rack. And there were many pickup trucks on the road.

I've attended many a party where drunken brawls erupted, but at no time did anyone go to the parking lot and retrieve a firearm. It was simply inconceivable.

The one time I faced the potential use of a firearm against me, for being the unwanted minority at a party, it turned out that the person holding the party was, an american.

 

[soulman]

* Actually it was late 20 early 30* govt worried about threat of revolution*first banned machine guns .Because so many workers could afford one of those .And then weapon type after weapon type .** Not sure if disarming population is correct but then we had two masscares from legal firearms .and thats more than enough .** If you want to shoot got enough type of rifles air weapons and shot guns to find some thing to suit . You can use airsoft if you want to play soldiers .** And if you really ,really cant live without fireing a machine gun you can join the forces .

The Ruling Class in Britain moved to ban firearms in 1919, I think. Just after WW1 and during the Russian Revolution. No homes for heroes, and no arms for those heroes to demand them.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Judging from this, it looks like it's only been a short recent period when your citizens, or at least some of them, have not had the right to bear arms:

As English subjects, Protestants had a conditional right to possess arms according to the Bill of Rights.[9]

That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.

The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.[10]

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, as well as until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law. These rights no longer exist in the UK, since the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty allows the repeal of previous laws with no enshrined exceptions such as contained within a codified constitution.

Modern restrictions on gun ownership began in 1903, with the Pistols Act. This required a person to obtain a gun licence before they could buy a firearm with a barrel shorter than 9 inches. The gun licence had been introduced as a revenue measure in 1870; the law required a person to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry a gun outside his home, whether for hunting, self-defence, or other reasons, but not to buy one. The licences cost 10 shillings, which is about £31 in 2005 money, lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at post-offices.

A registration system gun law - the Firearms Act - was first introduced to the United Kingdom in 1920, spurred on partly due to fears of a surge in crime that might have resulted from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. The law did not initially affect smooth bore weapons, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Detroit City]

different thing altogether. the royal family doesn't cause children to get shot unnecessarily (only pheasants, and maybe the odd beater here'n'there)

i understand that...but i'm talking about the historical tradition that is so ingrained that it becomes an integral part of the culture

 

[kabbes]

I agree with JC2 on this one, with the addendum made so abundantly clear by Bowling for Columbine, which I alluded to earlier -- the climate of fear fostered by an edutainmnet media, that constantly portray every street corner as being the site of a potential gun war. No wonder people feel as if they are always under threat, permanently at siege. And no wonder they resort to their fetishised weapons as a consequence.

What worries me is that our media are going the same way.

 

[XR75]

People are only 'disarmed' if they've expressed their overwhelming desire to load up with macho weaponry in the first place.

Have you any evidence of any expressed need by the British public to tool up with Uzis?

The current laws disarm people and I've heard plenty of criticism on them.

So you still think there's some inherent, hard-wired mental differences in the people of the different countries, and this manifests itself when a weapon is placed in their hands? How very curious. So what happens when an American visits Canada and is given a gun to hold? Does he go all Yankee gung-ho gun crazy because it's part of his mentality?

And what's your thoughts about the Brit 'mentality' which has overwhelmingly rejected public gun ownership for decades?

It hasn't been rejected infact I would say most people were indifferent to the subject and that alot of the laws and opinions dealing in this area are the result of a minority of anti-gun fanatics and a biased media and government.

 

[subversplat]

Now, I love a good weapon, but surely even the most brain deadest of redneck militias know that Uzis are not for kids