long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[Alan Klein]

Did you not know that parts of colonial America served as a penal colony?  Did you not know that all the Irish and Italian immigrants were looked down upon as not worthy of admittance.  A lot of the really innovative immigrants came to America during the 20th century.

Very few immigrants who came here were criminals.  Most of those were sent to Australia. 

Regarding innovative immigrants, I don't understand your point. Maybe you can explain it. The immigrants who came were smart and industrious and risk takers whether the people living here wanted them or not.  These new people helped make America great and were eventually accepted like all other immigrants. 

[John Brawley]

Absolutely correct! Not providing guns to cops might have worked for a long time in UK, but in these times to let them wander the streets without an effective defense is at best shortsighted. It will take a real tragedy before they act.

I guess this kind of comment really exemplifies the US mindset about guns and the need for defense or dealing with confrontation.  That it's inevitable that they'll need to carry guns !!

I doubt you'll see this change, because the MET (london police) have no guns by choice. It's an active informed choice.   They have a different policing philosophy and they're proud of it.  A police culture that embraces the idea of de-escalating conflict even if it's armed, rather than leaping immediately to a forceful response. They do this KNOWING that it may well put them in harm's way and yet society as a whole is better for it.  The numbers don't lie.

It's a notion called "policing by consent".  Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"

Police are citizens in uniform.

They do have armed police that can respond when needed and appropriate.  And yet they don't need to shoot as many of their citizens in the face of very similar criminal scenarios.  They're also much less likely to have to deal with citizens that are armed.  Pretty simple idea really...

Blowing past the staggering statistic that UK (or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand if we're anti Euro) police don't kill their citizens in the huge numbers that happen in the US is disingenuous to the idea being posited about the number of accessible guns in a community...

Why is it acceptable to have so many gun deaths in the US ?

It's because American citizens want guns and they really are happy to pay the price of gun violence.

JB

[Rob C]

I guess this kind of comment really exemplifies the US mindset about guns and the need for defense or dealing with confrontation.  That it's inevitable that they'll need to carry guns !!

I doubt you'll see this change, because the MET (london police) have no guns by choice. It's an active informed choice.   They have a different policing philosophy and they're proud of it.  A police culture that embraces the idea of de-escalating conflict even if it's armed, rather than leaping immediately to a forceful response. They do this KNOWING that it may well put them in harm's way and yet society as a whole is better for it.  The numbers don't lie.

It's a notion called "policing by consent".  Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"

Police are citizens in uniform.

They do have armed police that can respond when needed and appropriate.  And yet they don't need to shoot as many of their citizens in the face of very similar criminal scenarios.  They're also much less likely to have to deal with citizens that are armed.  Pretty simple idea really...

Blowing past the staggering statistic that UK (or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand if we're anti Euro) police don't kill their citizens in the huge numbers that happen in the US is disingenuous to the idea being posited about the number of accessible guns in a community...

Why is it acceptable to have so many gun deaths in the US ?

It's because American citizens want guns and they really are happy to pay the price of gun violence.

JB

British police: yes, I know about that argument; my next-door-neighbour out here in Mallorca was a retired Superintendent in a Midlands force, and he was an avid watcher of the Dixon of saga... he used to regale us with tales of the bad lads that they used to catch and the old "fair cop!" statement from them when they were caught. He was as far behind the times today as you can imagine. I don't believe he ever deat with a gentleman from the Caribbean, the Middle East or from the African continent in his entire career.

I've also watched the occasional cop on Sky TV (I have given up on that channel at breakfast because for them, it's a chat show) declaring exactly what you stated: they don't want to be armed. I'm not sure if they mentioned the policing by consent bit, but that's a concept almost amusing in its naivety were it not for the fact that thugs are not that naive themselves. Quensbury Rules form not a part of the service the poor old public expects and needs. An armed response unit is always going to be several minutes after the fact on the very best of days; isn't that obvious? Too late is too late, however many armed guys turn up too late. It may have been on France24 tv that somebody on this topic of armed US citizens pointed out that in many places, especially in the sticks, even if you can call a cop, he could be forty minutes away, by which time your family has been butchered, so guns at home do make sense.

Times and criminal minds have changed. If the cops of today can't keep up with or accept the way of today's world then they should be moved aside, and people found who can understand where we are today. I can only reiterate my Spanish experience re cops: they are often armed and have never made me feel in danger from them. Were I a criminal, then I think it would be very different and I would be watching my step rather carefully. Which I think is the whole idea.

[John Brawley]

Times and criminal minds have changed. If the cops of today can't keep up with or accept the way of today's world then they should be moved aside, and people found who can understand where we are today.

I'm glad your opinion is formed by watching a brit TV series and talking to your neighbour.

Here's the numbers.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/number_of_justifiable_homicides/192

It's a staggering difference.  Why can't you accept that it works ?  That's what the numbers say ?

Fear.

You're playing the fear card.  "Too late is too late" and "40 mins away from cops so you're going to be butchered"

This paranoia about not being able to meet force with force is really the heart of the American fear....Not being able to bring a gun to a gun fight.

British coppers do it all the time and don't get killed and don't kill their criminals either.

I used the MET as an example of a culture that doesn't not celebrate guns, where criminals DO carry guns and cause violence and yet are dealt with routinely by police that don't bear arms.

This is proof that it does work. It has worked better than it does in the US for many years.  Instead you see that it won't work in the near future.  Fear.

Not sure if you're aware, but some parts of Australia have individual cattle stations that are larger than some european states.  And it's longer than 40 mins. before the police may turn up.  We're remote in many ways. 

Australian police are armed, but they still don't kill like US police do.  Here's the Australian numbers.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/number_of_justifiable_homicides/10

I'm using police as an example of gun culture response as a bigger issue.  Policing isn't the issue.

Guns are the issue.

[Alan Klein]

I guess this kind of comment really exemplifies the US mindset about guns and the need for defense or dealing with confrontation.  That it's inevitable that they'll need to carry guns !!

I doubt you'll see this change, because the MET (london police) have no guns by choice. It's an active informed choice.   They have a different policing philosophy and they're proud of it.  A police culture that embraces the idea of de-escalating conflict even if it's armed, rather than leaping immediately to a forceful response. They do this KNOWING that it may well put them in harm's way and yet society as a whole is better for it.  The numbers don't lie.

It's a notion called "policing by consent".  Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"

Police are citizens in uniform.

They do have armed police that can respond when needed and appropriate.  And yet they don't need to shoot as many of their citizens in the face of very similar criminal scenarios.  They're also much less likely to have to deal with citizens that are armed.  Pretty simple idea really...

Blowing past the staggering statistic that UK (or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand if we're anti Euro) police don't kill their citizens in the huge numbers that happen in the US is disingenuous to the idea being posited about the number of accessible guns in a community...

Why is it acceptable to have so many gun deaths in the US ?

It's because American citizens want guns and they really are happy to pay the price of gun violence.

JB

I agree with some of the things you said.  First that Americans want guns and are willing to except the damage caused by them.  Others may not understand this view.  But I explained it in one of my earlier posts.

I'm not clear on your point about the police, "It's a notion called "policing by consent".  Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"

Police are citizens in uniform."

In democracies such as GB and the US, unlike Cuba let's say, the power of the state comes from democratically elected officials who represent us.  We define the kind of police we want, whether they should be armed, how they act or whatever.  For example, when general "stop and frisk" police procedures in NYC for concealed guns became politically opposed by the black community, it was stopped.  When criminals became better armed than the police, they switched from revolvers with 6 shots to semi-automatic handguns with 15 shots.  Most of the public accepts that and feel as I do it was the right thing to do.  However, it's abhorrent to me when I see NYC police carrying sub-machine guns in areas open to terrorist attack.  It reminds me we're not so safe.  But the public so far is accepting police armed that way due to the times.  I've accepted it too.  But I just don't like that it has to be done.

Additionally, GB has been a homogenized society of centuries.  Cultural procedures regarding criminals and police are more ingrained.  However, it has changed.  Many GB police carry guns when they didn't before because of past IRA terrorism, I believe. With so many non British immigrants, the police may have to arm up more.  So things change, even in GB. 

[LesPalenik]

I guess this kind of comment really exemplifies the US mindset about guns and the need for defense or dealing with confrontation.  That it's inevitable that they'll need to carry guns !!

I doubt you'll see this change, because the MET (london police) have no guns by choice. It's an active informed choice.   They have a different policing philosophy and they're proud of it.  A police culture that embraces the idea of de-escalating conflict even if it's armed, rather than leaping immediately to a forceful response. They do this KNOWING that it may well put them in harm's way and yet society as a whole is better for it.  The numbers don't lie.

It's a notion called "policing by consent".  Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"

Police are citizens in uniform.

They do have armed police that can respond when needed and appropriate.  And yet they don't need to shoot as many of their citizens in the face of very similar criminal scenarios.  They're also much less likely to have to deal with citizens that are armed.  Pretty simple idea really...

Blowing past the staggering statistic that UK (or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand if we're anti Euro) police don't kill their citizens in the huge numbers that happen in the US is disingenuous to the idea being posited about the number of accessible guns in a community...

Why is it acceptable to have so many gun deaths in the US ?

It's because American citizens want guns and they really are happy to pay the price of gun violence.

JB

John, please read and quote my whole post, including two very real instances in Canada where almost ten outgunned policemen were killed and injured by solo shooters with powerful guns. Unfortunately, it took those two tragedies before RCMP officers were given a more effective protection requipment.
 
And compare that with the example of Kevin Vickers, the well trained sergeant-at-arms who quickly and effectively neutralized an intruder with a gun in the Canadian Parliament. After the shooting, he entered the nearby Conservative caucus meeting room and said: "I engaged the suspect and the suspect is deceased."  The next day, MPs gave him a standing ovation and later he was named a Canadian ambassador to Ireland.

"I've known Kevin for a very long time," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, touting his vast security and management experience and "tremendous acts of heroism." The leaders of all other political parties praised Kevin Vicker's quick action as well.

[Craig Lamson]

It is interestiong to note that all of this talk of banning bump stocks is silly since you can still bump fire without a bump fire stock.  So this new law will accomplish what exactly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2YLgLj8KVY

[John Brawley]

  Many GB police carry guns when they didn't before because of past IRA terrorism, I believe.

"And yet more than 90 percent of the capital's police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun."

10% isn't many. 

And I'm not advocating a gun free police force.  Of course there will be situations which require and armed and forceful response.  But in a culture where guns aren't easily available it seems that doesn't have to happen nearly as often as it does in the US.  I point to the difference in policing activity only as another yardstick for measuring gun culture. 

JB

[Alan Klein]

"And yet more than 90 percent of the capital's police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun."

10% isn't many. 

And I'm not advocating a gun free police force.  Of course there will be situations which require and armed and forceful response.  But in a culture where guns aren't easily available it seems that doesn't have to happen nearly as often as it does in the US.  I point to the difference in policing activity only as another yardstick for measuring gun culture. 

JB

Yes it's true.  If you confiscate all the guns from the people, the police only need a few guns to keep order and allow politicians who pay them to rule the country.    But unlike much of the world, GB had been a country that took out its aggression on other countries rather than each other.  They accepted a monarchial system of governance. 

[Alan Klein]

It is interestiong to note that all of this talk of banning bump stocks is silly since you can still bump fire without a bump fire stock.  So this new law will accomplish what exactly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2YLgLj8KVY

It seems to work but even this guy who practiced a lot seems to have difficulty in handling the recoil and aiming accurately.  Bump stocks work easier and better and real machine guns even better than bump stocks. 

[kers]

It seems to work but even this guy who practiced a lot seems to have difficulty in handling the recoil and aiming accurately.  Bump stocks work easier and better and real machine guns even better than bump stocks.

Yes he made a fool of 'shooting America'
maybe the next will do better..

[Alan Goldhammer]

It is interestiong to note that all of this talk of banning bump stocks is silly since you can still bump fire without a bump fire stock.  So this new law will accomplish what exactly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2YLgLj8KVY

There are also ways to convert non-rapid fire assault weapons into automatic weapons as well (though it's involved and could lead to a weapon blowing up in one's face).  The key thing is to target magazine capacity for regulation.

[Farmer]

Not sure if you're aware, but some parts of Australia have individual cattle stations that are larger than some european states.  And it's longer than 40 mins. before the police may turn up.  We're remote

In Western Australia, there's a policing area (beat, if you like), that's larger than the UK and there are 4 police assigned to it on an 2-on/2-off roster.

Anna Creek, currently the largest cattle station (ranch/farm) in Australia is 7 times larger than the largest one in Texas - in fact, it's larger than 5 US states.  It's much smaller than the previous largest which was broken down into smaller areas through sales - that was Victoria River Downs which was about 80% larger again, and at the time was larger than 9 US states.  Just 17 staff run Anna Creek, by the way.

So, yeah, as John points out - remote has a whole different meaning out here.

[Farmer]

Yes it's true.  If you confiscate all the guns from the people, the police only need a few guns to keep order and allow politicians who pay them to rule the country.    But unlike much of the world, GB had been a country that took out its aggression on other countries rather than each other.  They accepted a monarchial system of governance.

You don't actually know any British history, do you?  It's OK - it's obvious, no need to confirm.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Now insofar as serfdom being genetic: in that case, as much of the American population derives from European roots - relatively close ones - then I guess the mentality exists there too, to this day...

Yes, of course... the American Left

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I don't believe he ever dealt with a gentleman from the Caribbean, the Middle East or from the African continent in his entire career...

And that's key. Civilized-cops concept might work in a civilized-citizens society. Let the medieval types in and the reality becomes quite different.

[Craig Lamson]

There are also ways to convert non-rapid fire assault weapons into automatic weapons as well (though it's involved and could lead to a weapon blowing up in one's face).  The key thing is to target magazine capacity for regulation.

Yes and the good guys will have 10 round mags and the bad guys will still find a way to get 100 round drums. 

[RSL]

I can understand why Chris locked my tongue-in-cheek gun thread on guns, but I'm sorry he did it immediately after I asked this question:

". . . the Norway massacre only lasted an hour and a half, so there was time to go home and get your sporting gun and stop the attack. And only 68 kids were murdered while everybody waited for the cops or for somebody with a sporting gun to show up."

Nobody seems to want to deal with the implications that arise out of that event, and I'll tell you this: considering the out-migration of people from the Middle East, mass shootings throughout Europe and Scandinavia are going to increase, possibly exponentially. I hope we all can learn to cope with the result.

[Rob C]

I'm glad your opinion is formed by watching a brit TV series and talking to your neighbour.

What a wonderfully imaginative bit of misquoting!

I said that my old neighbour, a retired police Superintendent, used to watch the tv series; I never did, being always too busy making a living 24/24 bar sleeping time. However, I did sometimes catch the odd bit somewhere and it reeked of 50s values of stiff upper lips etc.

I lived just outside London during the blitz; I have a lot of memories of wartime shit going down, and I see no reason to imagine that death by civilian gun would appeal any the more than by one of Hitler's doodlebugs.

[pegelli]

I can understand why Chris locked my tongue-in-cheek gun thread on guns, but I'm sorry he did it immediately after I asked this question:

". . . the Norway massacre only lasted an hour and a half, so there was time to go home and get your sporting gun and stop the attack. And only 68 kids were murdered while everybody waited for the cops or for somebody with a sporting gun to show up."

Nobody seems to want to deal with the implications that arise out of that event, and I'll tell you this: considering the out-migration of people from the Middle East, mass shootings throughout Europe and Scandinavia are going to increase, possibly exponentially. I hope we all can learn to cope with the result.

Russ, do you know the Norwegian shooter was a Norwegian National (and a right wing nut/facist)? Nothing to do with immigration and easterners entering. I like your cristal ball, but only for entertainment value, not for credibility 

And while the 68 death in this mass shooting should be condemned in the strongest possible sense transposing the US statistics on Norway would probably have led to a lot more death then the 68 in this one mass shooting, not all in one time but slowly trickling in and therefore not giving you opportunity to cherry pick one event rather than looking at the big picture.