Robert Pogson

One man, closing all the windows.

Piers Morgan’s “pinko-liberal” Illogic

technology

Piers Morgan’s “pinko-liberal” Illogic

“The ‘more guns, less crime’ argument is utter nonsense. Britain, after Dunblane, introduced some of the toughest gun laws in Europe, and we average just 35 gun murders a year.

Japan, which has the toughest gun control in the world, had just TWO in 2006 and averages fewer than 20 a year. In Australia, they’ve not had a mass shooting since stringent new laws were brought in after 35 people were murdered in the country’s worst-ever mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996. Fewer guns equals less gun murder. This is not a ‘pinko liberal’ hypothesis. It’s a simple fact.”
see Piers Morgan: Deport me? If America won't change its crazy gun laws I may deport myself.

Piers Morgan seems not to understand the difference between a fact and an irrelevant fact. Does it matter that a murder is committed with a firearm or some other means? Ask the victims.

UN Statistics on Intentional Homicide

Country Rate
Japan 2009 – 0.4 per 100K
Australia 2010 – 1.0 per 100K
UK 2009 – 1.2 per 100K
USA 2010 – 4.8 per 100K

So, Piers Morgan is thinking of moving from USA to UK to reduce his chances of being murdered by a factor of 4. Does that small difference have anything to do with 100-round magazines or semi-auto rifles available at Wal-mart? Nope. “about 30-60 people are struck by lightning each year in Britain of whom, on average, three may be killed. This compares with about 75 deaths in the much larger USA” Population of UK is ~63million and population of USA is ~314million so he is 5 times more likely to be killed by lightning in USA than UK but he does not want to leave USA because of lightning. Does that make any sense? The USA has “tornado alleys” and hurricanes, a much more dangerous situation than UK. It’s the people who expose themselves to lightning. Laws have nothing to do with murder-rates. It’s people who commit such crimes, not laws. It’s people who play golf in lightning storms, not laws.

If Piers Morgan’s logic held, the murder rate in USA would be thousands of times larger than in UK but it is not. Does it matter that the murder rate by firearms is hundreds of times larger if the murder rate is only a few times larger? Nope. Ask the victims. The murder rate in UK may fluctuate a few times from one year to the next. The rate is of little significance. Neither is the rate in USA. Much of that is about the “drug wars”, not firearms nor laws. If drugs were legalized, drug dealers would have no reason to kill anyone. “Mass shootings” are almost irrelevant to the statistics of murders being perhaps 1%.

Conversely, the fact that the murder rate in USA is so low even with the availability of numerous and powerful firearms is a testament to the good sense of USAians. BTW, you cannot casually walk into Wal-mart and buy an armful of AR-15s. Wal-mart does not sell AR-15s. Bushmaster sells an imitation of an AR-15, a firearm exclusive to Colt, and you need a background check and a waiting period at Wal-mart …

So, Piers Morgan claims to love USA all the while being willing to lie to USAians and mislead them about the reality of firearms.

54 Comments

  1. Robert Pogson

    oiaohm wrote, “Enraged person still has as much firearm skill as they had before.”

    Nope. The best marksman gets a lower score when he is emotionally upset. Marksmanship requires being totally in control.

    oiaohm’s comments about surviving knifing is a denial of physiology. If a knife is plugging a leak it is also blocking blood-flow. A heart stabbed will often quit beating entirely. A major vessel cut causes rapid loss of pressure. A pumping heart can bleed a person out in seconds. Military issue FMJ for a reason. It saves lives. Military issue knives for a reason. They work very well in close quarters.

  2. oiaohm

    Robert Pogson the Australia AR-15 does not match Armalite AR-15 or the Colt AR-15 even that is a licensed production from Colt.

    The Australian produced AR-15 looks like an M16 until you look closer.

    Robert Pogson
    –Many firearms labelled “AR-15″ are mere imitations having nothing in common with the original design than outward appearance.

    You cannot say every car is a Cadillac just because they have 4 wheels and an engine like the Cadillac.–

    Exactly right imitation. Except the Australian AR-15 is licensed to use the name AR-15 even that it is a imitation and it looks more like a M16 than the early AR-15 Colt.

    This is the problem the weapon is not a M16. Its an Australian Produced AR-15 this does not come out of colt control factories. Problem here its only name is AR-15 since that is the only licensed name for it. So best it can be referred to as an Australian produced AR-15 that happens to have M16 features. The internals of it don’t match any M16 or colt AR-15.

    Since Australian AR-15′s are produced on demand there is no fixed models. So if you want some strange mix go ahead and ask for it the item will be made.

    Forward assist is in All Australian produced AR-15′s.

    Yes you find Australian AR-15 that are Barrel profile M4 but with A1 everywhere else. Yes a gun colt never made. Along with other strange combinations. Basically they are not M16 or AR-15. Might be better to call them AR-15/M16 clone beasts.

    Yes just because an Australian clone AR-15/M16 looks a bit like a USA M16 does not mean it is. Totally different behaviour at times.

  3. oiaohm

    Robert Pogson
    “A firearm in the hands of the typical drunk or enraged person is nearly harmless at anything beyond a few feet.”
    Incorrect. Drunk statement is correct. Enraged no its not. Enraged person still has as much firearm skill as they had before. So if they are a good shot before they are Enraged they are still a good shot after.

    “Being at a distance from a shooter also greatly increases the chance of being able to take cover.”
    Behind what. The reality most mil grade weapons can shot through the object you will take cover behind.

    “Imagine the effect of a warning label on a package of ammunition compared to a thousand pages of legislation and regulation.”
    Australian regulation required that as well.

    “Requiring a farmer to keep a firearm in a locked steel box makes the firearm nearly useless against predators sweeping in and snatching lambs.”

    I was on a cattle property with dingos. Locked in a steal box did not prevent dingo control. Correct placement of steal box was critical but. We are allowed as many gun safes as we like as long as they are fitted correctly.

    Yes at first I thought the same until I got use to the fact of the basic scout motto be prepared and placed like in car gun cabments and other items. Correctly placed you have time. Killing a sheep or young cattle is not a fast process. On average I could get cabnet open and gun loaded in under 40 seconds. Of course this is prac todo so.

    Robert Pogson
    “OTOH, a knife cutting major vessels or puncturing the heart is every bit as lethal as a firearm.”

    Bull crap argument mostly since this statement says you don’t understand when a knife really kills. Reality of knife weapons. Its not puncturing the heart of cutting vessels that kill you. Its the removal of the weapon after that results in your rapid death most cases. So attacker stabs you you bash them and the knife stays in you will normally live no matter where they hit you way longer than firearm hits in the same area. Since while the weapon is in place it acts as a blocking to the blood loss. There are very small targets in the human body where a inserted knife will result in death if it not removed most of these are spine and brain. Bullet has many more lethal hit locations due to the fact it does act like a knife inserted and removed. Bullet are less friendly than knife.

    Yes most deaths from stabbing in fact trace to the person stabbed removing the weapon instead of leaving it in place until in a place of medical assistance.

    Knife mostly can be defeated by stacks of blunt weapons. mops, brooms, shopping bags and the list goes on mostly general crap you have laying around. This is not true of a gun. Ranged weapons are harder to defeat. Since attacker can stay out of range of close combat.

    With legal requirement for gun storage you have common sense Robert Pogson. Lot of the population don’t. Yes police have to issue fines at times to people for crossing the road and not looking both ways. Yes common sense says look.

  4. Robert Pogson

    oiaohm wrote, “Pardon me ram but a M16 is one of the types of AR-15. M16 is usa mil made AR-15s”

    Nope. AR-15 was a particular firearm made by Armalite. They sold the rights to Colt. M-16 has been made by many companies including Mattel, the toy company. The original AR-15 and the current M-16 have many differences, not just a marking. In particular, the original AR-15 and first M16 did not have “forward assist”, a device to close the bolt should a round be too weak or too dirty to cycle. Many firearms labelled “AR-15″ are mere imitations having nothing in common with the original design than outward appearance.

    You cannot say every car is a Cadillac just because they have 4 wheels and an engine like the Cadillac.

  5. oiaohm

    Ram you are fool when you come to weapons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle Pardon me ram but a M16 is one of the types of AR-15. M16 is usa mil made AR-15s

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/10/29/an-australian-made-semi-auto-ar-15-just-9000-usd/

    Look at the Australian made AR-15 then look at the M16 and tell me what the difference is other than country of production.

    If you look closer at those early photos ram its an Australian made and designed AR-15 not a USA Mil design M16 rifle. The difference is the weapon lock is minor-ally different. There are 6 other minor difference in the weapon low receiver on the out side of the low receiver many more on internally.

    Due to low receiver alterations in the Australian model its far harder to convert to full auto without resulting in low receiver failure(basically you cannot without replacing the low receiver completely). Yes a few points have been ground out to fail if you do manage to convert it to automatic in Australian model. Basically about 15 shots full auto then busted low receiver stuffing gun from operating.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29

    ram how did he gag and cuff the one victim the how is simple. There were two people at that location. One was not cuffed and was stabbed to death. So either he forced one to cuff the other. The stabing tells you at this point he was not using gun. It is possible to cuff a person while holding a knife in one hand if you know how to use cuffs and knife. So first party stabled and killed resisting second party cooperative cuffed and shot.

    Really you need to compare those sights talking about the Port Arthur massacre to the case notes and the time line of events. Yes its possible for 1 person with the described weapons to pull off the crime.

    There are a lot of injured in the Port Arthur massacre who were alive after who saw him directly. Worse video tape from toll both and other places putting Martin Bryant there with the gun.

    Not guilty was not a possible way out. Not guilty on ground of insanity was his only not guilty plea option.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC9J6O6soHA
    Joe Vialls information on speed and exactness of a shooter misses Derren Brown experiments with hypnosis. This is down right critical. So yes Martin Bryant could have been a party. Derren Brown proved with basic hypnosis of a subject you could make there firing skill match a top marksman even if they normally could not. This is a very shocking result that in under 48 hours you could take a unskilled shooter and make them skilled. Hypnosis would explain the misses in some areas and the exact hits in others.

    Models Joe Vialls used does not allow for attacker being hypnotised and there skill enhanced because of it. The modern models suggest there is a third party.

    Also Joe Vialls makes error exploding round in Australia AR-15 does not hurt holder where M16 it does. Internal differences of the low receiver to prevent harm from exploding rounds. Australian mil does make c4 rounds for weapon disabling these are issued so gun design used by Australian mil has to be able to handle them.

    This is why it critical to identify county of production of weapon. Alters the harm you are looking for. Missing return spring back-plate matches the damage expected from decommissioning bullet. Not being able to find them at the crime seen is not impossible. Thinking the kick back might have shot them out of back of gun. So could be up a tree or somewhere else stupid. Due M16 lack of containment it does not kinda spit them to kingdom come. Difference between Australian AR-15 and USA M16 again.

  6. Robert Pogson

    oiaohm wrote, “Most cases of parties using fuel air bombs is not a spare of moment mental snap.”

    Neither are the “mass shootings”. These are premeditated crimes where perpetrators take steps to maximize the impact.

    oiaohm wrote, “There is a difference a murder attempt with a sharp or blunt instrument the attacker has to get closer.”

    A firearm in the hands of the typical drunk or enraged person is nearly harmless at anything beyond a few feet. It takes care to aim and fire a firearm. “Pulling the trigger” puts the firearm off-target. There have been many cases where police or bad guys in a shoot-out have 90% of the rounds fired be quite ineffective. Being at a distance from a shooter also greatly increases the chance of being able to take cover. A long arm is particularly useless in close quarters because an intended victim has a huge opportunity to grab the firearm particularly going around corners. The barrel gives the intended victim leverage.

    OTOH, a knife cutting major vessels or puncturing the heart is every bit as lethal as a firearm. A bullet-wound not hitting something like the heart or brain is often survivable if medical intervention is achieved within the hour, the time most organs can go without circulation and still be revived.

    oiaohm wrote, “Legal requirements for proper gun storage. This has reduced cases of children get hands on guns and killer each other to almost zero in Australia. This also reduces successful gun theft.”

    This is about the only reasonable part of firearms laws I have seen but it’s still wrong. The expense of putting jails, courts, police and ordinary folks following some practice designed by bureaucrats is far higher than including good information in the educational curriculum and a persistent advertising campaign. Imagine the effect of a warning label on a package of ammunition compared to a thousand pages of legislation and regulation.

    In Canada, such problems were on the decrease long before the safe-storage provisions of the criminal code, because most people were now living in cities where firearms were not in daily use and proper storage made sense. Requiring a farmer to keep a firearm in a locked steel box makes the firearm nearly useless against predators sweeping in and snatching lambs. In my family children were taught about firearms by the time they attended school and the firearms were safely stored as the situation required, long before the criminal code was changed. My children knew firearms were heavy, oily, smelly things that needed to be cleaned and respected. They were allowed to fire them under supervision and realized they were not toys and behaved very differently to what they saw on TV.

    In Canada, the safe-storage provisions are mostly about preventing suicide/impulsive homicide. That does nothing because such people can do the deed many ways. All this effort just for firearms is useless.

  7. oiaohm

    Robert Pogson please look at your examples. Most cases of parties using fuel air bombs is not a spare of moment mental snap. Fuel air bombs are not as simple as point and shot. You have to get the fuel to air mix right or they don’t burn at all.

    Yes if you look at some of the examples some of them failed to explode completely.

    You are aware that Australia gun registries have proven over 50 percent of guns used in crime come from either stolen or illegally sold registered weapons. This number is increasing the longer the register is there and as the non registered weapons disappear.

    The Australian register is more sane a gun with many barrels can be registered as possibly being on 1 of those many combinations. The register does make it important for people to check on if they still have all the guns they think they do and report stolen. This does give police heads up of up coming issues.

    Robert Pogson
    “Is a murder with a firearm more important than a murder with a sharp or blunt instrument?”

    There is a difference a murder attempt with a sharp or blunt instrument the attacker has to get closer.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252888/Suspect-charged-attempted-murder-woman-attacked-street-2ft-long-samurai-sword.html

    Most cases a bladed and blunt attack ends like this. 1 victim and attacker done in by others.

    Limiting clip size makes cases of gun miss use simpler for police to handle since attacker will have to reload sooner.

    Legal requirements for proper gun storage. This has reduced cases of children get hands on guns and killer each other to almost zero in Australia. This also reduces successful gun theft.

    Like transporting in back of car a loaded gun not inside a gun case that use to happen here. There was a few deaths a year because of it. Now its illegal you have to unload and secure case the guns. Result less accidental deaths due to guns.

    Proper regulation reduces accidental deaths and immature people getting hands on guns.

  8. George Hostler

    THR: Conspiracy nuts like you are far more likely to be the next people going on a nice killing spree.
    George Hostler: THR resorts to ad hominem attacking a poster’s character.
    Robert Pogson: It’s worse than ad hominem attack. It’s baseless ad hominem attack by innuendo… On the web one usually has little or no information about a commentator to make such judgments.

    Robert, true, I have to agree with you there. The attack on a person’s character was derogatory. I saw nothing that ram said worthy of such a profane statement. When I see such occurring is a usual indication that moderation is imminent and the poster is only interested in baseless arguing and disruption.

  9. ram

    For those who can’t use Google or don’t want to read newspaper archives, here is a start:

    http://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/ten_years_on.html

    http://www.kerryhay.spiderweb.com.au/bryant.html

    http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Misc/martinbryant/A%20Port%20Arthur%20Massacre.htm

    Look at early pictures of the gun and you’ll see it was an M16 not an AR15 – that story came out later after the US Embassy objected (the US had a program that kept M16′s off the black market and a failure there would have caused embarrasment of certain American officials)

  10. ram

    It is THR who is making accusations without any basis in fact. The evidence is easy enough to look up, so look it up. Australia is too small of a country population wise for word (and videos) to not get out on government official’s misdeeds.

  11. THR

    So, rather than respond in discussion, THR resorts to ad hominem attacking a poster’s character. Rather telling of you.

    Dear George,

    stop shifting the goalposts! You have read ram’s post, haven’t you? It’s a ridiculous conspiracy theory with no proof whatsoever. If you take serious ram’s diatribe then that is your choice, and yours only. But don’t try to take away my right to free speech from me. If I wanna lambast him, then I will do so. And if you think that exposing someone’s utterly absurd arguments by making fun of them constitutes an ad hominem attack, then you’d better re-evaluate your train of thought.

    Happy New Year!

    PS: You know what’s telling for me, George? That you haven’t responded to my comment which directly concerns you.

  12. Robert Pogson

    George Hostler wrote, “THR resorts to ad hominem attacking a poster’s character.”

    It’s worse than ad hominem attack. It’s baseless ad hominem attack by innuendo… On the web one usually has little or no information about a commentator to make such judgments. Any random person is thousands of times more likely to be a good guy than a bad guy. Commentators here are not quite random in that they care enough to post but the odds are very good that every commentator is a good guy. That’s my presumption until it becomes obvious that otherwise is the truth.

  13. Robert Pogson

    George Hostler wrote, “I see no reason why a staffer could not be armed. I believe one does have the right to defend themselves and those around them such as students.”

    While that is conceptually good, there can be problems of implementation. A teacher in a classroom defending her/his students cannot reasonable leave that classroom to engage an intruder in the hallway or in another classroom, lessening the defence of that teacher’s students. A much higher fraction of teachers would need arming to make that feasible. Hallway/door monitors would be much more effective assuming the intruder used the normal doors. Office/maintenance staff make a lot of sense but the best/most effective solution is dedicated armed guards, say one at every corridor and outer door.

    Classrooms are very poorly designed for defence. Too many windows and too few doors make entry too easy and exit too difficult. Teachers have their hands full just managing a classroom without having to defend it. Classrooms designed decades ago for optimal teaching/lowest cost may have to be redesigned at huge cost to properly deal with such threats.

    In the short term the best solution is to deploy additional layers of defence in terms of armed guards coordinated by someone not teaching. Most schools would not find room in their budgets. In the short term governments should provide some quota per hundred students to provide security professionally. How many more outrages will it take to bring this about? Sadly, a few more. What I fear is that the bastards will bring even more effective technology to bear on the problem of doing the most harm in the most classrooms in the shortest period of time. One bad guy with a rifle is not it. I fear the problem will escalate until we shut schools down or defend them vigorously. It is sad that governments will deploy one or more policemen per bureaucrat at the drop of a hat yet try to avoid the issue for students in public schools.

  14. George Hostler

    Robert Pogson: No penalty deters the madman who intends to end his miserable life while taking as many others with him as possible. Then there is the guy who believes he has a mission from God or other imperative… It used to be that a functioning human being was connected with family/friends/community/nation/mankind in such a way that there was a responsibility to do no harm, but that seems to be lacking in some.

    Hi, Robert. This is why I mentioned about “kooks” in my last paragraph. Yes, there will always be crazy people. I think the unfortunate thing with the Connecticut school killing that not one teacher or staff was armed. With the proper training, I see no reason why a staffer could not be armed. I believe one does have the right to defend themselves and those around them such as students. That includes a responsible teacher or staffer with a loaded firearm. Also in reasonable execution of that firearm, there should be no fear of reprisal against that teacher or staffer in stopping an armed assailant.

    Even Christ prior to his departure told his disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36).

    Until there is a total cure for lawlessness, there will be a need to adequately defend one’s self and loved ones against a perpetrator. The police, as dedicated as they are cannot be at all places at all times.

    We need to allow the police to do their proper duties unhindered. Also, we need to allow the law abiding populace to properly defend themselves as well, until the first responders are able to take control the situation.

  15. George Hostler

    THR: Conspiracy nuts like you are far more likely to be the next people going on a nice killing spree.

    So, rather than respond in discussion, THR resorts to ad hominem attacking a poster’s character. Rather telling of you.

  16. THR

    Dear ram, there was not a single Japanese among the shooting victims. Perhaps the conspiracy theories have gone to your head.

    May I also ask you to be more precise? Which agents did it? Some claim, it were Jewish agents. Some claim it was only ONE agent. Some claim it was the devil. Some claim it was Sauron. LOL.

    Conspiracy nuts like you are far more likely to be the next people going on a nice killing spree.

  17. ram

    The mass shooting in Tasmania, Australia was conducted by government agents. They used M16′s which were never available to the public. The alleged shooter ‘Martin Bryant’ was never brought to trial. Japanese tourists (who were the main victims) have footage of blond wigs slipping off the shooters head(s). The lack of police or Australian Defence Force response to the shootings and hostage situation was never explained.

    This is exactly why the people need to be armed, to prevent us from being murdered on the whims of government officials.

  18. Robert Pogson

    THR wrote, “Rich right-wing crooks happen to be for lax gun laws? What an amazing coincidence!”

    I am not rich by most measures and I am certainly not right-wing in IT but I certainly feel we have enough crimes in the law-books without making owning a firearm of any kind a crime. Think of it. One can be convicted and sent to prison for a lengthy period with no evil intent and having done no harm… That warps the meaning of crime:
    “Gross violation of human law, in distinction from a misdemeanor or trespass, or other slight offense. Hence, also, any aggravated offense against morality or the public welfare; any outrage or great wrong.”

    In particular, in Canadian law, a firearm is actually the receiver, the part where the barrel, stock etc. are connected. Still, one can be harassed for importing a part of a firearm that is not a firearm, such as a barrel, a machined piece of steel, while there is no penalty at all for importing a piece of steel one intends to make into a barrel. The law is not only overly complex and expensive to enforce, but utterly useless in terms of its purported intent to make the world a safer place. The recently eliminated firearms registry was a nightmare. Some firearms may be converted from one calibre to another simply by swapping barrels in a few seconds yet the registry insisted the calibre of firearms at a particular address be recorded… A few swapped barrels periodically just to annoy the bureaurcrats. Registering a firearm had been reduced to $0 in an attempt to promote the registry but the dedicated firearms owner could institute a denial of service attack by re-registering weekly as a form of civil disobedience.

    All firearms laws do is stimulate criminal businesses of supplying firearms just as the “war on drugs” helps increase the profitability of criminals supplying drugs by increasing their margins.

  19. Robert Pogson

    George Hostler wrote, “This is why as a part of justice there needs to be an ultimate penalty for willful and wrongful intent on taking another’s life, resulting in a due process by government for the murderer to forfeit theirs.”

    No penalty deters the madman who intends to end his miserable life while taking as many others with him as possible. Then there is the guy who believes he has a mission from God or other imperative… It used to be that a functioning human being was connected with family/friends/community/nation/mankind in such a way that there was a responsibility to do no harm, but that seems to be lacking in some.

  20. THR

    Here you go, George, I fixed that for you:

    I see all this discussion, but with lax tax laws, who is going to make the rich crooks pay? I am sure they are going to peacefully give up part of their fortune and comply with the tax laws, right?

    It is the greed of man that kills, the tax loopholes are only accessories. This is why as a part of justice there needs to be an ultimate penalty for willful and wrongful intent on evading taxes, resulting in a due process by government for the evader to forfeit his or her fortune.

    There will always be rich crooks. I don’t believe in blaming or feeling sorry for ourselves because some rich crook decided to unlawfully exercise greed and evade taxes. To penalize the rest of society because of one rich crook by considering all other rich crooks to be crooks needing restraint is just plain foolish and irresponsible.

    Wait, what do you say? Rich right-wing crooks happen to be for lax gun laws? What an amazing coincidence!

  21. George Hostler

    I see all this discussion, but with restrictive gun laws, who is going to disarm organized crime and the criminal? I am sure they are going to register their fire arms and comply with the law, right?

    It is the heart of man that kills, the gun is only an accessory. This is why as a part of justice there needs to be an ultimate penalty for willful and wrongful intent on taking another’s life, resulting in a due process by government for the murderer to forfeit theirs.

    There will always be kooks. I don’t believe in blaming or feeling sorry for ourselves because some kook decided to unlawfully take another’s life or lives. To penalize the rest of society because of a kook by considering all others to be potential kooks needing restraint is just plain foolish and irresponsible.

  22. Robert Pogson

    bw wrote, “No one has killed 26 people in an elementary school with a knife, garrote, bull whip, fuel-air bomb, bare hands, or any other alternative.”

    see Wikipedia

    “Thermobaric and fuel-air explosives have been used in guerrilla warfare since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing in Lebanon which used a gas-enhanced explosive mechanism, probably propane, butane or acetylene.[62] The explosive used by the bombers in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing incorporated the FAE principle, using three tanks of bottled hydrogen gas to enhance the blast.[63][64] Jemaah Islamiyah bombers used a shock-dispersed solid fuel charge,[65] based on the thermobaric principle,[66] to attack the Sari nightclub in the 2002 Bali bombings.[67]“

    Nothing will stop a determined enemy from attacking. Only a stiff defence will minimize the damage. No legislation will help. Once you’ve banned murder all else is irrelevant in reality. Murder still happens all too often. 9/11 was a form of fuel-air bomb delivered effectively. They killed thousands for a few dollars apiece. The AR-15 look-alikes sell for ~$1000.

  23. bw

    Almost all of the mass murders on record in the past few years have involved firearms. No one has killed 26 people in an elementary school with a knife, garrote, bull whip, fuel-air bomb, bare hands, or any other alternative. As an aside, I do believe possession of a fuel-air bomb or even a conventional bomb is banned already, so adding assault rifles and large magazines is just a few more lines on the list.

    Certainly it will still be possible for someone dedicated enough to obtain automatic weapons or large ammunition magazines, but it will not be the overly simple process as it is now. That alone will make it less likely that these crazies can react to any spur of the moment notion as they seem to do now.

  24. Robert Pogson

    It’s rather tedious refuting your strawman positions but a tiny explosive will change a tank of gasoline to a large room full of an explosive fuel-air mixture. A second explosion after a time-delay sets it off killing everyone and burning/bursting the building. There’s a reason the US military used that. It’s cheap, very cheap.

    There’s no logical connection between crazies not having semi-auto rifles and them not committing murder. e.g. fires in night-clubs/movie theatres, bombs, avalanches, etc. Lack of a rifle does not save a life when a victim and a psycho meet. Many serial killers use bare hands, a rope or a knife, for instance.

  25. bw

    You said you bought 60 liters of fuel for your car, which is not propane. The Russian explosion was a “tanker” not a tank and if you need to build a road or rail track up to your target before you get a chance to set it off, the people inside will have ample time to escape, eh?

    There is no getting around the fact that the assault style rifle with lots of ammunition in an initial loading is the weapon of choice by the crazies who have carried out these mass murders in recent times. These weapons should be made illegal and the process of scooping them up started. Perhaps some will go to criminals, by definition in the case of a ban, but almost everyone else will complain but will obey the law, choosing liberty over jail time. Anyone subsequently seen with such a weapon can be arrested on the spot.

    Even the most die-hard gun nut is not going to choose shooting it out with the police over simply surrendering the gun.

  26. Robert Pogson

    Ivan wrote, stupidly, “when someone tries to purchase a fully automatic rifle”

    No one in the USA as far as I know legally sells any full-auto firearms to consumers, dumbass. Waiting for a licence to clear is a waiting period, dumbass. They actually don’t have licences in most places, it’s a criminal record check. Use Google. Bing is obviously giving you biased results.

  27. Ivan

    Well, when did they do away with that at Wal-mart?

    Hey dumbass, the only legal waiting period in the US is when someone tries to purchase a fully automatic rifle and that is only for the paperwork on the license to clear. There is no legally required waiting period.

    So should we deploy police and armed guards to protect valuable soft targets.

    Wayne LaPierre is a moron and so are you.

  28. Robert Pogson

    eebrah wrote, “why would it be a problem if there was tougher regulation to ensure that before you acquire a firearm
    1. You are of sound mental state
    2. You are familiar with how to handle and store them safely”

    It’s not a problem. It’s reasonable and that’s what was done with the firearms used at Newtown. Unfortunately the murderer figured out how to get a hold of the firearms. As long as firearms exist, that will happen. The tighter the controls on firearms the more business thieves and smugglers will have supplying the black market. No firearm law will stop that. With ~300million firearms in the USA the best defence against illegal use is being prepared, not legislation. There is legislation against running cars into people and things but we still deploy air-bags and seatbelts. So should we deploy police and armed guards to protect valuable soft targets.

  29. bw

    A tank of gas exploding is not going to do much damage to most structures, even when done deliberately. And we are not talking about intentional terrorism here or even civil insurrection here, merely about the present easy access to intensive firepower by mentally deranged individuals who seem to be able to just go to the closet and pick up one of these weapons at the drop of a hat and commit mass murder.

  30. eebrah

    I have to disagree with you on this one pog, and disagree vehemently.
    If there was anything that should be regulated, it should be guns, same as with any other tools of mass killing.
    I am still flabbergasted when I hear the rationale that people are safer from “bad guys” with guns when everyone else is packing.
    I am particularly irritated when people trot out the old “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” Off course it is *people* doing the killing and what is being called for is legislation ensuring that *people* who want to kill people do not have their job made easier by having easy access to automatic, high capacity weaponry.
    Sure, someone like Adam Lanza could have easily found another way to attempt a mass killing of little kids but just about any other way would probably have been *more* difficult, would have provided better chances at stopping him and would probably have resulted in less casualties.
    Pog, you sound like someone who takes great care to ensure that his firearms are stored properly, why would it be a problem if there was tougher regulation to ensure that before you acquire a firearm
    1. You are of sound mental state
    2. You are familiar with how to handle and store them safely
    and that once you have the firearm, you undergo periodic testing and/or training to ensure the above and that if one has minors and/or mentally challenged people living with them that they keep their firearms out of reach?
    I do not think that firearms can be banned at this point, but I do think that those in possession of such capable killing devices [ yes, even car owners and farmers with tonnes of explosive raw materials ] should take responsibility for owning them and do their part to ensure that incidents like this do NOT happen again, not simply to let them happen but ensure that “everyone else can defend themselves”

  31. THR

    Wow, Bob, you’re deep.

    The statistics you cited belie you. And then you hit me with… the Bible. LOL.

    I had some hope because you are from Canada, but it seems the religious right-wingers have successfully spread there, too.

  32. Robert Pogson

    THR shows his ignorance. Hint: Read the Bible:
    004:004 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

    004:005 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

    004:006 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

    004:007 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

    004:008 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

    004:009 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

  33. Robert Pogson

    bw wrote, “try to order a ton of ammonium nitrate if you do not own a large farm and see who shows up on your doorstep today.”

    Hmmm… Just last week, I pulled into a gas station as if I owned the place and brazenly bought 60L of gasoline. I could do that a lot and … Any high school graduate of chemistry can make nasty things out of ordinary consumer products. If one wanted NH4NO3 one could make it a dozen ways even out of air and water. I do buy fertilizer and I can load up my vehicle with all the urea I want but the other is no longer available. That might stop a lawn-owner but it would not stop a bad guy. Look at Afghanistan.

  34. bw

    The mass shootings are a very large percentage of mass murders, and easily prevented by stripping the populace of the assault-style weapons they favor for that purpose. It was possible for McVeigh and Nichols to construct a bomb a decade ago, but try to order a ton of ammonium nitrate if you do not own a large farm and see who shows up on your doorstep today.

    The Constitution is much more effectively defended by the ballot box than it is by a pretend M-16 in the hands of a self-deluded patriot.

  35. THR

    If firearms disappeared tomorrow, the USA’s rate of murder by firearm would drop to zero but the rate of murder would not.

    The murder rate would drop by about 70 percent because 70 percent of intentional homicides are homicides with firearms.

    Don’t you even try to read the statistics you’re citing?!

  36. Robert Pogson

    bw wrote, irrelevantly, “If the gunman at the Batman movie simply stood on the stage and waved a knife, there would not have been so many dead or injured.”

    …and if he had detonated a truck bomb out back, or charged in with an infernal device, or released a poison or toxin what would have been the body-count? The knife argument is weak. Firearms may be more effective than a knife but a bad guy with a firearm is still a bottleneck or single point of failure assuming you’re rooting for the bad guy.

  37. Robert Pogson

    THR wrote, “There’s something you hide from your readership, Bob. Deliberately. “

    Nope. It’s Piers Morgan and his ilk that use the terms homicide and homicide with firearms interchangeably as it suits them. I choose my words carefully.

    If firearms disappeared tomorrow, the USA’s rate of murder by firearm would drop to zero but the rate of murder would not. When a person wants to kill they will do it one way or another. There must be 50 ways to kill and they are all used. The facts that firearms cannot be made to disappear and that the “war on drugs” ensures a steady demand for murder mean that eliminating firearms or restricting them severely would have very little effect. Look at the incarceration rate in USA for drugs… That’s a national tragedy ensuring that the next generation will be raised by people in dysfunctional homes. That’s a much bigger effect than murder by firearms. There are millions in USA prisons for drugs.

  38. Robert Pogson

    bw wrote, “The topic is mass murders with firearms, not simple murder.”

    Is a murder with a firearm more important than a murder with a sharp or blunt instrument? I don’t get that. Murder is in the hearts of men, not their firearms. An enraged drunk will use a firearm, a knife, a broken bottle, his bare hands, etc. It’s murder, pure and simple. The “mass shootings” are a tiny percentage of murders. The real issues are not with firearms.

  39. bw

    The topic is mass murders with firearms, not simple murder. If the gunman at the Batman movie simply stood on the stage and waved a knife, there would not have been so many dead or injured. Britain and Japan and Australia, as cited, prove that the majority is far safer without guns than with them.

    The handwriting is on the wall and the winds of change are blowing to mix metaphors. It is not going to blow over this time.

  40. Ivan

    So, Piers Morgan claims to love USA all the while being willing to lie to USAians and mislead them about the reality of firearms.

    As opposed to you who doesn’t know the first thing about US gun control. Bob, there is no waiting period, you need to keep your crazy conservative trolling focused on things you know about.

  41. THR

    There’s something you hide from your readership, Bob. Deliberately. Here it is:

    Firearms in the US were reponsible for almost 70 percent of all intentional homicides in 2010.

    So you’re saying, Uncle Bob, that regulating firearms wouldn’t make a difference? Hard to believe when the statistical evidence speaks against your uninformed opinion. For your readers to make up their own mind you should have linked to the relevant document, of course:

    UNODC – Homicides by Firearms

Leave a comment