"... legally-owned guns returned... "

[Robert]

"... after police removed them in 2008."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16399165

"Mr Atherton produced a shotgun and in a matter of moments shot dead Susan, Tanya and Alison before turning the gun on himself."
Three other people managed to escape, including a 19-year-old woman - named locally as Laura McGoldrick - who escaped from an upstairs window and suffered minor injuries.
Mr Atherton was licensed to own six weapons, three of them shotguns and a further three "section-one" firearms.
Police confirmed the force took away his guns following an incident in 2008, but they were later returned.
A spokesman said that decision was in line with national procedure.
"It was one person's word against another," he said.
"If there was no grounds for applying for the revocation of a firearms licence the guns would be returned to the firearms licence holder."

 

[Fade]

Quote
"A Durham Police spokesman said that in the hours leading up to the shootings, Mr Atherton had been out drinking locally.

His partner was out drinking separately with a group of friends, which included her sister and niece.

Det Supt Paul Goundry said: "We believe Mr Atherton and Susan returned to their home separately and shortly afterwards an argument took place."
----------------------------

And had the shotguns been confiscated we could be reading:

"Drunken Horden hammer killer Michael Atherton argued with victims Susan McGoldrick, Alison Turnbull, and Tanya Turnbull.
Susan McGoldrick, Alison Turnbull, and Tanya Turnbull died of hammer blows to the head.

A drunken man who killed three women then turned the hammer on himself argued with his victims at his home just before he bashed them in the head, police said.

It has also emerged Michael Atherton had his legally-owned hammers returned to him after police removed them in 2008."

I say: Ban all hammers!

Maybe that should read "Ban all drunks!"

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

And had the shotguns been confiscated we could be reading:

"Drunken Horden hammer killer Michael Atherton [...]

No you wouldn't.

 

[redrumloa]

Are the guns traced back to Obama/Eric Holder?

 

[Fade]

Fluffy said:
No you wouldn't.
-----------------------

You're probably right there Fluffy.

I remember a few years ago reading in some tabloid that the favorite way to murder someone in the UK was to kick them to death.

Then people could say, "People don't kill people; shoes do!"
Ban all shoes!

I sometimes wonder about a culture that always wants to blame an object for something, instead of the person using the object.

 

[Robert]

I sometimes wonder about a culture that always wants to blame an object for something, instead of the person using the object.

I sometimes wonder about a culture that could produce someone who could say something so silly. But then I remember that you're more than a product of your culture.

Which is a relief.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I sometimes wonder about a culture that always wants to blame an object for something, instead of the person using the object.

The fact is that people are lazy. The more effort it takes to do something the less likely people are to do it. Guns make killing and maiming easy and it is why they are the preferred tool for the job where they are available. However, raising the required effort can significantly reduce an undesireable behaviour. For example, just installing a turnstile at a ticketed rail platform, even a jumpable one, will eliminate most ticket cheats - because now you have to plan how to get over it without attracting attention and it's just quicker and easier to buy a ticket.

Similarly waiting periods get rid of many spontaneous urges to do someone in because it takes effort to hold a grudge long enough to get your revenge.

Consider the venerable drive by shooting. Quick, easy, never leave the get-away vehicle. Drive by baseball battings are altogether more complicated to put together, plan and execute. Forcing people to use baseball bats to kill people would just make it too much effort for a lot of people and would reduce the number of successful attempts a team could pull off in a given time - plus there would be less innocent bystanders hit by stray baseball bats.

Comparing guns to shoes or hammers is farcical too because both shoes and hammers are at worst "dual use" technologies with primary purposes being (for shoes) protecting you feet while walking and (for hammers) driving in nails for construction with wood - the primary purpose of guns is to kill. Some people like to shoot for fun and target practice but they were invented to deliver a lethal projectile that would turn a living creature into a dead one. Saying that if you get rid of guns then people would still be able to kick people to death is like saying that if you got rid of nail guns then framers would still be able to nail things with hammers and if you get rid of cars people would still be able to get around by walking and if you get rid of computers people will still be able to do spreadsheets with pencil, paper and their brains. The gun is only a tool in the hands of a killer, but it is a good tool for the job and if you took it away then killers would have to use one that is less suited and that would significantly impact their efficiency, just as taking the nail gun away from a framer and giving him a regular old hammer would.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

From an article that just came up in the News Feeds ....


Florida boy injured by celebratory shoe (or hammer, if you prefer).

it would not be the first time a child was inadvertently shot in the Southeast on New Year's Eve and in the hours after midnight. In 2009, 4-year-old Marquel Peters died after a bullet went through the roof of a suburban Atlanta church and hit him.

(my emphasis)
Yup - innocence and church rooves are no protection.

 

[faethor]

Here's a great case in Minnesota. Drive by shooting the bullet went out of the intended victim's house and into the neighbor's house where it killed a 3 year old. http://www.startribune.com/local/west/136339353.html Sadly the Mom stated their family was used to the drive bys and since they weren't in any gangs she thought hiding the kids would be safe enough. 3 year olds, apparently, don't run fast enough to safe rooms.

Though the problem of guns is a true one for the USA. It's my understanding even if we remove all gun deaths the USA has a higher murder rate than most any other first world nation.

 

[redrumloa]

Though the problem of guns is a true one for the USA. It's my understanding even if we remove all gun deaths the USA has a higher murder rate than most any other first world nation.

Ghetto / gangster culture is glorified in Pop culture and the liberal media. Dumbed down idiots in society see ghetto violence glorified and want to mimic it.

 

[ilwrath]

Ghetto / gangster culture is glorified in Pop culture and the liberal media. Dumbed down idiots in society see ghetto violence glorified and want to mimic it.

Well, the problems are much deeper than just pop culture and media. There are entire regions that have violence and anti-intellectual pursuits engrained in their own actual urban life. Anyone who manages to escape and tries to help themselves or others, loses credibility in their old community because they don't represent that area, anymore. It creates an insulated feedback loop. The only people who could break the cycle are forced to always be outside it. And the community won't listen to anyone "outside" itself.

Sadly the Mom stated their family was used to the drive bys[...]

This is all too common in a lot of places. And likely to become more common as more and more cuts to the local police forces come in. When police response to a "shots fired" call comes a few hours later.... Why even bother calling it in, at all?

Though the problem of guns is a true one for the USA. It's my understanding even if we remove all gun deaths the USA has a higher murder rate than most any other first world nation.

Exactly. Ultimately, I'm forced to side with the anti gun control crowd. Because, in the end, I doubt it would matter to murder statistics. If, somehow, through aggressive tactics, we reduce drive-by shootings, I'm going to bet we'll see a corresponding uptick in even more fatal drive-by firebombings. They're already getting pretty common around here. Then what are you going to do? Stop selling bottles, rags, and gasoline?

It's the communities that need to be fixed, not the tools.