Scotland had a mass attack on schoolchildren in 1996, three years before Columbine: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1303460--newtown-school-shooting-scottish-town-dunblane-shares-agony-of-connecticut-tragedy

Maybe our murders were copying those from the U.K. But go ahead, oh,ye ignorant of history, blame America. And remember GUNS WERE CONTROLLED THERE.

Ooompa Loompas - Got chocolate?

Victim - Uhm No?

Beat down!! Something so wrong about this.

In response to rachel-3673200, who says, "Maybe our murders were copying those from the U.K. But go ahead, oh,ye ignorant of history, blame America. And remember GUNS WERE CONTROLLED THERE", I would add, not quite so fast!

There was an outrage that was quite similar to that following the Newton incident and the outrage led to a significant tightening of gun laws.

John, unfortunately like us, they didn't tighten down on the immigration/breeding of radical Muslims in the UK and so had mass murder by bombing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

And mass murder by gun still existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulelani_Vukwana

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

Many ways to skin a cat, John. Many ways.

And remember: population of England about 50 million. Population of US: 313,000, both for 2012.

rachel

But go ahead, oh,ye ignorant of history, blame America.

Yes, you are ignorant of history.

"The second mass murder wave from the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s consisted of a greater number of mass public shootings, similar to the recent Aurora movie theater shooting and Newtown school shooting.

These incidents "have always captured a great deal of interest and concern," Duwe said.

Marked by the 1966 Texas Tower shootings where student Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus shooting dead 14 people and wounding 31 others, the mid-1960s do not actually represent the beginning of an unprecedented mass murder wave in the United States.

"Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S.," Duwe said.

According to the criminologists, the 1990s had the highest number of mass public shootings with a little more than 40 -- an average of a little more than 4 each year.

The number of mass public shootings dropped below 30 in the years between 2000 and 2009.

"This year, however, the U.S. has had at least seven mass public shootings, which is the highest number since 1999," Duwe said."

England has a long history of murder, mass murder, etc. So does the rest of Europe. Hate on the US all you want, we're still WWWWWAAAAAAYYYY behind Germany, Russia, the Congo, Sudan, etc. when it comes to mass murder. Perhaps you live in the UK?

http://www.murderuk.com/mass_murderers.html

Ooompa Loompas - Got chocolate?

Sloth love chuck! Prepare to be second-miled! Pope style!

Scotland had a mass attack on schoolchildren in 1996, three years before Columbine: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1303460--newtown-school-shooting-scottish-town-dunblane-shares-agony-of-connecticut-tragedy

Gee, Rachel, you reach back to the last century, 16+ years ago, and cite a school shooting in Scotland.

Wow!

Here in the United States you seldom have to reach back further than the last month to find another mass shooting.

You see the difference?

Maybe our murders were copying those from the U.K. But go ahead, oh,ye ignorant of history, blame America. And remember GUNS WERE CONTROLLED THERE.

In the United States one can find school shootings long before the 1996 school shooting in Scotland. In 1979, 17 years prior, San Diego resident Brenda Ann Spencer took her Ruger .22 caliber rifle and started to shoot both children and adults at the elementary school across the street from her house. She killed two people and injured 9 others before surrendering to Police.

Maybe the Scottish shooter were copying Brenda.

Maybe not too. But what is clear is that here in the U.S. we have shooting incidents of this sort almost every month of the year, whereas in Western Europe they have such incidents perhaps once in a decade.

I'm not claiming that tighter controls on firearms will prevent all gun-related deaths. But if guns were not so readily available shooters such as Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, James Holmes and Brenda Ann Spencer would certainly find it more difficult to obtain one, and some, at least, of the killings for which these individuals were responsible would never have occurred.

Yes, lowering the number of guns in our society, drastically, is a major undertaking. But the first step is realizing it needs to be done.

Rachel whatever.

(1) Your Wiki mass murder reference is to EAST LONDON in SOUTH AFRICA !

(2) England is not Scotland and Scotland is not England

(3) Population of the UK is approx 63 million

I don't give much for your ability to skin a cat.

Why is this even news? Oh yeah, nbc.

Bill, the UK includes Scotland.

After the Scottish school shooting, they tightened gun laws. And guess what, not a single mass murder, by gun, since.

Its irrelevant what else someone used. The conversation is about guns. If you want to talk bomb or baseball bat control, thats for another topic.

Yeah soooooo? and where's the touted lack of violence in the U.K.?...or is one form somehow lesser against another person?...only the foolish make foolish comparisons...it's still violence

Violence is about the same, difference is, no gun deaths. And a far lower murder rate as a result.

Its much more work to kill someone without a gun. Getting a bomb, or trying to poison, is not easy at all. And you might kill yourself in the process. Guns make it easy and quick. in the heat of the moment killings go way up when people have guns. They snap, shoot, and its too late. They cant take it back.

Gun control simply means keeping guns away from bad guys. Not law abiding citizens. However, it also means gun owner need to be held to higher standards, and cooperate with controlling guns. License and registration is how you keep track of who is doing what with crates of guns.

... So. We turned a story about a beating in the UK into another chat about Gun Control. Alright, fine then. I'll play ball. Gloves off, here we go.

Our forefathers, builders of this beautiful country, gave us the freedom to bear arms. There are a lot more gun owners in our country, yes, but your math is a little backwards. Since we have SO MANY gun owners, it also stands we would indeed have more gun violence. You probably fail division in this case, since you aren't dividing by the amount of registered gun owners in these other countries and their gun-based violence, versus the amount of registered gun owners in the United States and the amount of gun violence over here.

Criminals aren't going to follow the law either, they'll find a way to get guns. If they can get guns in some of the tightest fisted countries about gun control, they'll get them here too. And when they bring out their guns, we'll blow their friggin' head off. At least we would if people were taught less to fear guns, and more to respect them, their ability to take a life, and in having self-discipline to control their outbursts that cause these deaths in the first place. It'd also help if our media would stop treating guns like they solve everything, and instead treated them as a last resort, or as something to be sneered at, being dishonorable to use.

I won't sit here and say that if there were less guns, there'd be less gun violence. That's basic math. But there are more registered, law-abiding gun owners that don't hurt anyone versus the ones that do, and if you crunch those numbers with any other country, you'd probably find that we're a lot more responsible with our firearms. At least I hope to think so. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. I'm not crazy good at math, but I do know that there are millions of gun owners in the United States not driving around shooting anyone at any given time, so that has to mean something.

So help me, I will defend the 2nd Amendment. It was created to fight tyranny on our own soil, has done a very damn good job of doing so, and we don't need a knee jerk reaction suddenly tearing apart the very things our forefathers gave their lives for.

Our forefathers, builders of this beautiful country, gave us the freedom to bear arms. There are a lot more gun owners in our country, yes, but your math is a little backwards. Since we have SO MANY gun owners, it also stands we would indeed have more gun violence. You probably fail division in this case, since you aren't dividing by the amount of registered gun owners in these other countries and their gun-based violence, versus the amount of registered gun owners in the United States and the amount of gun violence over here.

ThaMonkeh - I'm not sure what you think you are proving here. You correctly point out that with a higher number of gun owners in our society, both per capita and in absolute numbers, it is not surprising that we have a higher level of gun violence. You ask the reader to divide the number of registered gun owners in "these other countries", and compare that number against a similar number derived from the United States.

Why?

Even if the ratio in "these other countries" proved higher, it would only show that the citizens in "these other countries" would do even worse than the United States, if given the chance. It still does nothing to disprove the idea that having more guns in a society causes more gun-violence. Maybe the citizens of the United States do better than those of Great Britain.

So What?

Why is that a reason for accepting the higher level of gun-violence brought about by our current gun laws?

So help me, I will defend the 2nd Amendment. It was created to fight tyranny on our own soil, has done a very damn good job of doing so, and we don't need a knee jerk reaction suddenly tearing apart the very things our forefathers gave their lives for.

Can you cite even one circumstance when armed citizens were forced to take military action against the tyranny of the Federal Government?

The closest circumstance I can cite is the Whiskey Rebellion (from 1792 to 1794), wherein farmers in Pennsylvania resorted to armed insurrection against state and federal tax collectors. That conflict was quelled by the calling out of the militia [you, know the entity referenced in the Second Amendment] So it was armed citizens, under the mandate of the federal government, which put down the rebellion.

That was more than 200 years ago.

You also ignore that all of the countries of Western Europe have maintained representative democracies for generations, without need or use of an armed citizenry to counterbalance the central government, AND that in the 1970s, both Portugal and Spain transitioned from tyrannical, fascist governments to democracies without any action by an armed citizenry.

So, I seriously question both your points:

1. that it makes any difference that say, Great Britain, would do even worse than the U.S., if they had our gun laws. That is like telling a police officer that your friends drive even worse than you after downing a bottle of scotch.
2. that an armed citizenry is necessary to the survival of our Democracy. That has been disproved in many different parts of the world by countries like Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Portugal and our own northern neighbor, Canada.

So what is the real reason for preseving the Second Amendment?

Obviously for quelling the next Whiskey Rebellion. . . And if that luscious cocktail waitress doesn't come by with that drink in the next few minutes, by God, I may start one!

Oh my... somebody pi$$ed in their chocolate again!

what about the coal miner wars where the goverment sent hitmen. get a life people still died in all the conflicts you talk about and if it were"nt for a gun these goverments would not have stepped down so quitly check your facts dman353357! OR just shut up

"OOHMPA-LOOHMPA-DOOPA-DA-DEE"

"Give me yer' watch & yer' wallet or I'll kick you in the KNEE"!!!!

"OOHMPA-LOOHMPA-DOOPA-DA-DOO" "Give em' up now or we'll beat you BLACK & BLUE"!!!

Ha Ha Ha Ha ROFLMAO Unreal... This article made my Week!! I Love it!!!

Or maybe it was a sign from A Clockwork Orange. Were they singing "Singing in the Rain"?

Ban Oompa loompas NOW!!

The "ban" garbage has been played. Time to find some new material.

Rockyroad-531554

Ban Oompa loompas NOW!!

Agreed ..... they just can't keep their noses out of other people's business.

Darren Dickerson

The "ban" garbage has been played. Time to find some new material.

takenaka's not here.

Register all Oompa loompas!!

Ban deodorant!

Yeah. Shame you're still dead or damaged.

Yobs who left school age 10, about when intro'd to Willy Wonka.

Very possibly, they rule the night in certain parts of England. So what do you suppose will be the topic on the victims next visit to the pub? Bartender cutting victim off early for fear that the Cheshire Cat, Mad Hatter along with Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb would be around to have a go.

Watch out for that surly, snockered walrus who hangs with Tweedledum and Tweedledee, too!

Poor Oompa Loompas. Working all day in a Wonka Corp sweatshop for peanuts. No wonder they have to beat down somebody to establish their identity and self-worth. It's not their fault. The blame lies with those evil one percenters who exploit them.

They work for cacao beans, not peanuts.

:D

No oompa loompas with pistol grips or flash hiders either. Yeah, and they must be registered.

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya36h56msXQ

Thanks! Much better than anything I thought of!

I was reminded of Clockwork Orange, also. Four gangsters, makeup, beating - similar M.O.