One Deranged Person and One Gun Is All It Takes
64
Guns - Safavid dynasty- Iran (Persia) - 17AD
I'm hearing on the news today that a man in County Durham, England has shot and killed three women and committed suicide. It's a terrible tragedy, and the debate about gun-ownership has sparked off again.
No one's ever pointed a gun at me (as far as I know), so I tend to be neutral about the subject - but the thing that struck me as odd about the discussion was the amount of concern there seemed to be about the number of guns the man was licensed to own.
It seems irrelevant, to me, that the man held licenses to keep six guns. How many guns does one man need if he's intent on causing havoc? I asked myself. I'd only be concerned about the one he was pointing in my direction.
There might be an issue there, for the criminal psychologists to explain - and for the authorities issuing gun licenses to address. The man obviously had a personality disorder. Then haven't we all, to some extent. Nobody's perfect.
Personally, I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to own a lethal weapon of any kind, and especially if they're of the ilk that also harbour political ambitions. I can think of a few political leaders I wouldn't trust with a computer driven drone bristling with feather dusters, or a lethal version of the Quran or the Bible for that matter - never mind an arsenal of nuclear weaponry, for example. Even so, when dealing with matters of such magnitude, I’m hopeful that one president should only have the capacity to concentrate on one nuclear button at one time. Yet, I have concerns about that too.
Then I thought for a moment that there might've been a case for owning a multiple of guns when gun technology was in its infancy. A gunman could only fire one musket ball at a time - followed by all that rigmarole of reloading with gunpowder etc. Even then, a gunman has only one pair of hands and two eyes - one of which he has to shut to take aim.
Anyway, I suppose any potential victims seeing an irate musketeer approaching, encumbered by six loaded pieces might at least get a clue that it was time to scarper. It would seem unwise to offer to assist him with his burden, without first asking about his intentions. Of course, I realise that expecting an honest answer, in those circumstances, would be a bit naive too. Yet again, there might be a tactical advantage to consider.
Well, maybe I've missed something. I don't follow the news much anyway, even though I've had more time to dally recently, due to the holiday. However, it just seems a bit redundant, to me, to go on about the number of guns the man owned, when all that's required, for the tragedy to happen, is one mentally disturbed person, and one gun - complete with license, of course.
CommentsLoading...
Well I suppose it's true what they say drbj - guns aren't dangerous in themselves, it's the people who want to use them we need to beware. I don't know where the other five guns were at while he was on the rampage but I'm sure he had only one pair of hands to use them.
I agree that he only needed one gun to commit the crime, but perhaps owning six of them shows an unusual (for a Brit) pre-occupation with weapons. I wonder what he used them for? I guess, like most people here in the UK, I am more than a little nervous of guns, and suspicious of those who are fascinated by them.
That's a good point Amanda. I was trying to think of the professional jargon, but I couldn't remember. People who understand criminal psychology might help to describe the point we both seem to get here. I too am suspicious of anyone with a fascination for guns or any form of weaponry.
As for calling it sport, they don't have keep their guns at home. After all, I doubt if Jenson Button keeps his racing car at home and I’m sure Wayne Rooney leaves the pitch at the stadium.
I am all for owning guns. I just wrote a story about an 18 yr old mother of 3 month old baby being broken in on by two men and as she takes aim at the door as she calls 911 to make sure it is alright. I know how she felt. I have always had a gun even with children as my parents did and guns in anyone's hands is only as dangerous as their state of mind. Who can know? Yet men like this you talk about will probably be the cause of innocent people only trying to protect themselves loosing their rights. The crooks will still have their weapons. Everyone knows that.
I have no fascination with guns, I haven't seen one in months, but I know where they are if I need one in a minute.
You and I are from slightly different backgrounds Jackie. You have the 2nd Amendment which I think gives you the right to keep and bear arms. My predecessors lived under a feudal system, which was effectively a medieval protection racket, with its roots in the Dark Ages after the collapse of the Roman Empire.
In future, we might need to consider our own protection, for things are changing. If government cuts mean that, the police can only afford the time to deal with protesters, for example.
As it stands in the UK now, if I shot and wounded someone for entering my home, I'd probably get five years in jail - then when I came out, he or she would sue me and I'd likely spend the rest of my days paying for that. I don't know how that works on your side of the pond.
Wow,,,well it differs here too state to state and although we all are allowed to bear arms I have heard of cases when people have gone to jail for killing a burglar. When my children were preteen a boy killed this young woman and chopped her into hundreds of pieces and here he was hanging next door with the neighbors after just a couple of years after doing this. I was terrified and I made up my mind right then if he even came on my porch to try to get in he was a dead man. Someone said I better drag his body inside if I did but I don't know if I could have gone that far. Sometimes you just have to decide which is worse and I thought jail sounded better than me or my family dead or tortured. I wouldn't think twice even if it is the last thing I would want to do. I cannot imagine a life not able to protect yourself. I guess if I lived where you do I would make me a spear and some pepper spray, lol. I suppose we have more crime here than you do. Where I live now was virtually crime free until the last few years but now it is moving closer. Still better than most of America.
I suppose you could use tasers and pepper spray Jackie. I'm not sure if that's legal there. We can get ten years in this country for possession of a taser. I don't think they want us protecting ourselves. That's why I've always said that government is a protection racket, which would be fine if they took the trouble to protect their citizens/subjects, but that doesn't always happen. They certainly seem impotent in the face of the corporations and banksters. On the other hand, if we have little worth stealing, we have little to worry about.
We can't win, mind you. If we put our money under the mattress, the burglars will get it. If we put it in the banks, the banksters get it.
drbj Level 8 Commenter 4 months ago
Your headline, amillar, says it all. It's not the number of guns one possesses but the mental capacity and inclination of the owner we should be concerned about. Whether it's one gun or half a dozen.