Student brings shotgun and 200 rounds of ammo, and mask to school, changes mind about murder.....

[2aguy]

So.....this kid was being bullied and typical of the gun culture in this country, he brought a gun to school to murder people...then he had a change of heart.....he brought a shotgun, and 200 rounds of ammo to the school, then changed his mind...........

In Britain.....

This is about the 3rd near miss for a mass school shooting in Britain in the last few years...another 19 year old got a Glock 19 and ammo on the dark web, he said it was like buying chocolates....and planned on shooting up the university that kicked him out.....he got caught because he posted about the shooting online before doing it...

So....anti gunners....which British gun law stopped these two kids from committing a mass public shooting in their schools?

Teenager admits taking shotgun to school before having a 'change of heart' and calling 999

A 15-year-old boy who took a loaded shotgun, 200 rounds of ammunition and a mask into a school has admitted possessing the weapon with intent to endanger life.

The youth, who cannot be named because of his age, dialled 999 after having "a change of heart" and told a call-handler he had mental health problems and had been thinking of harming others.

Leamington Spa Youth Court was told the teenager also took ear plugs and a lock-knife with him to a school on Tuesday morning after removing the shotgun from a secure cabinet belonging to a relative.

Magistrates bailed the boy to an address outside Warwickshire before he is sentenced at Warwick Crown Court on July 14.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, in Amerca, they don't change their minds. Bet that makes you so proud.

 

[2aguy]

Well, in Amerca, they don't change their minds. Bet that makes you so proud.

And the question was....which British gun control law stopped these two attacks from becoming mass public shootings in a school?....try to focus your tiny brain......

Here is the other one....

This guy didn't change his mind...he got caught......

Are explosive illegal in Britain....? Cause he got those too....



------

British teen sentenced to life for planned school attack

Despite some of the tightest gun control on the planet, a British man was able to acquire a handgun, extended mags and explosives as part of a plot to attack his former school.

Liam Lyburd, 19, of Newcastle upon Tyne, was sentenced to life imprisonment this week on eight charges of possessing weapons with intent to endanger life.

As noted by the BBC, Lyburd gathered a cache that included a Glock 19, three 33-round magazines, 94 hollow-point bullets, CS gas, five pipe bombs and two other improvised explosive devices despite the country’s long history of civilian arms control.

According to court documents, Lyburd planned to use the weapons in an attack on Newcastle College, from which he had been expelled two years prior for poor attendance. He was arrested last November after two Northumbria Police constables visited him at his home on a tip from an individual who encountered threats and disturbing pictures posted by Lyburd online.

Despite a defense that portrayed the reclusive man as living in a fantasy world, Lyburd was found guilty in July.

The internet-savvy teen obtained the Glock and other items through Evolution Marketplace, a successor to the Silk Road, a long-time “dark web” site in which users could buy and sell everything from illegal narcotics to munitions using Bitcoin cryptocurrency.

In court, Lyburd testified that buying the Glock was so easy it was “like buying a bar of chocolate.”

He obtained funds for his purchases through a complex extortion scheme in which he used online malware to infect computers, which he in turn held for ransom from their owners.

 

[BlackFlag]

Well, in Amerca, they don't change their minds. Bet that makes you so proud.

Or in Britain, it's that much harder for the ones who won't change their mind to get their hands on a gun.

 

[2aguy]

Well, in Amerca, they don't change their minds. Bet that makes you so proud.

Or in Britain, it's that much harder for the ones who won't change their mind to get their hands on a gun.

No...not really, they averaged one mass shooting a decade.....

 

[LoneLaugher]

If someone knows why this asshole has turned his full attention to firearms laws in Great Brittain, kindly explain it to the class. It's weird.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If someone knows why this asshole has turned his full attention to firearms laws in Great Brittain, kindly explain it to the class. It's weird.

He posts these to show us how few mass shootings actually happen in GB. His his way of proving how well their gun laws work.

Thanks Billy Boy. This is very good news and gives the US a truly worthy goal.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[usmbguest5318]

Firearms control in the U.K. is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion (less than 2/10ths of a percent) of recorded crime.
Source​

I can all but hear the gun rights partisans ("gunnies") uttering their same hackneyed mantra, as through repetition it becomes more sensible:

Britain has fairly restrictive gun laws. Which of them stopped the boy from obtaining and bringing a firearm to school?​

That is an absurd question, yet "gunnies" pose it all the same. What's inane about the question? The question is ridiculous because the point of the laws is to reduce the incidence of gun misuse. Thus the question to ask is this: "How many people have Britain's gun laws prevented from obtaining a gun and using it to kill others?"

Obviously, that is not an easily, if at all, directly answerable question. Thus, one must inductively determine the answer rather than calculate/deduce it. Among the most straightforward ways to infer whether gun control laws are achieving the end of reducing gun offenses is to observe, over time, the rate of gun offenses.

• Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales (attached)
  
• Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Great Britain

 

[Darkwind]

Firearms control in the U.K. is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion (less than 2/10ths of a percent) of recorded crime.
Source​

I can all but hear the gun rights partisans ("gunnies") uttering their same hackneyed mantra, as through repetition it becomes more sensible:

Britain has fairly restrictive gun laws. Which of them stopped the boy from obtaining and bringing a firearm to school?​

That is an absurd question, yet "gunnies" pose it all the same. What's inane about the question? The question is ridiculous because the point of the laws is to reduce the incidence of gun misuse. Thus the question to ask is this: "How many people have Britain's gun laws prevented from obtaining a gun and using it to kill others?"

Obviously, that is not an easily, if at all, directly answerable question. Thus, one must inductively determine the answer rather than calculate/deduce it. Among the most straightforward ways to infer whether gun control laws are achieving the end of reducing gun offenses is to observe, over time, the rate of gun offenses.

• Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales (attached)
  
• Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Great Britain

Do you realize that the answer is none of them?

If they obtained a gun and used it to kill others, then the law didn't stop them, did it? It does not matter one whit if they change their mind because then they haven't actually killed anyone and the gun laws didn't do that to them, they did that to themselves.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Don't try to convince the anti-gun nuts. Their answer when gun laws don't work is to pass new gun laws that won't work.

 

[sakinago]

Well, in Amerca, they don't change their minds. Bet that makes you so proud.

Gun murder doubled in Britain within a decade of gun control being passed...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Firearms control in the U.K. is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion (less than 2/10ths of a percent) of recorded crime.
Source​

I can all but hear the gun rights partisans ("gunnies") uttering their same hackneyed mantra, as through repetition it becomes more sensible:

Britain has fairly restrictive gun laws. Which of them stopped the boy from obtaining and bringing a firearm to school?​

That is an absurd question, yet "gunnies" pose it all the same. What's inane about the question? The question is ridiculous because the point of the laws is to reduce the incidence of gun misuse. Thus the question to ask is this: "How many people have Britain's gun laws prevented from obtaining a gun and using it to kill others?"

Obviously, that is not an easily, if at all, directly answerable question. Thus, one must inductively determine the answer rather than calculate/deduce it. Among the most straightforward ways to infer whether gun control laws are achieving the end of reducing gun offenses is to observe, over time, the rate of gun offenses.

• Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales (attached)
  
• Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Great Britain

Do you realize that the answer is none of them?

If they obtained a gun and used it to kill others, then the law didn't stop them, did it? It does not matter one whit if they change their mind because then they haven't actually killed anyone and the gun laws didn't do that to them, they did that to themselves.

Allegory:

Consider an item that is illegal such as cocaine, and assume that I want to buy it. I'm well aware that it is abundantly enough "around," and I know that some people, albeit people whom I don't know, use/have it. That's been so ever since I was in high school.

When I was in high school, I hadn't any way to obtain it even if I'd wanted to because (1) I didn't know anyone who had/used it and (2) I damn sure wasn't going to make known to anyone that I desired to use/obtain contraband. When I went to college, cocaine was still illegal, but I knew people who used it; thus I then had a source from whom I could buy it were I to have wanted it. Today, cocaine is still illegal and again, were I to want it, I wouldn't know where to get it because not one person I know uses it and, as before, because cocaine is illegal, I wouldn't risk disclosing a willingness to engage in the feloniously illegal acts of buying, possessing, transporting and using cocaine, let alone actually engage in them and risk literally everything I've in my life worked to achieve.

The laws that make cocaine illegal have, without regard to whether I might or might not want to use the item, have made the risk of doing so unacceptable to me. In other words, the laws that make one's involvement with cocaine illegal have prevented me from attempting to and actually obtaining/using it. I'm surely not alone in that regard. Obviously, other individuals feel differently about the risks, and they obtain and use cocaine. Be that as it may, the illegality of the substance has prevented some people from using/obtaining it.​

The allegory above is not presented to assert or imply that guns are like cocaine because they are not. It's to illustrate the impact of illegality on behavior. Illegality is illegality, it imposes risks that some people who otherwise might assume are unwilling to assume, regardless of what it be that is illegal. Just as the contraband status of cocaine has prevented some people who might otherwise obtain it from doing so -- because the risks of doing so are greater than they care to assume and sustain -- laws prohibiting gun acquisition stop some people from obtaining them. That is what the law aims to accomplish; one-hundred percent, complete prevention is not the law's objective.

Just as "gunnies" can cite examples of individuals who did use guns illegally, one can also cite individuals who by all accounts were guns harder to obtain due to being illegal to buy/sell, would not have been able to use one to kill whomever they did kill. For example:

• James Hodgkinson -- By all reckoning at the moment, the man was a law abiding citizen for 60+ years of his life. But for it being easy/legal for him to buy his "M4-like" gun, or any gun, there is no sound basis for thinking he'd have obtained one and shot the people at the baseball practice.
• Adam Lanza -- By all accounts, Lanza's parents (mother?) are law abiding citizens; thus were guns illegal, there is no sound basis for thinking they would have had guns in their home that Adam in turn could have pilfered and used to shoot and kill those kids at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
• Any minor who accidentally killed someone (including themselves) with a gun -- But for a gun being present and accessible to them, there is no sound basis for thinking they would have killed anyone, regardless of their predisposition to abide by or break the law. Guns are illegal for minors to purchase, and low and behold we don't see thrifty children who've saved their money buying them as they might to buy things kids do save-up to buy.
  
  Why? Because they are illegal for minors to buy, have, use, etc. It's certainly not because minors don't get ticked off enough to want to shoot someone and it's not because none who do get so angered have the money to buy one. It's also not because none can, but for it being hard (due to the law) for them to find someone who'll sell them a gun, unbeknownst to their parents buy and have one.

One can consider the matter from the standpoint of the weapon itself. Take fully automatic weapons which are illegal and have been for quite some time. One can legally buy a semi-automatic gun. After obtaining it, one can modify it to make it be an fully automatic gun. Surely black market sellers of guns have the resources to do so and surely some ne'er do wells who are not reticent to shoot at people want fully automatic firearms.

Now, I have yet to hear of shooters -- people with lengthy "rap sheets" or not -- killing people using automatic guns. Quite simply, because they are, except in very limited circumstances, illegal to buy and sell, fully automatically firing guns are harder to come by than are non fully automatic ones. That they are necessarily plays a role in reducing the incidence of their being used to shoot people, regardless of who might use or want to use them to do so. (As far as I can tell, the incidence of criminal acts being committed using (or in an effort to obtain) automatic weapons is very low in comparison with the quantity committed using a non-automatic gun, if not zero.)

Looking, then, at the two circumstances -- one focused on the gun, fully automatic guns; the other on the gun user, minors -- under which gun purchases, sales, etc. are illegal, one observes that the incidence of willfully committed gun-related killings in each instance is markedly lower than it is for willfully committed gun-related killings in general. Accordingly, there already exist indications that the illegality of gun sales, purchases, possessions, and use


Is emplacing purchase/possession restrictions on guns the only way to reduce the incidence of gun killings and injuries? No, of course it's not. It's but one tactic that can reduce the quantity of gun killings. Will all the different means of reducing the incidence of gun killings eliminate gun killings? Most likely, no. Does that mean that any of them should not be implemented? No, unless, of course, one thinks minimizing (which is not the same thing as eliminating) gun-related deaths is not worth doing.

 

[sakinago]

Firearms control in the U.K. is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion (less than 2/10ths of a percent) of recorded crime.
Source​

I can all but hear the gun rights partisans ("gunnies") uttering their same hackneyed mantra, as through repetition it becomes more sensible:

Britain has fairly restrictive gun laws. Which of them stopped the boy from obtaining and bringing a firearm to school?​

That is an absurd question, yet "gunnies" pose it all the same. What's inane about the question? The question is ridiculous because the point of the laws is to reduce the incidence of gun misuse. Thus the question to ask is this: "How many people have Britain's gun laws prevented from obtaining a gun and using it to kill others?"

Obviously, that is not an easily, if at all, directly answerable question. Thus, one must inductively determine the answer rather than calculate/deduce it. Among the most straightforward ways to infer whether gun control laws are achieving the end of reducing gun offenses is to observe, over time, the rate of gun offenses.

• Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales (attached)
  
• Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Great Britain

Do you realize that the answer is none of them?

If they obtained a gun and used it to kill others, then the law didn't stop them, did it? It does not matter one whit if they change their mind because then they haven't actually killed anyone and the gun laws didn't do that to them, they did that to themselves.

Allegory:

Consider an item that is illegal such as cocaine, and assume that I want to buy it. I'm well aware that it is abundantly enough "around," and I know that some people, albeit people whom I don't know, use/have it. That's been so ever since I was in high school.

When I was in high school, I hadn't any way to obtain it even if I'd wanted to because (1) I didn't know anyone who had/used it and (2) I damn sure wasn't going to make known to anyone that I desired to use/obtain contraband. When I went to college, cocaine was still illegal, but I knew people who used it; thus I then had a source from whom I could buy it were I to have wanted it. Today, cocaine is still illegal and again, were I to want it, I wouldn't know where to get it because not one person I know uses it and, as before, because cocaine is illegal, I wouldn't risk disclosing a willingness to engage in the feloniously illegal acts of buying, possessing, transporting and using cocaine, let alone actually engage in them and risk literally everything I've in my life worked to achieve.

The laws that make cocaine illegal have, without regard to whether I might or might not want to use the item, have made the risk of doing so unacceptable to me. In other words, the laws that make one's involvement with cocaine illegal have prevented me from attempting to and actually obtaining/using it. I'm surely not alone in that regard. Obviously, other individuals feel differently about the risks, and they obtain and use cocaine. Be that as it may, the illegality of the substance has prevented some people from using/obtaining it.​

The allegory above is not presented to assert or imply that guns are like cocaine because they are not. It's to illustrate the impact of illegality on behavior. Illegality is illegality, it imposes risks that some people who otherwise might assume are unwilling to assume, regardless of what it be that is illegal. Just as the contraband status of cocaine has prevented some people who might otherwise obtain it from doing so -- because the risks of doing so are greater than they care to assume and sustain -- laws prohibiting gun acquisition stop some people from obtaining them. That is what the law aims to accomplish; one-hundred percent, complete prevention is not the law's objective.

Just as "gunnies" can cite examples of individuals who did use guns illegally, one can also cite individuals who by all accounts were guns harder to obtain due to being illegal to buy/sell, would not have been able to use one to kill whomever they did kill. For example:

• James Hodgkinson -- By all reckoning at the moment, the man was a law abiding citizen for 60+ years of his life. But for it being easy/legal for him to buy his "M4-like" gun, or any gun, there is no sound basis for thinking he'd have obtained one and shot the people at the baseball practice.
• Adam Lanza -- By all accounts, Lanza's parents (mother?) are law abiding citizens; thus were guns illegal, there is no sound basis for thinking they would have had guns in their home that Adam in turn could have pilfered and used to shoot and kill those kids at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
• Any minor who accidentally killed someone (including themselves) with a gun -- But for a gun being present and accessible to them, there is no sound basis for thinking they would have killed anyone, regardless of their predisposition to abide by or break the law. Guns are illegal for minors to purchase, and low and behold we don't see thrifty children who've saved their money buying them as they might to buy things kids do save-up to buy.
  
  Why? Because they are illegal for minors to buy, have, use, etc. It's certainly not because minors don't get ticked off enough to want to shoot someone and it's not because none who do get so angered have the money to buy one. It's also not because none can, but for it being hard (due to the law) for them to find someone who'll sell them a gun, unbeknownst to their parents buy and have one.

One can consider the matter from the standpoint of the weapon itself. Take fully automatic weapons which are illegal and have been for quite some time. One can legally buy a semi-automatic gun. After obtaining it, one can modify it to make it be an fully automatic gun. Surely black market sellers of guns have the resources to do so and surely some ne'er do wells who are not reticent to shoot at people want fully automatic firearms.

Now, I have yet to hear of shooters -- people with lengthy "rap sheets" or not -- killing people using automatic guns. Quite simply, because they are, except in very limited circumstances, illegal to buy and sell, fully automatically firing guns are harder to come by than are non fully automatic ones. That they are necessarily plays a role in reducing the incidence of their being used to shoot people, regardless of who might use or want to use them to do so. (As far as I can tell, the incidence of criminal acts being committed using (or in an effort to obtain) automatic weapons is very low in comparison with the quantity committed using a non-automatic gun, if not zero.)

Looking, then, at the two circumstances -- one focused on the gun, fully automatic guns; the other on the gun user, minors -- under which gun purchases, sales, etc. are illegal, one observes that the incidence of willfully committed gun-related killings in each instance is markedly lower than it is for willfully committed gun-related killings in general. Accordingly, there already exist indications that the illegality of gun sales, purchases, possessions, and use


Is emplacing purchase/possession restrictions on guns the only way to reduce the incidence of gun killings and injuries? No, of course it's not. It's but one tactic that can reduce the quantity of gun killings. Will all the different means of reducing the incidence of gun killings eliminate gun killings? Most likely, no. Does that mean that any of them should not be implemented? No, unless, of course, one thinks minimizing (which is not the same thing as eliminating) gun-related deaths is not worth doing.

Which laws would have prevented Lanza and Hodgkinson from getting a gun?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If the boy really was given a life sentence, in my opinion, that is way over the line. He didn't have to dial that phone and make full confession, but the fact that he went ahead and did it any way should've been taken into consideration.

God bless you and him always!!!

Holly

 

[miketx]

Well, in Amerca, they don't change their minds. Bet that makes you so proud.

How would you know how many have changed their mind about murdering someone? You don't, you're just an opportunistic liar.