Ten years since the massacre at Dunblane

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

As noted here. It was widely reported in the US at the time; I can only imagine the coverage in the UK. What are your thoughts about the resultant actions in the UK re: gun control, etc.? Did they help?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 13 March 2006 06:56 (nineteen years ago)

I think one of the reasons why this was so widely reported is that it was such a completely unheard of event in Britain. The last time something like this had happened was the Hungerford Massacre, that happened in 1987 (also on March 13th).
In general, gun crime is extremely scarce in the UK, but in some places (like Manchester, Nottingham and Birmingham) gun crimes make the news quite often. In saying that, a police officer being shot and killed in duty has made the first item of the national evening news every time.
Although the gun controls that were put in place after Dunblane cracked down on reasons to own a gun there has been a steady increase in gun crime ever since, even though it is still tiny compared to the US. There are typically less deaths from gun related crime every year in the UK than there are every day in the US.

for information:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0205.pdf

― TB, Monday, 13 March 2006 09:28 (nineteen years ago)

It was a shocking day. My younger brother was only 7 at the time and I came home from work in London to news that someone had gone nuts in a Scottish school and killed a load of kids, I thought the worst for a minute but quickly confirmed it wasn't his school.

It was one of those events that glues you to the TV, possibly the first big one since the proliferation of cable & 24 hour news channels.

I dont' think the gun control laws have helped to prevent this happening again. If an evil nutter wants to kill kids nothing can really stop him. Tighter gun controls is probably a good thing I suppose, so some good came from it (though you wouldn't know it to look at the numbers of shootings in some parts of Britain).

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 09:29 (nineteen years ago)

Hungerford happened in August.

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Monday, 13 March 2006 09:44 (nineteen years ago)

Also there were gun control measures (albeit rather weaker ones) put in after Hungerford.

When Hungerford happened I was on holiday and listening in the car I assumed it was a play so unlikely it seemed that something like that should happen in the UK.

To be honest I find it hard to even think about Dunblane. My kids are both at school at the moment and, of course, you assume they are safe. My daughter is the same age as the children at Dunblane and seeing the picture of the class and their teacher (who was also killed) just makes you think of your own kids and just what a terrible time those parents must have gone through, indeed, especially this week, must still be going through.

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Monday, 13 March 2006 09:56 (nineteen years ago)

i don't think it was that big a deal here. doubt it changed gun control much -- guns being illegal doesn't stop the continued rise in gun crime.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 09:58 (nineteen years ago)

dunblane wasn't that big a deal, there?

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:09 (nineteen years ago)

not really, no, iirc.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:12 (nineteen years ago)

Dunblane wasn't a big deal where? In the UK? I assure you it was.

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:15 (nineteen years ago)

south of england? really? how did life change after dunblane?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:20 (nineteen years ago)

Just because bad people still get guns doesn't mean that the laws brought in after Dunblane didn't work.

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:26 (nineteen years ago)

If you're talking about how my life (or yours) changed directly, then of course, you can say not much, but then how does any news item anything really change one's life?

But if you're saying that at the time of the shooting it wasn't on most peoples minds, and it wasn't top of the news for weeks, and it didn't lead to a government enquiry and changes in the law (a ban on handguns) then I'm afraid you're mistaken.

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:28 (nineteen years ago)

how does any news item anything really change one's life?

quite a lot, often. recent news items which will affect my life more than dunblane did:

-ID cards to be law
-iran to get stomped
-re-up of selective schooling

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:31 (nineteen years ago)

gun control wasn't really the key question to arise from dunblane but it certainly became the media obsession, mostly because its an easier discussion to hold.

― [apal racoon, Monday, 13 March 2006 10:32 (nineteen years ago)

TMWS - you've narrowed it down to talking about your life from how much impact did it have "over here"...

Obv. if we're talking about individuals some news items will have some impact on some people...

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:38 (nineteen years ago)

you've narrowed it down to talking about your life from how much impact did it have "over here"...

well, the things i mentioned affect everyone in the way that dunblane didn't.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 10:54 (nineteen years ago)

i don't think it was that big a deal here.

Anyone abroad reading this would assume you meant that it wasn't a big deal in terms of it being talked about, worried about etc. as compared with other stories in the news. It was a big deal. It was a huge story. You're being disingenuous.

If you want to make some point about such stories ultimately having little affect on people's lives other than in terms of how they themselves let it affect them, fine. But people are going to assume you were referring to the shock and coverage that other people had been talking about if you just say "it wasn't that big a deal over here".

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 13 March 2006 11:08 (nineteen years ago)

Not affect, effect. Oops. I'm still so traumatised I've forgotten English.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 13 March 2006 11:09 (nineteen years ago)

among 15-year-olds in a school in south east england, it wasn't a big deal.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 11:41 (nineteen years ago)

yes, I read it as "we didn't really hear that much abt it", rather than "my life didn't change, as a result"

if you meant just the second, it only sounds a little like you didn't care, that much, either

crosspost

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 13 March 2006 11:41 (nineteen years ago)

big deal

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 13 March 2006 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

I think what Enrique means is that he didn't watch the news much when he was 15. That's the kind of information this thread needs.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 11:45 (nineteen years ago)

i didn't care, that much.

xpost: i did watch the news, it was typically hysterical, but for me 'big deal' means 'will change lives outside the community where it happened', or something like that.

in a weird way harris and klebold were a 'bigger deal' 'over here' cos their thing fed into pop culture.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 11:50 (nineteen years ago)

'i didn't care, that much.'

'i did watch the news, it was typically hysterical'

Blimey - I'm speechless...momentarily.

There is no way Columbine was a bigger deal for the UK as a whole than Dunblane. I think you're confusing you and friends for the wider community. UK laws were not changed after Columbine, UK laws changed (twice) as a direct result of Dunblane.

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:18 (nineteen years ago)

laws primarily affecting handgun-owners were changed.

i cared as much as i cared about sarah payne, i suppose: it was obviously a horrible crime but i didn't see why it should dominate the news for weeks.

there isn't a UK as a whole, is there, which experiences everything the same way?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:23 (nineteen years ago)

If the murders of 16 school children shouldn't dominate the news, what should?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:25 (nineteen years ago)

'for weeks'

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:28 (nineteen years ago)

Did you sit going "Why are we still hearing about these dead kids? It was DAYS ago! It was MILES away!"?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:29 (nineteen years ago)

'there isn't a UK as a whole, is there, which experiences everything the same way? '

No, and I didn't say that.

― Ned T.RIfle II (Ned T.Rifle II), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:30 (nineteen years ago)

Did you sit going "Why are we still hearing about these dead kids? It was DAYS ago! It was MILES away!"?
-- Onimo (gerry.wat...), March 13th, 2006.

possibly yeah. wonder how many kids died in south american slums on that day. or how things were going down in afghanistan.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:33 (nineteen years ago)

I'm sure you wondered about those very things at the time.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

You can say "but children are starving to death in Africa" to trump pretty much any news item in the last 30 years, that doesn't reduce the impact of a story about children being murdered in a place that everyone had previously considered safe.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:37 (nineteen years ago)

our school in milton keynes got an extra gate after dunblane.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:38 (nineteen years ago)

who knows? but if the same thing happened today, and the news went mental, i would, after a bit, say something similar. it doesn't belittle the dunblane massacre. it belittles the rest of the world's sorrows not to.

xpost

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:40 (nineteen years ago)

and for a while we were told to stay within school perimetres at lunchtime etc. unless there's a good reason to do otherwise (going to the chippy's wasn't).

it made my life miserable for a few months in the south of england

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:41 (nineteen years ago)

the memories are all flooding back thanks to this thread :(

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:41 (nineteen years ago)

It was the first big news event I ever learnt about from the internet, I think.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:42 (nineteen years ago)

and for a while we were told to stay within school perimetres at lunchtime etc. unless there's a good reason to do otherwise (going to the chippy's wasn't).

Yes, similar stuff happened all over the country (except in South East England, possibly), regardless of the fact that the massacre took place inside the school perimeter.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:43 (nineteen years ago)

--and for a while we were told to stay within school perimetres at lunchtime etc. unless there's a good reason to do otherwise (going to the chippy's wasn't).

--Yes, similar stuff happened all over the country (except in South East England, possibly),

yeah, didn't happen at my school, but that's insane anyway.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

just like Thomas Hamilton

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:47 (nineteen years ago)

like there was a national movement of gun-wielding maniacs...

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:48 (nineteen years ago)

hence the news.

QED

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 13 March 2006 12:50 (nineteen years ago)

The organisers of the 2012 Olympics are currently trying to figure out how they can host the shooting events in London, given that half the weapons involved are currently banned and the British team has to train in the Netherlands.

Apparently they've come up with some compromise which would involve all the guns being kept under lock and key at the shooting venue, but the shooters themselves think they should be allowed to keep handguns in their bedrooms or somesuch.

The slightly nutty elderly bloke who lived opposite me in 1996 had a vast collection of legally held firearms in his house, and used to regularly threaten to shoot various noisy neighbours. Nobody took him very seriously until Dunblane happened, at which point the street was sealed off by armed police who spent about three hours taking all his guns away...

Whenever Dunblane is mentioned in any context now, does anyone think of anything other than the massacre? Ditto Hungerford. They had a couple moving to Dunblane on Location Location Location a little while back, and one of the reasons they wanted to live there was because the schools were so good. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to irrationaly think "eh?" when they said that.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:06 (nineteen years ago)

andy murray's from dunblane

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:11 (nineteen years ago)

I thought the gun controls were stupidly excessive then, and I still do. I thought the upping of security at schools was stupidly excessive then, and I still do. Dunblane was another step along the irrational path to thinking we can legislate for every contingency. Since then, government in the UK has increasingly revolved around responding to whatever event appears most newsworthy at the moment. It's bad risk management, bad resource management, and stupidly ineffectual politics. But hey, that seems to be how people like their politics.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)

Aye, he knew Hamilton personally through attending a boys club or scouts or something.

xpost

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

It does seem that the government is compelled to legislate on any issue deemed newsworthy. Hamilton owned his guns legally and there was already a law against killing people so I don't know what, if anything, the legislation did to prevent this happening again.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:16 (nineteen years ago)

did you know hamilton happened to write to the queen the friday before the shootings, asking for help.

― [apal fret, Monday, 13 March 2006 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

Hamilton owned his guns legally and there was already a law against killing people so

I don't think this really works as an argument against gun control. Laws like this are about making a crime more difficult, not making it clearer that it's illegal. Thomas Hamilton might well not have been the sort to get involved in the criminal underworld to get guns if they were blocked to him legally.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

x post

What, asking her to cover him while he went in?

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

That's not to say I disagree with those saying lax gun control was the most important failing in the run-up to the massacre.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

It wasn't an argument against gun control, which I am in favour of, it was an observation about our current government's "make a new law" response to every shocking news story.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

I love my Big Deal News Stories league ladders.

It was/is a big deal because many people send their children to school and fear for their welfare.

It dominated the news for weeks because it took weeks for the government to respond, and for people to make their feelings known to the government.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

"it was an observation about our current government's "make a new law" response to every shocking news story."

I don't think that's anything new or unusual — cf the dangerous dogs act, video nasties etc. And the handgun ban bill was drawn up and introduced to Parliament by the Major government.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

People fearing for the welfare of their children at school after Dunblane is understandable, just, but indicative of people's rubbishness at risk assessment. Presumably lots of those concerned parents drive their children to school every day which is thousands of times more risky than assault by lone mentalist.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

Parenting and logical thought rarely go hand in hand.

"Hmmm, soon you will be grow up and leave home, therefore there is no point in my becoming attached to you."

PS: Whatever happened to school buses?

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't say it was new or unusual. It was an observation, tha'ts all.

I thought the handgun ban didn't come in until late '97/early '98.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

But witless overprotectiveness isn't just a charming foible of parenthood, I think it's harmful to children's development as their ability to explore and learn about the world is reduced to soothe mostly imaginary parental fears.

And schoolbuses are no safer. I've seen Dirty Harry.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

x post
What, asking her to cover him while he went in?

eew. hamilton/queen fan fic?

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

I recall Private Eye running a story some time ago which suggested that Hamilton had been involved in the same Scout organisation as a senior Labour MP who may or may not have shared Hamilton's interest in young boys, and that the US Gov had used information about this to persuade Blair to back their stance on Iraq. Does anybody remember this, or am I mixing up unrelated stories?

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think I'm witless.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

Weren't there also links with Freemas0nry? Something to do with one or more of the judges who granted or refused to revoke his gun permits?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry PJ, I didn't mean to be rude. I do feel strongly that the consequences of parental fears are more damaging, across the board, than freakish tragedies like Dunblane.

xpost Yeah Gerry that rings a bell.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

"or am I mixing up unrelated stories?"

Sounds most likely.

There's an ongoing Socialist Worker-type theory that says Blair's credit card number was picked up on child porn website by the yanks and hence we went to war, but it's usually propagated by the same people who are convinced that 9/11 didn't actually happen and that the Tube bombings were carried out by Mossad.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:17 (nineteen years ago)

Private Eye's conspiracy gullibility is a little more restrained than the SWP's, Sunshine.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

I recall Private Eye running a story some time ago which suggested that Hamilton had been involved in the same Scout organisation as a senior Labour MP who may or may not have shared Hamilton's interest in young boys, and that the US Gov had used information about this to persuade Blair to back their stance on Iraq. Does anybody remember this, or am I mixing up unrelated stories?

i've never heard it taken that far. but a lot of unsavoury allegations have done the rounds on the internet.

and if we've got any sense we will stop talking about it right the fuck now and not start trying to name names. seriously. i'm going to ask for this to be de-indexed and hidden and so on because believe me, we do not want to be going here at all. trust me on this one, okay?

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:32 (nineteen years ago)

oops

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

(sorry: i realise i sound like a paranoid mentalist. i'm not. it's just that a publication i was once involved with ran an unmoderated message board and this came up and ... gah, i'm not saying any more. i'm too scared!)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:34 (nineteen years ago)

rjg: roffle

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:34 (nineteen years ago)

grimly, are we talking writs or are we talking dragged from my bed at 3 in the morning and found several days later choked to death on my own severed cock?

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:35 (nineteen years ago)

I hope grimly is that adamant, abt this

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

grimly, are we talking writs or are we talking dragged from my bed at 3 in the morning and found several days later choked to death on my own severed cock?

the former. which scares me more. although i'm kinky like that.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:37 (nineteen years ago)

I meant to say "I hope grimly ISN'T that adamant"!!! whoops

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:39 (nineteen years ago)

Ah. Writs aren't a big deal if you've got no money, right?

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

no, but ILX getting closed down might be :o

(although our servers are in oz, aren't they? o hell, i hate internet law.)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

Okay. I'll shut up then lest I lose my daily fix of shouting and near-the-knuckle situationism.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 16:50 (nineteen years ago)

can we get back on topic, then?

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:04 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

I think the allegation re Blair should be removed. If he's anything like Wilson he'd go after ilx big style.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

not that i have much to add, other than that this:

served the crazy old fucker right, and this:

Whenever Dunblane is mentioned in any context now, does anyone think of anything other than the massacre? Ditto Hungerford.

is OTM. same goes for soham. and lockerbie. and so on.

understandably, these things might not mean much to a 15-year-old schoolboy, eg 1991-vintage enrique, but to most of the country they're seared on the collective memory. the majority of the "UK as a whole" does react to these things in the same kind of way: shock, fear, panic, desire to change something/anything to try to stop it happening again.

yes, sometimes - as with the post-soham "sarah's law" - the hysteria reaches stupidity-point (noodle vague makes many valid points), but for fuck's sake, we're human beings: how are we meant to react when a load of fucking nine-year-olds get murdered in what's meant to be a safe environment?

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:12 (nineteen years ago)

I think the allegation re Blair should be removed. If he's anything like Wilson he'd go after ilx big style.

defamation law suggests that any "right-thinking" person would have to be swayed by the defamatory statement. i don't think that applies to the blair allegation, does it? :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:15 (nineteen years ago)

Those reactions are understandable. I wanted to draw a distinction between our feelings as human beings and the way we choose to organise our society. That's why we have laws at all, innit? To deal with things in as objective and rational way as possible.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:15 (nineteen years ago)

yeeees ... but lawmakers are only human too.

i dunno. i'm in favour of gun control so tight that you'd be locked up in camp x-ray for buying a cowboy outfit, so i'm maybe not the best person to argue about this.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

wrt the thing upthread about him writing to the Queen:

He had also written to Malcolm Rifkind, who was SoS of Scotland at the time, to protest about his suspension from running boy's clubs.

There's a really good piece on this in "See No Evil", David Kerekes' book on the Bright Bill and so-called 'video nasties', but basically the Thomas Hamilton story is as follows:

Thomas runs a boy's club and is a leader at the local scout troop.
A whispering campaign amongst the mothers starts following a scout camp (after one boy makes a chance comment at home about Hamilton photgraphing a 'shirts vs skins' football match) that he has predilictions for young boys.
The campaign escalates - he is covered with eggs and flour several times by mothers, and (at least once) physically attacked by a father.
He is suspended from the scouts while they investigate whether there is any substance to the rumours (they eventually concluded not) and his boys club is closed.
He writes to the government and the Queen protesting about the way he has been treated.
Hamilton is beaten up again.
He snaps and goes berzerk, leaving a note which says they took his life away from him so he was taking their lives away.

Not that I'm making any excuses for what he ultimately did, obviously, but the some of the parents didn't help matters.

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:45 (nineteen years ago)

"but the some of the parents didn't help matters"

While I don't have much time for people who go around tarring and feathering paedatricians, I can't help but feel that even pinning a smidgen of blame on them for having their children shot dead en masse is a little unfair.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

While I don't have much time for people who go around tarring and feathering paedatricians

Wait, what?

― gbx (skowly), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

Because societies that isolate and bully people should have no responsibility if those people become psychotic or antisocial? Are you sure?

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Monday, 13 March 2006 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

"Because societies that isolate and bully people should have no responsibility if those people become psychotic or antisocial?"

Not at all, and people who remember something I posted about this subject on another threat many moons ago will know that it's something that's very close to my heart.

But the responsibility to not shoot children is far greater, if you know what I mean. Likewise the stuff about Harris and Klebold getting bullied — it's not right, but their response was over the top as to be inexcusable.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Monday, 13 March 2006 18:08 (nineteen years ago)

Bit of a whitewash there aldo. You forget to mention his photo collection. You forgot to mention the boys at his clubs being made to wear tight bathing costumes to undertake physical exercise in a gymnasium.

When you say parents "didn't help" do you mean the parents who ran the "whispering campaign" or the parents who lost children? Or are these the same people? Did he shoot 16 random children or were they targeted?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Monday, 13 March 2006 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

defamation law suggests that any "right-thinking" person would have to be swayed by the defamatory statement.

Probably, but I wouldn't want to risk making that judgement call.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Monday, 13 March 2006 18:30 (nineteen years ago)

There's an ongoing Socialist Worker-type theory that says Blair's credit card number was picked up on child porn website by the yanks
______

links? that's the freakiest net conspiracy i've heard in an age.

― piscesboy, Monday, 13 March 2006 18:32 (nineteen years ago)

Well there's this sort of thing to begin with:

http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/4027.php

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Monday, 13 March 2006 18:38 (nineteen years ago)

And if you want more of the same you can always try googling

Tony blair blackmailed Iraq bush propaganda matrix

And picking the top choice.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Monday, 13 March 2006 18:41 (nineteen years ago)

thread deleted in T-minus 10....9.....8

― feeling weird, Monday, 13 March 2006 18:47 (nineteen years ago)

it's been de-indexed. billy, if you want the blair ref removed, speak to the mods!

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 13 March 2006 20:48 (nineteen years ago)

This thread took a really weird turn...

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 13 March 2006 22:21 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, that's because small children being shot in their classroom isn't that interesting, or worth discussing, really.

(I've just watched a documentary on BBC Scotland about the legacy of Dunblane. Not networked, so perhaps Enrique has a point...)

― ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 13 March 2006 22:29 (nineteen years ago)

(please note intended tone of sarcasm, which I forgot doesn't really show up in print)

― ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 13 March 2006 22:32 (nineteen years ago)

ummmm, ok so, again, how is it a big deal with a lasting legacy?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:05 (nineteen years ago)

what is a big deal, The Man Without Shadow?

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:07 (nineteen years ago)

-economic slumps
-wars
-famines
-epidemics
-comedy internet memes

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:09 (nineteen years ago)

is your problem that people have chosen or not chosen to remember this and people remember this?

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:11 (nineteen years ago)

of course it's a big deal for the people involved; the same goes for any large-scale (or indeed small-scale) loss of life. but has dunblane marked the fabric of life in britain a decade later? i think not.

crosspost

i don't have a problem with people remembering it; i have a problem with people pretending it's something that's anywhere near the forefront of people's mind for the other 364 days of the year. the big things are always present, aren't they?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:13 (nineteen years ago)

You sound like Sir Ian Blair.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:16 (nineteen years ago)

You sound like Sir Ian Blair. [click]

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:19 (nineteen years ago)

who is pretending what, The Man Without Shadow?

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:21 (nineteen years ago)

this thread is secretly recorded

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:23 (nineteen years ago)

do war, famine, epidemic, etc. not get on the news then?

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:24 (nineteen years ago)

the general reaction against my claim that this wasn't that big a deal suggests that it was a big deal, ie that it wasn't a media-led hysterical episode that was forgotten about after the immediate frenzy.

do war, famine, epidemic, etc. not get on the news then?
-- ken c (pykachu10...)

up to a point, but i doubt the aids crisis in southern africa has had as many tv news minutes over a period of years as dunblane had.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:28 (nineteen years ago)

Never trust a scout master (a man in his 50s who, of his own volition, wears shorts and hangs out with 12 year old boys)

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:29 (nineteen years ago)

words to live by.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:30 (nineteen years ago)

TV in south africa probably has less coverage of dunblane than of aids.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:30 (nineteen years ago)

no-one knew that before dunblane, of course.

xpost

TV in south africa probably has less coverage of dunblane than of aids.
-- ken c (pykachu10...)

y'think?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:31 (nineteen years ago)

yes.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:31 (nineteen years ago)

i mean, maybe the day it happend, they'd show it more that day. but probably less than AIDS still, if AIDS "happened" in one day.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:33 (nineteen years ago)

i mean. it may well be gripping TV if BBC reports everyday at 5pm "BREAKING NEWS: AIDS still exist"

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:35 (nineteen years ago)

well, yes, the news *is* basically a subset of light entertainment, and that's clearly not going to harm our politics. it's fabulous that more people are worried about paedo teachers than give a shit about the gradual destruction of basic civil liberties.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:38 (nineteen years ago)

mean. it may well be gripping TV if BBC reports everyday at 5pm "BREAKING NEWS: AIDS still exist"

they tend to kick off with "BREAKING NEWS: Paedos/murderers/famous people still exist"

so much better

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:39 (nineteen years ago)

I don't remember the coverage of Dunblane as being excessive: this was pre-Diana remember, that piece of nonsense let the genie of mass neurosis out of the bottle. So, since then you've had Soham, which was far more mawkish and hysterical than Dunblane (even George Best dying probably got more airtime, printspace etc!)

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:40 (nineteen years ago)

how I remember the old scoutmaster
nobody could start a camp-fire faster
I can see the old scoutmaster in the old scout hut
saying always carry a plaster
in case you cut yourself
if it doesn't happen to you it could happen to your
dog
you could be chopping up the firewood
when you mistake him for a log
if it doesn't happen to your dog
it could happen to your glasses
they could be knocked to the floor
by the long arm of the law
when you're standing on the corner
and a copper on a push-bike signalling a left turn
passes by
if it's a friend you need you need a friend indeed
you need a plaster
you need your money and your keys
but more than these you need a plaster
always carry a plaster the scoutmaster told us
they found one in his pocket
the day a bus ran over him.

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:40 (nineteen years ago)

well, yeah, i kind of started this thread saying it was no big deal because i literally don't remember it being a big thing! but then everyone said it went on for weeks so i decided to say that was silly.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

That there are bigger stories is neither here nor there.

You concede that the Dunblane Massacre was a shocking and horrific crime, that it was a major media event, that it led to changes in both firearms and child protection legislation, and that we're still talking about it 10 years later, yes?

Not a big deal at all then.

xpost

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:43 (nineteen years ago)

Unfortunately I still remember the horrible record that came out because of it. If the record really helped contribute towards increased awareness of the need to control gun use more in the UK then fair enough tho I suppose.

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

The thing about people in places like Dunblane (central Scotland, middle class, Presbyterian) is that they'd be the last people on earth to make a song and dance and public spectacle of their grief - and they didn't, I remember the aftermath as being dignified and restrained

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:52 (nineteen years ago)

'guns don't kill people, paedos do'

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:55 (nineteen years ago)

The Man Without Shadow is being pointlessly obtuse

crosspost

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 11:56 (nineteen years ago)

ok then. obviously i am alone in thinking it was no big deal.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:00 (nineteen years ago)

I bet the BBC has had more coverage of AIDS in South Africa, if you factor in the World Service.

I think The Man Without Shadow is playing devil's advocaat.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:01 (nineteen years ago)

well yes a bit.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:06 (nineteen years ago)

I remember John Junor in the Mail on Sunday saying that "the people of Dunblane should burn in hell" for causing the gun ownership laws to be revoked.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:10 (nineteen years ago)

You sound like Sir Ian Blair. [click]

-- The Man Without Shadow (miltonpinsk...), March 14th, 2006. (Enrique) (later)

Are you Ben Affleck?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:10 (nineteen years ago)

how do i get joke?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:11 (nineteen years ago)

I remember John Junor in the Mail on Sunday saying that "the people of Dunblane should burn in hell" for causing the gun ownership laws to be revoked.

Where John will already have been resident for several decades, he'll be well done by now

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:12 (nineteen years ago)

how do i get joke
http://www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=30230

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

my joke was, ian blair plays back tape of conversation, so:-

pjm: 'blah'
me: 'blah [click]'

the click is the tape recorder!

is the funnee, right?

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 12:40 (nineteen years ago)

lol i see.

i thought you may have meant so many people have said it in the past you keep a counter.

or that you were in sir ian blair's clique.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

you are right though, people are always saying i'm like ian blair.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:05 (nineteen years ago)

it's the uniform

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

obviously i am alone in thinking it was no big deal

yes.

it's very simple: children in the UK being killed by a crazed gunman is always going to be a bigger story, in terms of media coverage and people's reaction, than children in africa dying of aids. and even now, ten years on, it's a very emotive issue - as this thread proves.

this doesn't make any individual death more valid or "important" than another. and yes, i think the media (of which i am part) should do more to remind people of the myriad horrors and sufferings going on every single fucking day around the globe. in fairness, though: some newspapers (the independent and the sunday herald spring immediately to mind) are very good at this. it's your choice what news you read.

i can see the argument you're trying to make, enrique, but using phrases such as "no big deal" is just crazy - and immediately weakens everything else you say, because everyone goes: "eh? what the FUCK?"

but basically you're overlooking the most simple fact of all: what happened at dunblane is going to resonate more with the majority of people in the UK than what has happened/is happening in africa. it's human nature. you might not like that, but there's not a lot you can do.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:14 (nineteen years ago)

I got the joke, Enrique. It was a good one. I walked straight into it.

I think, in all seriousness, these things do change our way of thinking though. And it doesn't have to be in this country. Beslan, for example, is always at the back of my mind.

I think it is to do with the sheer horror of it, which is absent from stories about AIDS or whatever. Rarely does anyone set out to hurt someone through AIDS or famine (except Stalin), they just don't do enough to stop it. It's a different kind of drama.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, i don't really mean that aids shd be occupying item one each evening, you just get dragged down these side-alleys during ilx fites.

i just really don't feel that it changed my way of thinking, and i extrapolate from that.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

this is exceptionally well put.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

i just really don't feel that it changed my way of thinking, and i extrapolate from that.

Something isn't a big deal unless it changes your way of thinking? This is ... rather self-centred.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, as i said, i extrapolated, i imagined that it didn't change other people's ways of thinking. and in fact i don't think i'd had a single conversation about it until i clicked on this thread. maybe everyone i've met in the last ten years was profoundly affected by it to the extent they never, ever, spoke about it. if it changed peter's way of thinking then we're on one-all so far.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:51 (nineteen years ago)

don't forget my lack of chips for lunch for six months.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:54 (nineteen years ago)

probably did you good.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:54 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not entirely sure what "changing one's way of thinking" really involves, but what I'm saying is that human suffering doesn't have to have original and challenging elements for it to be a big deal to people. People get upset by stuff, it's a big deal, life goes on with its memory, y'know?

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:07 (nineteen years ago)

xpost a positive effect is still an effect!

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:09 (nineteen years ago)

"My girlfriend got run over by a car, but it's no big deal — I knew road accidents were a problem and was already an advocate of a nationwide monorail infrastructure."

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

you too? :D

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

from today's herald: dunblane: an anniversary best left to private thought

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:34 (nineteen years ago)

Here's that John Junor piece, BTW:

THE Duke of Edinburgh is notorious for making remarks which upset people. And sometimes is rightly criticised.

But it is quite ridiculous that he should be so violently assailed for having said that, desperately as he sympathised with parents
who had lost their children, he felt that reaction to the Dunblane shooting was being overdone.

And that a total ban on handguns, even for sporting purposes, would be just about as sensible as a total ban on cricket bats.

Has it really become a crime to tell the truth? And just where do we go from here? Will the next step by the increasingly hysterical anti-gun lobby be a ban on shotguns, too, and on all forms of field sport? Is a youngster like Prince Harry going to be pilloried and made to feel a leper because he enjoys accompanying his father on a day's shooting at Sandringham?

Or has the time come to tell Snowdrop campaign leader Ann Pearston, who is making a career out of Dunblane, and her fellow sob-sisters of both sexes, including that buffoon Labour's Shadow Scottish Secretary George Robertson, to go to hell?

I would very much like to think so.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:46 (nineteen years ago)

thank god for those gun laws -- they certainly had the intended effect of bringing down gun-related deaths.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:56 (nineteen years ago)

Why would anyone want to own a handgun anyway?

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 14:58 (nineteen years ago)

For shooting things.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:00 (nineteen years ago)

Like schoolchildren for example?

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:02 (nineteen years ago)

There are loads of hobbies I think are pointless and stupid. I don't have this burning desire to see them made illegal, tho.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:06 (nineteen years ago)

Neither do I, I just wondered

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

I think handguns would be good for posing in front of a mirror, but beyond that I don't see the point in them

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

Though if you fancy murdering someone they would certainly repay the asking price

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

Will the next step by the increasingly hysterical anti-gun lobby be a ban on shotguns, too, and on all forms of field sport?

this person doesn't seem like the type to ever get hysterical himself lol

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)

Is a youngster like Prince Harry going to be pilloried and made to feel a leper because he enjoys accompanying his father on a day's shooting at Sandringham wearing a Naxi uniform?

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)

also lol @ made to feel a leper!

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:13 (nineteen years ago)

There are loads of hobbies I think are pointless and stupid. I don't have this burning desire to see them made illegal, tho.

the difference is that shooting involves using an implement designed to kill people. sure, driving cars can kill people. so can cricket bats (hello, the duke of edinburgh). but they're not designed to.

guns, however, are. and i'm sorry, but anyone who gets their kicks from holding a phallic object and shooting stuff out the end of it is ... well, a wanker.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

you can shoot animals and targets, though.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

with spunk

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

meanwhile, ken c, here is the late sir john junor in all his dyspeptic glory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/200000/images/_204699_sir_john_junor_150.jpg

x-post: to shoot targets, you don't need to use live rounds - or even a "real" gun. and shooting animals for kicks (as opposed to eat the furry fuckers) makes you a bit of a cunt too, really.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:44 (nineteen years ago)

oh god, now i have a mental image of ken c spunking at a target.

(with john junor's face pinned to it.)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

eew.

whilst feeling a leper.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:47 (nineteen years ago)

Most people that hunt, eat what they kill.

Also: plenty of people deer hunt with handguns.

― gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

Most people that hunt, eat what they kill.

So hungry people should be allowed to carry arms?

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

Yes.

― gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

frankie say...

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

relax. (when you want to splurt over john junor)

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

Most people that hunt, eat what they kill

and i have no problem with that, as long as they're licensed etc and aren't fucking up delicate ecosystems etc by ... i dunno, shooting pandas.

plenty of people deer hunt with handguns

yes, but they don't need to. i'm on shaky ground here, but aren't handguns kinda designed with the aim of, y'know, killing people? which means i have trouble seeing them as harmless hobbyist fun.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

basically: you can't play cricket without a bat. you can't go rallying without a car. you CAN hunt without a handgun.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

that's certainly the argument used in 'his girl friday'.

― The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

plenty of people deer hunt with handguns

But this is a bit silly is it not?

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:44 (nineteen years ago)

...you can also hunt with rocks, bows, slings, etc.

I'm not going to get into this too much, because I'll probably get real unpopular real fast. I will say this: gun control in the US and gun control in the UK is apples and oranges.

Handguns were designed as sidearms, yes, for person on person violence. So were rifles. Ditto crossbows and most other weapons.

― gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

When they banned assault rifles after Hungerford, there were loads of gun-nuts on the telly saying how terrible it was because assault rifles have SO MANY useful applications in day-to-day life (dicing vegetables with extreme prejudice?).

Ditto crossbows and most other weapons.

Fortunately We Need To Talk About Kevin in a work of fiction.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:50 (nineteen years ago)

British gun nuts make me more nervous than their American counterparts.

Dudes with M-16s in Montana = whatever.
Dudes with M-16s in Manchester = cause for alarm.

― gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

Dudes with M-16s in Montana = patriots.
Dudes with M-16s in Manchester = gangsters.

― Rotatey Diskers With Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:55 (nineteen years ago)

Well, like I said, gun control in the US isn't comparable to gun control in the UK. For starters, you've had it for AGES. For us, it's a relatively new development AND "bearing arms" is built into the Constitution (for better or for worse). The idea that you can buy a gun and head West is still very much a part of the American character (people in urban areas will disagree, obv, but that's because they're in urban areas -- Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Montana, etc. are worlds apart).

― gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:59 (nineteen years ago)

can still say stop the guns

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

Sure.

― gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

stop the puns

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:08 (nineteen years ago)

In the gun shop, Homer practices handling an unloaded handgun. Pointing it at the store owner's head, he pulls the trigger several times.

Gun Shop Owner: Woah, careful there, Annie Oakley. [takes gun]

Homer: I don't have to be careful. I got a gun.

Gun Shop Owner: Well, you'll probably want the accessory kit. Holster...

Homer: Oh, yeah.

Gun Shop Owner: Bandoleer.

Homer: Baby.

Gun Shop Owner: Silencer.

Homer: Mmm-hmm.

Gun Shop Owner: Loudener.

Homer: (drooling noise)

Gun Shop Owner: Speed-cocker.

Homer: Ooh, I like the sound of that.

Gun Shop Owner: And this is for shooting down police helicopters.

Homer: Oh, I don't need anything like that... (suddenly paranoid)...yet... Just give me my gun.

Gun Shop Owner: Sorry, the law requires a five-day waiting period. We've got to run a background check.

Homer: Five days? But I'm mad now!

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:13 (nineteen years ago)

gun control in the US and gun control in the UK is apples and oranges

yes, i agree.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

you say gun control, i say guhhn cohhntrraw

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

you say gun control, i say: "PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR, MUTHAFUCKA!" BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM! "TOP OF THE WORLD, MA!" etc.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:39 (nineteen years ago)

i liked eddie izzard's idea. "guns don't kill people, BULLETS DO" so let them have guns BUT NOT AMMUNITIONS. it might work

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:40 (nineteen years ago)

He stole that bit from Chris Rock.

"Bullets should cost $5000. Make you think long and hard before killing a motherfucker."

― gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

haha oh i remember that bit now too

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

more gun control funnees pls

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

The A-Z of gun control jokes.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

haha! g had me in hysterics.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

when i read

x.. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

i thought it said "when you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create sleeves" and i giggled

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 18:05 (nineteen years ago)

Does that mean gun fans have no time for amendments 11 to 27? I always though 13 and 19 were quite good ones.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

"guest of honour: jesus christ?"

jesus christ!

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

eleven months pass...

And now it's 11.
I think it's good to see Andy Murray in the news without there being the need to mention his connection to Dunblane at this particular time. I wonder how long it takes for people not to associate places with terrible events, if they ever can? I was in Hungerford recently and spent a couple of hours wandering about before I remembered what happened there, but I can never pass Locherbie without thinking of those pictures of half a plane cabin in a field. Should we be able to forget even?

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:51 (eighteen years ago)

people who live in east london seem able to forget it was bombed, so i guess it's possible.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:53 (eighteen years ago)

... what bombing are you talking about?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:56 (eighteen years ago)

there was this german fella, name of adolf hitler...

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:59 (eighteen years ago)

well, austrian.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:59 (eighteen years ago)

Well, it kind of was 60 years ago

― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:59 (eighteen years ago)

lockerbie was almost 20 years ago now, and left fewer traces.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:00 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, but 60 years? As opposed to 20 years?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:01 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think it was that big a deal here.

― onimo, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:02 (eighteen years ago)

What is the statute of limitations on grief?

Maybe the East End had the right idea; don't make a fuss, just quietly get on with it, rebuild, don't erect memorials and hold candlelit services, just get on with it?

― Masonic Boom, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:03 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, i still don't remember it being that big a deal here, sorry.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:07 (eighteen years ago)

'the East End' isn't as small and specific as places like Hungerford and Lockerbie - places people generally wouldn't know at all unless they'd been the scene of such disasters. unfortunately disasters are what put many small places on the map (of our minds) in this way (see also Soham).

― blueski, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:07 (eighteen years ago)

Actually some people have been trying to build some sort of memorial in the East End for about ten years but it seems to have fizzled out.

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:14 (eighteen years ago)

What is the statute of limitations on grief?

There's a statute of limitations on breathing, which means there's far less people around who experienced stuff that happened 60 years ago as opposed to 20 years ago

― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:15 (eighteen years ago)

yeah but the 'stuff that happened' in the blitz affected far far far more people than the lockerbie bombing.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:16 (eighteen years ago)

John Lydon could've been on that Lockerbie plane. I think he missed the flight or something. Actually it was probably just that it was a 'few hours earlier'.

― blueski, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:20 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, i still don't remember it being that big a deal here, sorry.

That one guy that quit on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:07 (7 minutes ago)

And I still beg to differ.
But...er...let's not go there.

I'm more interested in the way these things are remembered or not and the East End seems to be a good example. But Coventry was a big place and somewhere that sufferered terribly and they did build a memorial to it, twinned themselves with Dresden, did things which suggest that they never want to stop remembering.

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:26 (eighteen years ago)

Wearing The Blitz Spirit of Getting On With It as a badge of honour for 60 years is not the same as forgetting about it.

― onimo, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:29 (eighteen years ago)

Got to completely disagree with Enrique as well. Unless he means personally again. It's hard to tell.

― Frogman Henry, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:31 (eighteen years ago)

(e.g. see how often it was mentioned during all the 2012 Olympic bid shenanigans)

― onimo, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:31 (eighteen years ago)

i just don't know what there is to think about, with lockerbie, or hungerford, unless it was a particularly memorable moment in yr life for whatever reason. but then i do get spooked a little by the modernity of german cities...

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:32 (eighteen years ago)

they're just so efficient

― blueski, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:37 (eighteen years ago)

what do you mean 'unless he means personally'? what other arbiter is there for big-deal-ness? the media!?

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:39 (eighteen years ago)

Your original statement was "i don't think it was that big a deal here" which is absolutely wrong. Was "here" your mind or England? Because if the latter you're wrong, 100%.

― Frogman Henry, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

presumably Ryan (Hungerford murderer) had mental health problems?

I can't remember the name of the Dunblane murderer. What was his motivation? Why is this when it wasn't as long ago?

Difference between these events and most shootings in Nottingham, Manchester, London ect ect is that the latter shootings are drugs related, no?

Gun control laws in UK should prolly stay as they are. What should change is how we tackle mental health problems (which, I fear, is experiential, it's not like we are really doing anything worng, more that we don't know what to do yet) and drug laws including a lot of decriminalisation and legalisation, at least at the user level. Would certainly free up police time to go after the dealers.

― Grandpont Genie, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:45 (eighteen years ago)

"what other arbiter is there for big-deal-ness? the media!?"

FFS Disingenuos Dan

― Frogman Henry, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:46 (eighteen years ago)

I don't know Dunblane murderer's name either. Did he shoot himself (this may explain why)? My memory on this is terrible.

― blueski, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:46 (eighteen years ago)

Thomas Hamilton. Shot himself. Cranky interfering busybody, forever writing letters of complaint to all and sundry about real and imagined slights.

― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:49 (eighteen years ago)

What was his motivation?

"I'll teach them to ignore and insult me!"

― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:50 (eighteen years ago)

If he was still alive everyone would know his name and he'd have gone thru Huntley-esque media-orchestrated vilification times 10.

― blueski, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:52 (eighteen years ago)

he did shoot himself. suspected paedophile apparently.

― Grandpont Genie, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:52 (eighteen years ago)

what the hell are you on about mark?

frogman -- in what way is something a 'big deal' or not? it's not a negative judgement on the town i was living in in 1996 went on pretty much as before after the massacre, and that it wasn't a 'big deal'; to be honest columbine felt like a 'bigger deal' and that was on another continent. i don't know why. i mean ffs i was at school at this time and didn't feel the impact.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:52 (eighteen years ago)

I am quite lucid, what don't you understand? ask and I will clarify.

― Grandpont Genie, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:54 (eighteen years ago)

suspected paedophile apparently

He wasn't a paedophile tho, at least I've never heard of any proof that he was

― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:56 (eighteen years ago)

it just seems to be a bunch of non-sequiturs to me.

"Difference between these events and most shootings in Nottingham, Manchester, London ect ect is that the latter shootings are drugs related, no?"

what?

"Gun control laws in UK should prolly stay as they are."

well, ok, whatever. why?

"What should change is how we tackle mental health problems (which, I fear, is experiential, it's not like we are really doing anything worng, more that we don't know what to do yet)"

yeah let's "tackle" mental health. sure we're not doing anything wrong.

"and drug laws including a lot of decriminalisation and legalisation, at least at the user level. Would certainly free up police time to go after the dealers."

what?

basically you're saying we could stop murders by legalizing drugs and... um... curing crazy people? (because obviously legalizing personal use would stop gang wars happening. police already do target gangs over individual users...)

i don't think you'll ever get a perfect mental health system that can prevent people from occasionally flipping out and killing lots of people, i guess.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:59 (eighteen years ago)

no tom he was a 'suspected paedo'. it makes it easy for people to get a handle on his 'motivation'.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:59 (eighteen years ago)

"frogman -- in what way is something a 'big deal' or not? it's not a negative judgement on the town i was living in in 1996 went on pretty much as before after the massacre, and that it wasn't a 'big deal'; to be honest columbine felt like a 'bigger deal' and that was on another continent. i don't know why. i mean ffs i was at school at this time and didn't feel the impact. "

I was in uni.. I wasn't a news junkie or anything, but i remember it then and now as an exceptional event. If you remember differently, fine, but your age and conciousness of the world has to be taken into account.
Which you do, in some of your above posts. But i think an objective view would say it was a "big deal" in people's conversations, in the media they consumed, in people's thoughts and memories (even if the date and year now elude them.). As for things going on much as before, well they always do after shocking tragedies don't they, exceot in ground zero.
Basically a massive fuss was made about it, politically and socially. You don't remember that, clearly.

― Frogman Henry, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:03 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think you'll ever get a perfect mental health system that can prevent people from occasionally flipping out and killing lots of people, i guess.

no, not a perfect one, we could not produce a perfect anything, simply a much better one than the one we've got! So instead of 1 mass murder every 10 years there might be, say, one every 100 years - i.e. an obviously improved situation.

yeah let's "tackle" mental health. sure we're not doing anything wrong.

by which I mean to say that we are doing the best we can within the confines of our present knowledge. It's not as if we are not doing all we could coz there are ppl who have a motivation to act to the contrary, as is the case with, for example, drugs or wars.

[oi]Difference between these events and most shootings in Nottingham, Manchester, London ect ect is that the latter shootings are drugs related, no?[/i]

fairly obv I would have thought. Most recent shootings are drugs related; Hungerford and Dunblane were not! So we can't blame our current spate of shootings on the failure of legislation in the wake of Hungerford and Dunblane, as that was brought in to tackle *different types* of shootings with quite different motivations! Nobody in 1987 or 1997 could have anticipated the drug dealer situation in 2007!

and drug laws including a lot of decriminalisation and legalisation, at least at the user level. Would certainly free up police time to go after the dealers.

what exactly is the point of cannabis being illegal? Half my friends are criminalised. For what? Legalise it, regulate it, same with E and speed, let the police spend all of their time going after the crack dealers.

― Grandpont Genie, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:09 (eighteen years ago)

obviously legalizing personal use would stop gang wars happening

if the drugs were legalised and sold thru registered outlets like alcohol and tobacco with the same forms of regulation, yes it would.

― Grandpont Genie, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:11 (eighteen years ago)

"by which I mean to say that we are doing the best we can within the confines of our present knowledge. It's not as if we are not doing all we could coz there are ppl who have a motivation to act to the contrary, as is the case with, for example, drugs or wars."

i don't think motivation has that big a role in human affairs but anyway the mental health system's problems are not that much to do with the limits of our knowledge but a) the limits of money b) the limited sense that 'mental health' is a category that can be prized away from the rest of the social structure and all its problems.

how much in the way of resources would you think it reasonable to commit to reducing the mass murder rate from once a decade to once a century? seriously?

i don't get why you link drug murders to these kinds of events either, it just seems totally irrelevant. gun laws won't stop gang violence, most of the guns they use are illegal already.

why not just legalize crack? < / david simon >

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:15 (eighteen years ago)

""obviously legalizing personal use would stop gang wars happening"

if the drugs were legalised and sold thru registered outlets like alcohol and tobacco with the same forms of regulation, yes it would.

Grandpont Genie on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:11 (3 minutes ago)"

i basically agree with that, though drugs are lame. and again we come to the 'fair trade cocaine' issue.

but you mentioned 'yay the police could go after dealers' so i was a but uh? why bother legalizing then?

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:17 (eighteen years ago)

I still remember it very clearly. I'm from Stirling, less than ten miles down the road from Dunblane. It had a huge impact. At school our English teacher was called away for some reason. We only learned at lunchtime his daughter was a pupil at Dunblane. She wasn't in the class in the gym, but it brought it home. One of the girls who survived the shooting lived in my dad's block.
There really hasn't been any single news story that's had such a huge impact. It dominated the Scottish press for days. You just don't expect something like that, especially somewhere as quiet and well to do as Dunblane.
At school it was all people talked about. Some people I knew had been to Thomas Hamilton's youth groups when they were younger. There was all sorts of talk about how dodgy he was, getting little boys to run around topless. It was long afterwards that our school, and many others, upped their security, putting fences round the grounds and making visitors wear ID etc. Compare that to the open, community orientated place school had seemed before that. That was a massive change of ethos in education.
Then the small details: I remember the shooting and fishing shop in Stirling closing down immediately (it was where Hamilton bought many of his guns) and it took three or four years before anyone took over the lease.
Or the police investigation and the big report into how Hamilton was given a gun license despite having a police file and a history of dodginess. There were all sorts of rumours that this could go as high as to the head of Central Region police, the MP at the time (Michael Forsyth).
Then there were the papers only released to the public a couple of years ago that gave further insight into the failings of communication between the council and police.
Or things like going round to my Dad's in Dunblane and people asking for directions to the graveyard where the children were, like they were tourists of death or something.
It really did have a massive impact, and not just locally.

― Stew, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:52 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.