Not again!

[2hung4some]

We have had it in the UK too - just not as popular to do here as over there! I've never understood the rules of the game tho or know who wins!

If its not the guns that kill but the people does that mean its not the knife that cuts my food but me? It takes both - but its easier to try and control the guns!

 

[Not_Punny]

While I can agree with much of your logic, HG, I don't think that the Middle East is a fair comparison. People who fire guns in schools/malls are not doing so because of a Jihad that recruits, trains and equips them.

= = = = = = =

Personally, I think it would do more good if we were to prosecute and punish people who illegally share/sell guns or who store them unsafely.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I may be naive but it seems to me that one's right to stay alive outweighs another's right to bear arms.

Undeniable.

A quick look at the

US Bureau of Justice Statistics shows the average number of firearms-related homicides to be around 10-12 thousand per annum for the last 30 years. As a comparative, the Dept. of Transportation shows 41-43 thousand motor vehicle fatalities every year.

I don't see the relevance of the comparison. Firearms-related homicides are to be considered on their own. If gun control could reduce that number, then it would be something to seriously consider.

You can't go foisting restrictions onto a society of 300+ million individuals because of the plight of any statistically insignificant number of people. Especially when these restrictions have little chance of effecting the changes they were misguidedly designed to bring about. Again, I'm looking at the

Dept. of Justice for this:

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Wow...the overwhelming majority of people who use guns to commit crimes obtained their weapons in an illegal manner. Who would have guessed?

Very relevant stuff, unfortunately. Now that so many guns are in the hands of American citizens, it's probably too late to do much. Alas.

But it is a pity that the gun culture ever became so embedded in the American psyche.

The murder rate in Canada is about a third of yours. But then, we strongly control short arms, and have significant limits on the kinds of long arms that an ordinary citizen can buy.

 

[HazelGod]

While I can agree with much of your logic, HG, I don't think that the Middle East is a fair comparison. People who fire guns in schools/malls are not doing so because of a Jihad that recruits, trains and equips them.

It was an illustration, not a comparison...the point being that the instruments of the assault are incidental. Desperation (or demented determination, or whatever else) is the force driving the person to commit such acts...and the removal of one instrument only results in the use of another. Unless the causative factors are addressed, the violence will persist.

Personally, I think it would do more good if we were to prosecute and punish people who illegally share/sell guns or who store them unsafely.

This is done routinely...but it doesn't sound nearly as sexy on a politician's resume as "I Passed a New Law to Get Tough on Crime and Keep Your Children Safe!"

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Desperation (or demented determination, or whatever else) is the force driving the person to commit such acts...and the removal of one instrument only results in the use of another.

But the instruments aren't all of equal lethality.
That's the whole point.

 

[Drifterwood]

You have killed more of each other since 63 that your enemies have killed you betwen 1900 and 2000 - that's two world wars and vietnam. Words fail me.

Really, if I was Al Q, I'd give money to the NRA and open a string of gun stores.

Has anyone actually ever worked out what the right to bear arms is costing you in Police time, compensation, insurance, prison time, court time etc etc? It's a bucket load more than you make from the gun market.

 

[dong20]

The instruments aren't the problem...and focusing on them won't solve anything. This type of short-sighted, fix it with a band-aid approach to the issues is counterproductive.

Perhaps, but the instruments are part of the problem though, surely? Thus easy access to the instruments is also part of the problem. That's logical, isn't it?

Attempts to curb access to firearms may (or may not) be futile but it's intresting that such 'logic' is used by some as justification for doing nothing. A band-aid is sometimes better than an open wound.

US Bureau of Justice Statistics shows the average number of firearms-related homicides to be around 10-12 thousand per annum for the last 30 years. As a comparative, the Dept. of Transportation shows 41-43 thousand motor vehicle fatalities every year.

Very interesting, and almost entirely irrelevant. Vehicle ownership in the US is about 75%? and gun ownership is around 30%. This is rather crude but if one adjusts the stats for that the rates don't look quite so disparate. Now, I wonder how many people die each time they got shot as opposed to driving to work? An unreasonable comparison? I'd agree but then, comparing accidental deaths with intentional ones is rather dubious to begin with, IMO.

Expensive, gasoline guzzling, carbon monoxide spewing hunks of speeding metal kill more people here every year than firearms. Lots more. 400% more. Yet nobody talks about banning automobiles...because that would just be stupid, right? It's no stupider than talking about banning firearms for the sake of possibly reducing the number of deaths attributed to them.

Well, (colourful metaphors aside) while we're on stats kick; bear in mind several other factors here, the death rate per 100 million miles driven in the US is about 1.6 (2003) or in other words you have about a 0.00016% of dying for every mile you drive. The death rate per shooting varies between about 45-90%. Get shot or drive to work? Hmm, tough choice.

Also, approximately twice as many people kill themselves as kill each other, not much we can do about that perhaps. My reason for mentioning it it because it's about as relevant to the issue at hand, i.e. not very.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_mot_veh_dea_rat-health-motor-vehicle-death-rate

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html#data_usa

Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their ... - Google Book Search

You can't go foisting restrictions onto a society of 300+ million individuals because of the plight of any statistically insignificant number of people. Especially when these restrictions have little chance of effecting the changes they were misguidedly designed to bring about.

Actually you can. And, in some cases you should. IMHO (in normal circumstances) nothing outweighs the right to life, certainly not the right to own a deadly weapon. It may not be statistically significant at a national level, but it's pretty significant for the 8 or nine people killed today, don't you think?

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Wow...the overwhelming majority of people who use guns to commit crimes obtained their weapons in an illegal manner. Who would have guessed?

What about the other 6%?

Of course, taking the word of criminals is always a reliable way to obtaining accurate (statistical) information. But never mind that. Actually unless you have a breakdown of that last bullet your conclusion is mainly supposition. I don't disagree that the majority of firearms used in a criminal manner will be obtained the same way. That's unlikely to surprise anyone, is it?

Yes, the Omaha incident and the VT incident were awful...but they're in no way indicative of any endemic gun violence problem, media sensationalization aside. There are underlying issues that drive these people to commit such assaults, and restricting legal ownership of firearms by responsible citizens does nothing to address them.

The underlying causes are only part of the problem that any ultimate solution the US needs to find must address. To exclude gun control merely because it may infringe the rights of responsible citizens would seem rather shortsighted. To state with apprarent absolute certainty that such restrictions would do nothing to reduce gun crime (or vice versa) simply isn't something you, me or anyone can really do with authority - it's merely opinion.

I would add that you seem to have become more conviced of the lack of efficacy of gun control from "...little chance.." to "...would do nothing..." as you progressed this post. Does this indicate uncertaintanty or merely inconsistancy?

Personally I'd rather try and fail than hold my hands up in defeat. If that upset some responsible citizens yet saved one innocent life (perhaps 'your' child) then I'd consider it small price to pay. Of course we may disagree on this but I'd think neither of us would be doing so from a position of being 'easily led by rhetoric'.

Desperate people will commit acts of desperation using whatever means are available...I can think of another nation whose name begins with "I" and ends with "Q" where private ownership of guns is banned and desperate people there tend to blow themselves up in crowded areas. You think a firearm wrought horrific damage in a mall or classroom? Imagine what a bomb could have done.

Yes they will, and yet mass hatchetings are comparatively uncommon. Also, the US mainland wasn't (and isn't) teetering on the brink of civil war following invasion and occupation by a foreign power on (and I'm being charitable here) dubious basis. Is it?

I understand the need to feel like you're "doing something" tangible to address the ills we witness in our society...and I admire that people truly care about making ours a better one to live in. But please, think these things through. Examine the facts and apply your own reasoning. Don't let yourself be led by inflammatory rhetoric.

I'll do my best. For myself it not about doing 'something' as about looking at a given sitution from another perspective. That said, sometimes doing something is actually necessary. Of course it may transpire that that something may not be the right something but without actually doing that something, one may never now. Is inaction any more justifiable than taking the wrong action, when a person is dying at the hand of another at a (statistcally insignificant) rate of one every 45 minutes?

Above all, (and this isn't at you per se) what disturbs me most about people who use statistics as an argument against gun control is the subtle implication that 10,000+ people being killed each year being 'statistically insignificant' somehow renders it acceptable. It doesn't.

You may find this interesting,

Gun ownership is not the cause of America’s high murder rate

 

[HazelGod]

The instruments are part of the problem though, surely? Thus easy access to the instruments is also part of the problem. That's logical, isn't t?

No. Read on...

But the instruments aren't all of equal lethality.
That's the whole point.

That's not the point at all. Not even close.

For the sake of argument, say you're able to remove guns...you've accomplished what? Have you removed the causes of desperation and whatever other factors drive these people to acts of violence? Nope.

So when the next one hits his breaking point and decides he wants to go out in a blaze (and take a bunch with him), have you rendered him powerless? Not even. He can hop in the car and look for the nearest crowded sidewalk. Or walk into a grocery store with a backpack full of gasoline/fertilizer cocktail.

The violent assaults are an effect, and the means of attack are incidental. The point is to focus attention on the causes.

 

[Principessa]

[quote=playainda336;1140912]Not to sound ignorant, but does this kind of stuff happen in other countries? [/quote] Yes, though not nearly as often as in the US.

Pretty simple ban the use of guns. Stupid idea in the first place.

Yeah, that will work. What a maroon . . .

While I can agree with much of your logic, HG, I don't think that the Middle East is a fair comparison. People who fire guns in schools/malls are not doing so because of a Jihad that recruits, trains and equips them. True.

= = = = = = = Personally, I think it would do more good if we were to prosecute and punish people who illegally share/sell guns or who store them unsafely.

I disagree, if only because many people own guns or inherit them without abusing them and using them improperly.

You have killed more of each other since 63 than your enemies have killed you betwen 1900 and 2000 - that's two world wars and vietnam. Words fail me.

Has anyone actually ever worked out what the right to bear arms is costing you in Police time, compensation, insurance, prison time, court time etc etc? It's a bucket load more than you make from the gun market.

For the love of God in heaven, the issue is not our gun laws! It's the fact we have millions in this country in desperate need of good, affordable, mental healthcare. This boy in Omaha was seriously depressed. He had been dumped by his girlfriend a few weeks before and then got fired from Mc Donald's. His actions were those of a mentally unbalanced person. He was not acting like a person with respect for guns.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

That's not the point at all. Not even close.

For the sake of argument, say you're able to remove guns...you've accomplished what? Have you removed the causes of desperation and whatever other factors drive these people to acts of violence? Nope.

So when the next one hits his breaking point and decides he wants to go out in a blaze (and take a bunch with him), have you rendered him powerless? Not even. He can hop in the car and look for the nearest crowded sidewalk. Or walk into a grocery store with a backpack full of gasoline/fertilizer cocktail.

The violent assaults are an effect, and the means of attack are incidental. The point is to focus attention on the causes.

The means of attack are not at all incidental.

I would rather have my enraged tenant assault me with a frying pan than a Ruger.

I would rather have my 6-year-old nephew cut himself with a pen knife than shoot the upper half of his face off playing with a pistol.

I would rather have someone go postal in a mall while swinging a machete, rather than walking cooly from floor to floor with a semi-automatic rifle.

You are no doubt correct when you say that some people, very few, intent on creating the maximum mayhem, might drive their jeep into a crowd or use a fertilizer bomb at a football game.

But the overall effect of reducing firearm ownership would be to reduce death by murder and misadventure.

Those countries that don't have so many firearms in homes, cars, and in ankle holsters don't suffer nearly the same death rate.

Common sense suggests it, and the stats confirm it.

I don't understand how Americans of obvious intelligence such as yourself can ever fail to see these things.

They are not subtle observations at all. Entirely obvious.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

This boy in Omaha was seriously depressed. He had been dumped by his girlfriend a few weeks before and then got fired from Mc Donald's. His actions were those of a mentally unbalanced person. He was not acting like a person with respect for guns.

Health care issues aside, if he had not HAD a gun, the outcome would likely have been very different.

 

[HazelGod]

For the love of God in heaven, the issue is not our gun laws! It's the fact we have millions in this country in desperate need of good, affordable, mental healthcare. This boy in Omaha was seriously depressed. He had been dumped by his girlfriend a few weeks before and then got fired from Mc Donald's. His actions were those of a mentally unbalanced person. He was not acting like a person with respect for guns.

Hallelujah...someone actually gets it!

Thanks, Pats!

Health care issues aside, if he had not HAD a gun, the outcome would likely have been very different.

Because if guns didn't exist, he couldn't have caused any damage, right?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Because if guns didn't exist, he couldn't have caused any damage, right?

No one said that, HG.
But he would likely have caused much less damage.
And that's obvious.
Why did Charles Whitman use a Remington 700 instead of a chain saw?

 

[dong20]

No. Read on...

Wrong, it's simple causality, and nothing you have written changes that.

The violent assaults are an effect, and the means of attack are incidental. The point is to focus attention on the causes.

I agree, they are an effect but I disagree that the mode is incidental. People will use whatever weapon they have at hand, granted. And if that's a gun they will use that. Make guns even a little more difficult to obtain and there will be a change. Yes, the root causes need to be addressed but that shoudn't preclude all other considerations.

For the love of God in heaven, the issue is not our gun laws! It's the fact we have millions in this country in desperate need of good, affordable, mental healthcare. This boy in Omaha was seriously depressed. He had been dumped by his girlfriend a few weeks before and then got fired from Mc Donald's. His actions were those of a mentally unbalanced person. He was not acting like a person with respect for guns.

Well, there are depressed people the world over, the US doesn't have the monoply on this. Yet the US does have close to a monoply on events such as transpired today. I'm not suggesting that easy access to firearms is the cause of such incidents (note please, HG) only a moron would say that - but I am asserting that it's a factor.

It would take a moron not to see that. What can be done about it is of course the debate, but denying it's an factor at all isn't likely to achieve much.

 

[dong20]

..

 

[HazelGod]

You are no doubt correct when you say that some people, very few, intent on creating the maximum mayhem, might drive their jeep into a crowd or use a fertilizer bomb at a football game.

These are the same few that use firearms to shoot up public places. Do the math.

 

[dong20]

Hallelujah...someone actually gets it!

Of course, it's because health care is too expensive.

Yes it's a key factor but it's surely only one of several factors that led to this and other similar incidents. The fact that he has easy access to a firearm is merely one of these. Of course, not all homicides are directly due to depression, in fact I'd hazard a guess that comparatively few are.

It's not that I don't 'get it' it's just that 'it' isn't quite so easy to define as you might imply. Denial isn't a good first step toward a cure, though it is a typical one.

 

[HazelGod]

No one said that, HG.
But he would likely have caused much less damage.
And that's obvious.

Obvious to whom? Based on what? On the idea that he couldn't have run down three times the number of people that he shot in the parking lot?

Why did Charles Whitman use a Remington 700 instead of a chain saw?

Because was trained as a rifleman by the US Marines, not as a lumberjack?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

These are the same few that use firearms to shoot up public places. Do the math.

Then why do we notice that these rampages all seem to occur in the States, where guns are so freely available, and not in other Western nations?
It's not that the assault rates are so different.
Clearly, when violence seizes someone, it's a problem ... a big problem ... to have a semiautomatic rifle at hand.
Do the math?
Puhleez.
The math's been done, and is shown in reams and reams of statistics.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Because was trained as a rifleman by the US Marines, not as a lumberjack?

The rifle allowed him to shoot people from the heights of a parapet at the U of Texas.
He could pull a trigger and someone died.
A chainsaw would have been much less lethal, and not at any distance.
Come on, HG.
You're being disingenuous.