Newtown School Shootings

[Papewaio]

The statistics you quote do not factor in crime prevention. The number of assaults, burglaries, kidnappings, muggings, robberies that are thwarted because of guns (and violent crime here is at a 40 year low). You want to believe that the state is more competent at protecting you than you yourself are. Keep believing that. I'll stick to my guns.

You also have four times as many people in prison so plainly the deterrent factor isn't working. Again rhetoric meets reality.

[rvg]

You also have four times as many people in prison so plainly the deterrent factor isn't working. Again rhetoric meets reality.

Kennesaw, Georgia begs to differ.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What I'm saying is that without guns more people would get robbed, raped, carjacked, more houses would get broken into.

While we're on the topic, I present to you Gun Town, USA. The article is a bit old, but the idea stands.

Except - you already have more of that than any Western country, so maybe the guns aren't helping.

If it's easy for me to get a gun it's even easier for a car-jacker to get a gun because he can break the law, and he's going to have less compunction about using it and he's going into the situation with it ready, where I have to draw mine. I've lost before I even decided to draw or not.

[rvg]

Except - you already have more of that than any Western country, so maybe the guns aren't helping.

We're also bigger than any other Western country.

If it's easy for me to get a gun it's even easier for a car-jacker to get a gun because he can break the law, and he's going to have less compunction about using it and he's going into the situation with it ready, where I have to draw mine. I've lost before I even decided to draw or not.

Why draw right away? Give him the car keys, then pump him full of lead as soon as he tuns his back. He'll be dead before he realizes what's going on.

[PanzerJaeger]

If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:

• Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
• Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
• Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again

Can we please dispense with this 'absolutist' moniker? I understand that it is always beneficial in debate to frame your opponent as some sort of extremist, but this is nonsense. Guns are one of the most heavily regulated products in the American marketplace. There are limits on functionality, size, ammunition type and many other design elements that essentially neuter these weapons as compared to their military counterparts. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of another product that requires a background check to purchase. Certain types of chemicals, maybe? To the true absolutist, such things would be intolerable. And yet, no one here seems to be seriously arguing against them. In fact, I would wager most here would be supportive of a national registry for the mentally ill that could be crosschecked during the background check process.

But yes, allowing the actions of two mentally disturbed men to curtail the freedoms millions currently enjoy would be an illogical, immature reaction to media sensationalism, a superficial gesture that would do little to prevent such incidents in the future.

[Crazed Rabbit]

US citizens are three times more likely to die in a homicide compared with the UK. That is a materially significant difference. If guns provided significant protection you would expect it to be the other way round with less homicides in the US. Self defense isn't included in these stats, homicide is where someone with criminal intent kills someone else.

The reason our murder rate is so high is because of gangs involved in the drugs. (Yay for the big government paternalism/nanny state behind the war on drugs)

Take away those killings - or live were they aren't likely to occur - and I believe our murder rate is not much higher than Europe.

If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:

1. Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
2. Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
3. Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again

In Response -
1) They are not inevitable, but they are extremely rare. Not having extreme media coverage would help more than any gun ban. But what all the assault ban proponents want is to ban millions of firearms owned by millions of people because a couple people per year - at most - in a country of over 300 million people abuse them. That is not rational.
2) Registration? That would have no effect at all on shootings - and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns (and yes, some US states have confiscated certain guns after early mandating registration). Mandated safety measures are not appropriate for what is a constitutional right - and again have been abused by governments for the express purpose of denying as many people as possible from owning guns.
If you want to bring up rights lost in the War on Terror - like the Patriot Act - you should certainly realize that these rights are lost when there are knee jerk reactions to very emotional events.
3) This is a bit of a strawman. Yes, I think we Americans need to learn not to demand government "Do Something" or that "There oughta be a law" every time something bad happens, as though every bad thing can be fixed with more government. Attempted mass shootings (At least one off the top of my head - the church in Colorado) have been stopped by armed citizens. I think how society approaches mental health and how the media glamorizes these events are much more important things to discuss.

1. -Our government has access to such high forms of technology that a discussion of "protecting our liberties from tyranny" is laughable. A cheaply made AR-15 or AK-47 clone isn't going to do a damn thing against a predator drone. The only thing that can defeat a tyrranical government is human spirit.
2. -An assault weapons ban will not end these tragedies. It will however make the likelihood of the severity significantly reduced. I own several guns for hunting and personal protection. I am 100% in favor background checks, restrictions placed on the capacity of guns, etc. I do not need an assault weapon, nor can I put forward a good reason why any private citizen would need one.
3. -Yes, illegal trade in restricted armaments will occur. What people fail to understand is that it is far easier to traffic narcotics than arms. I will no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the good on this issue. I would like to eliminate gun violence. If I cannot, I will settle for reducing it, at the very least, reducing it's severity.
4. -I also know, courtesy of Timothy McVeigh, that large scale mass murder will still happen. But when you compare the number of fertilizer bombs to the number of mass shootings over the past 30 years or so, I think the data points to restricting firearms before one restricts lawn fertilizer.

Again, in response:
1) This is inaccurate, based on Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Uprisings, etc.

2) Again I disagree. The Columbine shootings happened after the first ban. The VT shootings (were more people - and college students at that, thus more difficult to kill - were killed) were committed by a madman with pistols. There is no reason to think an assault weapons ban would limit shootings. It's like the moronic TSA banning certain items and thinking potential terrorists won't shift to other weapons. Magazine limits will not work - changing magazines is a matter of seconds, and will limit good people who are not carry around a dozen magazines more than shooters who can prepare as much as they like.

Part two - the fact that you do not need or want a semi-auto rifle, and are therefore okay with banning them for everyone, saddens me. We live in a free country where no one should have to put forth a 'reason' they want to exercise a right. Back to response (1), I do believe access to modern firearms is an essential part of a free country and preventing tyranny. They are not everything, of course, but the human spirit needs teeth.

3) Maybe it easier to traffic drugs. But it's much easier to manufacture guns, of varying quality, anywhere. And handguns are explicitly constitutionally protected. Gun control doesn't work at reducing "handgun violence". We should not sacrifice liberty for safety. The past has shown us we will end up with neither.

4) The data points to the fact that mass murder via firearms is exceedingly rare and it's only an issue because of media sensationalism and human's irrational response to fear and risk. And if all firearms magically disappeared, what would stop some deranged lunatic from attacking a school with huge amounts of gasoline?

I prayed for the shooter in my morning prayers and meditation on Saturday. First, somebody had to. But secondly, HIS story is a tragedy. That a human soul can be so anguished and despondent to resort to this...

Your compassion is inspiring.

Likewise, the extremely limited registration of firearms needs to be expanded.

No, it doesn't. What point would that serve besides suppressing legal gun ownership? You mock the suggestion that 'Obama's coming for your guns' but he wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and you want to

As I said earlier in the thread, owning a gun should involve about as much safety training and mandatory recordkeeping as owning an automobile.

Gun ownership is a right and should not be subject to government demands before you are allowed to exercise it. Safety training and record keeping would do nothing to prevent these sprees.

I have yet to see any gun control proposal that would actually prevent mass murder and is based on a rational view of the country and not a knee jerk reaction hysteria.

CR

[Papewaio]

Eleven thousand gun homicides per year.

9/11 every four months
War of Independence every eight months
Civil War every 21 years
World War I every ten years
World War II every 37 years
Holocaust every 60 years
Vietnam War every 5 years
Afghanistan (2001 to now) 2 months. In other words for every American soldier who has died on the battlefield, vehicle crash, IED : sixty Americans have been shot dead by a fellow American.

I'm not so sure it is a knee jerk reaction when you are losing a person every day to gun homicide let alone over one an hour.

[Ironside]

-Yet even more than mental illness, our society (and this extends outside the US) suffers from spiritual sickness. We have lost compassion, lost humanity. We do not value life. Regardless of the reasons we attribute, we have failed our young: failed to keep them safe, failed to make them whole, failed to make them see that they are a part of something greater than their finite selves.

Welcome back Don.

I'm curious, in what form do you say this spiritual sickness is?

Been too used to see it as people claiming it as a lack of Christianity, that's why I reacted. Personally, I would blame social structures. If people suffer, they'll spread it, either intentionally or as a side effect. That's a huge issue in the US, agreed (armed guards in US schools isn't that uncommon in some areas).

4) The data points to the fact that mass murder via firearms is exceedingly rare and it's only an issue because of media sensationalism and human's irrational response to fear and risk. And if all firearms magically disappeared, what would stop some deranged lunatic from attacking a school with huge amounts of gasoline?

Yes? It's an extremely rare crime to burn down a school with people still inside it (it happens by evening or night normally). It's also very clumpsy to use.

Why do you have more schools shootings than the rest of the west? More gun crimes? More police killings?

Something is simply making US more aggressive than the rest of the west. The gun culture reflects that and influences it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We're also bigger than any other Western country.

Statistics take this into account - they are per capita, not raw numbers. The US has by far and away more deaths from firearms, per hundred thousand, than anywhere in Europe.

Why draw right away? Give him the car keys, then pump him full of lead as soon as he tuns his back. He'll be dead before he realizes what's going on.

And you'll be spending the rest of your life in gaol for murder, and rightly too.

[Idaho]

The reason our murder rate is so high is because of gangs involved in the drugs. (Yay for the big government paternalism/nanny state behind the war on drugs)

Take away those killings - or live were they aren't likely to occur - and I believe our murder rate is not much higher than Europe.

Yes, arbitrarily cutting out a large number of murders from the total reduces the total. Well done

[rory_20_uk]

The reason our murder rate is so high is because of gangs involved in the drugs. (Yay for the big government paternalism/nanny state behind the war on drugs)

Take away those killings - or live were they aren't likely to occur - and I believe our murder rate is not much higher than Europe.

So... compare the killings in Europe with gangs included to those in the USA without...

Given how restricted guns are in many European countries this will likely make the difference even greater.

[HopAlongBunny]

Honestly, keep your guns: knock yourselves out :)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Good question to ask is who exactly shares the top spots in the gun deaths list besides the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

Gee, El Salvador, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Panama. In fact, with the exception of swaziland and a few others, the vast majority of the countries at the top are all in the Americas.

Looks to me that we are simply reaping the benefits of our war on drugs. Latin America has become a battle ground over drugs and the blood inevitably spills over to where the selling actually goes on. No wonder out of all the countries in the Americas, Canada which the least involved in the war has the lowest death rate from guns.

[Papewaio]

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Su...-Gang-Problems

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the US.

So the actual homicide rate is closer to 16k not 11k and the rate per 100k people is 4.8 not 4.2

Also the gang murders are 12%.

So 12% off 4.8 goes back to almost 4.2. Wow still 3.5 times that of UK.

If I was told to year a helmet that would make me die 3.5 times more likely then without it, I would be questioning the manufacturers motivation in proclaiming it was for my protection. I would also tell him were to shove said helmet and that I don't care for his scare tactics.

[a completely inoffensive name]

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Su...-Gang-Problems

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the US.

So the actual homicide rate is closer to 16k not 11k and the rate per 100k people is 4.8 not 4.2

Also the gang murders are 12%.

So 12% off 4.8 goes back to almost 4.2. Wow still 3.5 times that of UK.

If I was told to year a helmet that would make me die 3.5 times more likely then without it, I would be questioning the manufacturers motivation in proclaiming it was for my protection. I would also tell him were to shove said helmet and that I don't care for his scare tactics.

FBI statistics also show a 46.76% drop in the violent crime rate since 1991. What do you make of that?

EDIT: The murder rate decreased even further, by 51% over two decades.

[rory_20_uk]

FBI statistics also show a 46.76% drop in the violent crime rate since 1991. What do you make of that?

EDIT: The murder rate decreased even further, by 51% over two decades.

Congratulations! You've shot down to 3.5 times that of the UK - result!!!

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is the population difference of the most at risk groups of perpetration and victimization? If blacks commit 8 times the murders of their white counterparts and Hispanics commit some other multiplier above, what multiplier of blacks and hispanics does the US have over the UK as a percentage of the population? 2x? 3x? 8x? 15x?

White people have a higher statistical success rate at gun related homicide, but black people have more practice. Some discussion of demographics when reviewing the rate out of 100k is in order. More homogeneous societies where the history of poverty from immigration and racism is modern are expected to have lower rates. Prove me wrong. None of this is to say that white people wouldn't have such high homicide rates if they were in similar situations of poverty, but the number must be controlled for this if we are comparing. Apples to apples!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.dmQ

[rory_20_uk]

Prove you wrong? You've not offered anything to prove you right!

Control numbers of what exactly? Unless you can offer some evidence that the mere colour of one's skin makes one shoot others then I'm at a loss to the point of what you're saying.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm on a tablet, but I posted a link to a Rutgers study from 2002

[Idaho]

What is the population difference of the most at risk groups of perpetration and victimization? If blacks commit 8 times the murders of their white counterparts and Hispanics commit some other multiplier above, what multiplier of blacks and hispanics does the US have over the UK as a percentage of the population? 2x? 3x? 8x? 15x?

White people have a higher statistical success rate at gun related homicide, but black people have more practice. Some discussion of demographics when reviewing the rate out of 100k is in order. More homogeneous societies where the history of poverty from immigration and racism is modern are expected to have lower rates. Prove me wrong. None of this is to say that white people wouldn't have such high homicide rates if they were in similar situations of poverty, but the number must be controlled for this if we are comparing. Apples to apples!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.dmQ

So you are saying that the US has more blacks than the UK, so naturally has more murders? Nice!

[rvg]

And you'll be spending the rest of your life in gaol for murder, and rightly too.

Maybe in England, but not here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Afghanistan (2001 to now) 2 months. In other words for every American soldier who has died on the battlefield, vehicle crash, IED : sixty Americans have been shot dead by a fellow American.

To be fair, you need to add in the suicides as well. Suicides by gun outnumber the killing of others greatly (FBI Crime Report Statistics note 11,101 homicides by gun and 19,766 suicides; 14,612 murders in 2011 [last year tabulated] of which 9,903 were murdered by gunfire; guns feature in 68% of all murders and 41% of all armed robberies). It is difficult to argue against the evidence that, with all the guns available to our citizens and residents, the number of deaths is enhanced. Absent guns, a sizeable percentage of the 9,903 murders would have been attacks with some other and less lethal method. Moreover, without ready access to firearms, a noteable percentage of those suicides would have likely not happened because there was no "easy" means of suicide readily available.

The problem, at its core, is that firearms are available on a scale unimaginable to many. That same FBI report estimates that the 314 millions then living in the USA had about 310 million firearms -- not including those possessed by the military. This is the core problem because it makes confiscation functionally impossible [a literal order of magnitude more difficult than deporting the estimated 30 million illegal immigrants]. And, despite all the best intentions of limited magazine capacity, on banning so-called assault weaponry, and performing background checks, it is only confiscation that could significantly reduce the number of firearms. Ain't gonna happen.

There you go, a totally non-2A comment on this issue.

Don:

Merry Christmas to you and your ladies.

Mental health funding etc. will be increasing significantly over the next couple of decades as we shift to nationalized health care. It is the underlying problem in almost all of these mass shootings -- violent depressive types are the most dangerous of all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Good question to ask is who exactly shares the top spots in the gun deaths list besides the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

Gee, El Salvador, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Panama. In fact, with the exception of swaziland and a few others, the vast majority of the countries at the top are all in the Americas.

Looks to me that we are simply reaping the benefits of our war on drugs. Latin America has become a battle ground over drugs and the blood inevitably spills over to where the selling actually goes on. No wonder out of all the countries in the Americas, Canada which the least involved in the war has the lowest death rate from guns.

Europe also, largely, participates in the "war" on drugs, and we have gang violence - but still fewer homicides. Consider the Zinmmerman thread - one American shot another in a restaurant after they got into an argument and he was shoved.

Gangs aren't your problem, nor are the number of guns (there are more per capita in Canada) the issue is your attitude to guns.

I mean, hell's bells, who on earth needs a SCAR for hunting unless he's hunting men?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe in England, but not here.

You shot him in the back - that's got to be First Degree Murder.

[Don Corleone]

Welcome back Don.

Thank you , to you and to others.

I'm curious, in what form do you say this spiritual sickness is?

Been too used to see it as people claiming it as a lack of Christianity, that's why I reacted. Personally, I would blame social structures. If people suffer, they'll spread it, either intentionally or as a side effect. That's a huge issue in the US, agreed (armed guards in US schools isn't that uncommon in some areas).

I'm not prepared to frown upon any religion, as I believe they all have something to offer. Some of the guys I hang out with say "Religion is for people that don't want to go to Hell... Spirituality is for people who have already been". I'm not sure that I would go quite that far, but to answer your question directly... We are driven by "self", individually and even collectively. Our own identities, our own egos are far more important to us than others are. Even when we're trying to be charitable, it is "I am being generous." It never occurs to us that we gain more in the exchange than the recipient. I'm describing some of the symptoms I see, not the malady itself, but I hope it helps.

[rvg]

You shot him in the back - that's got to be First Degree Murder.

No, I killed a criminal who tried to rob me, it's justifiable homicide.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If it is a fact that blacks and hispanics commit the disproportionate share of homicides in the U.S., then any comparison of rates nation to nation must take into consideration these factors to be accurate (among others). You know it is reasonable to suggest that the numbers are not a fair measure. These groups also tend to live in areas with the most intense gun control, yet their rates are still that much higher. Not all blacks, not most blacks, but a statistically significant portion of those committing homicide year to year. Peoples perception of the color of their skin most likely was the main reason why they are an at-risk population and this terrible, but it doesn't change the reality. American society has unfairly disenfranchised blacks for years and we are paying a price for it when a population that has serious cultural issue to face. We did an enormous amount to create that problem, but it is still a problem.

Since when did ideas have to nice? By forum standards they must be written with courtesy, but that shouldn't get in the way of facts. What is your response, Idaho and Rory?

[Don Corleone]

Don:

Merry Christmas to you and your ladies.

Mental health funding etc. will be increasing significantly over the next couple of decades as we shift to nationalized health care. It is the underlying problem in almost all of these mass shootings -- violent depressive types are the most dangerous of all.

Thank you Seamus. A very Merry Christmas to you and to your family as well.

While I suspect that you are correct, a significantly higher level of funding will be steered into mental health, I believe little real good will be done. Healthcare (including mental health care) is an industry. Sure, we'll wind up with a bunch more thorazine zombies roaming the streets. But will we have solved anything?

I think we need to address root cause, not symptoms. Else, all we're doing is exchanging one negative outcome for another.

[rory_20_uk]

There is a monumental difference between correlation and causation. I would like to see a proper multivariate analysis to see what are the independent risk factors in different countries. I'm betting that loads-a-guns plays a greater determinant on the odds ratio. As has been so oft stated, getting angry with one's fists or a knife makes killing people a lot harder than with a gun.

There is also the fact that there are groups disenfranchised in Europe.

America has free borders between states. Local restrictions would only mean something if there were regular stop and searches with confiscation of weaponry with a large fine.

I'm still not seeing facts. I prefer peer reviewed research.

[Idaho]

I just think that I will never understand you Americans. You seem bonkers to me much of the time.