Another public multiple shooting

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by worth

A no guns policy basically takes guns away from the people looking to protect themselves, and you end up with the only person on campus with a gun is the criminal, and the police who won't do anything.

If this is true, why are murder rates higher in the states than anywehre else in the first world?

The protection argument is not feasiable. People are better protected in countries that don't have them.

A person who owns a gun is far FAR more like to shoot someone they know with it, than defend themselves with it.

The actual cases of someone defending themselves successfully with a gun are the miniscule of miniscule. More often they just escalate things. And after that they cause accidents.

Another baseless and statisically incorrect argument from gun lovers.

[worth]

You call my statement baseless and statistically incorrect yet fail to cite any sources of your own?

Furthermore, the portion that you quoted...I don't see how that statement is baseless or statistically incorrect.

Anyway, you want statistics?

The US murder rate is 7/100,000 people.

The murder rate in Israel where the people are heavily armed is 1.4.

In Switzerland, private gun ownership is huge. 2.7 murder rate.

Canada? 4.1.

Cuba is 7.8 where gun control is strictly enforced.

Lithuania all guns are registered and have to have a police permit to have one. Murder rate is 10.8.

Trinidad and Tobago all guns are registered with the police. Murder rate is 11.7.

It's extremly difficult to own a gun in Mexico. 17.5 murder rate.

In Russia you cannot own a handgun. You must be permitted to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting. 30.6 murder rate.

This information is from a 1997 US Department of Justice report on murders.

Since then, murders have gone down in the US.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offens..._homicide.html

There are many countries within the first world that have large gun ownership and little relative murder rate, and others that have strict gun control, and a huge murder rate. The rate of murders has nothing at all to do with the amount of guns.

Again, example Switzerland:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Huge gun ownership, little gun crime.

UK: Strict gun control, huge crime, including illegal gun crime:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...%2Fnmurd21.xml

[Cowperson]

Statistically, a case has been made that American communities where concealed weapons are permitted have lower incidences of violent crime than less permissive jurisdictions.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...2U3YTU4YzNmNGE=

The primary purveyor of the theory is reputable economist John Lott:

There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

There is some dispute as to the interpretation of that data:

http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/LudwigGu...TOKEN=43960794

and

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/pdf/lottreview.pdf

There is also the theory that you see in your local paper from the Calgary police that people used to get into fist fights when they had a dispute. Now they're using knives and access to guns would mean they'd likely use them.

Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, Great Britain, which has restrictive gun control policies, recently passed America as a place where the common citizen is most likely to be the victim of a violent crime.

I'll also note that in the four years since the America engaged the Iraq conflict, about 64000 Americans have died violently - murdered - within their own borders versus 3,300 on the battlefield. One number is 19 times higher than the other but obviously the more relevant number politically is the smaller one.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

^^^ Interesting data, most of it good.

I would however, I prefer to get my data from a page that doesn't have H. Clinton in an awkward pose saying 'she said WHAT?'

I might argue bias. My supporting arguments had no adverts or visual bias.

Knives and violence are a greater concern, but it's clouding the overall issue.

Guns help people kill way too easy. Guns help people kill way too fast.

A lunatic with a knife kills what... two people?

A lunatic with a gun. A lot more than that.

And you are exactly right on that last point. Of course, you are looking at different populations. The entire population of the U.S. vs. the population of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Both results are bad.

[socalwingfan]

CNN reporting at least 6 people shot today in Jacksonville, FLA. WTF

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by socalwingfan

CNN reporting at least 6 people shot today in Jacksonville, FLA. WTF

Reading the very short and very early text they have posted, it sounds like it might be a gang thing. The term neighborhood indicates it is in a residential area and the area of the city indicates it is a poor area.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/13235609/detail.html

Jacksonville TV station sort of confirms that it is more of a neighborhood thing than a random act of violence as I suggested.

Oh...and a month ago, this would've never made the front page of cnn.com.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

No one has a problem with that. It's when on the way to the firing range I cut you off in traffic and you shoot me in the face. No one has a problem with safe gun use. But just having guns opens the door to people abusing guns and killing people. It's simply really.

Simple really? If its so simple, why can't I reverse your argument...meaning by not having guns, it closes the doors to people abusing guns and killing people?

Can't you even see the flaw in your own argument?

Ah yes, the typical you can't get rid of every gun, so we shouldn't ban them argument. That makes perfect sense. We either have to solve the problem 100% or not at all. You gun people are so paranoid. You think that because you don't have a gun on you, you're going to get shot the second you walk out into the street.

I have the right as an American citizen, living in the United States, to own a handgun. I own it in a safe manner, and teach my children proper gun safety to make sure they are responsible as well. Why should MY handgun be taken away?

What is this "proper training" you keep bringing up? Sounds pretty fairy tale to me. A gun safety course and a gun self defense course are a little different.

You're a little ignorant, aren't you? Of course, as someone who lives in a society where guns are largely frowned upon, where handguns and assault rifles are largely illegal, I'm not surprised.

Perhaps you would learn a bit from going to Google and typing in gun training.

So you suppose that we should train people to be effective with their gun in a self defense situation? Remind me why we should train more people to be killers?

So anyone who defends them self is a killer? Seriously, you're really pulling these comments out of nowhere, and again, you are showing total ignorance on the subject.

Is everyone who has taken gun courses, firearms safety, handgun training...all our military members who train day and night to protect us...are they all killers? Because that is exactly what you just said.

I am advocating some sort of gun safety course for anyone who buys a firearm. Just like driving a car....first you need a license.

Who takes this "proper training"? My only guess would be people in the military. There is no law stating that you have to take a gun safety or a gun defense course, perhaps there should be one, but as of right now there is no proper training for gun owners.

Correction - there is no law 'requiring' that you take proper safety training for the firearm that you own. Not in Canada, nor in the US.

It is a moot point unless it is mandatory.

Well my point is that it should be made mandatory for anyone that owns a firearm. Of course you could be subjective and apply it only to handguns.

But how many gun-related accidents would you stop by enforcing this training?

Oh you got me here. You have used my logic and sent it back firing into my temple. But where is my right to own an ICBM? Where is my right to trade in my sedan for a armored tank? If I am getting attacked by a person with a knife I should pull out my gun and defend myself, if I didn't have my gun I would be out matched and die for sure. If I am getting attacked by a person with a gun I should pull out my RPG and send them back the stone age, a straight gun on gun battle is coin flip as to who will live. I would hope you don't advocate this type of weaponry being legal (and I am sure you don't) but don't you think there should be a line? Why is the gun the end all be all? Banning guns isn't going to end crime. But if a person is robbing you with a knife instead of a gun chances are your survival is better.

Why should I even respond to that?

Seriously, if you're just going to talk crap, and respond like an idiot, why should I respond?

I only used alcohol as a comparison because many, many people die from alcohol related accidents each year. Here in Canada, more die from alcohol related accidents than they do from gun-crimes.

Well you're not going to solve this by adding more alcohol to the equation, right? Just like you're not going to solve gun crimes by adding more guns? So why not 'ban' alcohol, just like you want to 'ban' guns...especially assault rifles and handguns, and presto, all alcohol related crime is gone. Or not....because there exists this thing called the black-market....and it will ALWAYS exist, no matter how many laws you pass, or how many bans you impose.

Therefore, your only solution is like Thunderball said. You try to dictate the demand. Teach someone to not drink and drive, like they did while I was in school, and most of us won't. Teach us about gun safety, and you'll seriously cut down on accidental crimes. You will NOT EVER stop gun related crime. A criminal has the personality of breaking the law, not obeying it. Therefore he will pass his gun in to the police when you impose a gun ban.

Look at the Swiss....their young men are all brought up in the vicinity of firearms. They train with them for a certain amount of time. How much gun related crime do they have?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You may have a point with handguns (though that is very debatable), but anybody in this country who needs an assault rifle to defend himself is a criminal to begin with and wouldn't be a "law abiding citizen" anyway.

I agree. Plus, you can't possibly defend yourself with an assault rifle, unless someone breaks into your house and you chase them away.

Certain danger, eh? Your life would be better if you spent that loot on a shrink who specializes in paranoia or, barring that, a realtor to sell your house so you can move to a place that you aren't so scared of.

Well that is exactly why I choose not to live in a city.

[Azure]

You want to defend yourself, take a karate class. Guns have nothing to do with defense and everything to do wth assault and accidents.

Good idea. You should sell your strategy to the police as well.

Seriously, that is the dumbest most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

[Daradon]

^^^ The major cities in Canada esp Calgary and Toronto are actually far safer than towns and outlying rural areas.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Good idea. You should sell your strategy to the police as well.

Seriously, that is the dumbest most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Thank you. (yeah corrolating the obvious link between guns and accidens is ignorant. So is bringing up that more people are accidentlally killed with guns, then 'protected by them')

I have the stats to back it up too just previous of that post, if you want to look at the link.

[worth]

Of course, as someone who lives in a society where guns are largely frowned upon, where handguns and assault rifles are largely illegal, I'm not surprised.

Just wanted to point out that this is a huge misconception. I'd say, yeah, guns are frowned upon here, but even most Canadians are unaware at what is legal and not. Generally speaking I can own most rifles, shotguns and handguns, as long as they are not fully automatic. .25 and .32 caliber handguns are prohibited, but I cna pretty much buy any other handgun with a barrel length of over 4".

Some rifles have been deemed prohibited, but if I want an AR-15 (civilian version of M-16) a Canadian with a PAL license can get one no problem.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Thank you. (yeah corrolating the obvious link between guns and accidens is ignorant. So is bringing up that more people are accidentlally killed with guns, then 'protected by them')

I have the stats to back it up too just previous of that post, if you want to look at the link.

I'm not aligning with either side here, but can you explain to me how being proficient in some form of martial arts will keep you from being shot?

[worth]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I would however, I prefer to get my data from a page that doesn't have H. Clinton in an awkward pose saying 'she said WHAT?'

Just noticed your one cited source was guncontrol.ca. It's a two way street here man.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Thank you. (yeah corrolating the obvious link between guns and accidens is ignorant. So is bringing up that more people are accidentlally killed with guns, then 'protected by them')

I have the stats to back it up too just previous of that post, if you want to look at the link.

I don't care about stats.

What I care about is 'why' people kill each other with guns. Is it because more guns exist, or because they grew up in a more violent society?

Are we going to worry about the demand, and teaching our kids that killing people is wrong, just like drinking and driving is wrong, or are we going to ban guns and alcohol and hope for the best?

Seriously, by saying that guns are ONLY used....here...this is what you said..

Guns have nothing to do with defense

Again, the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I don't even know what to say.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

Just wanted to point out that this is a huge misconception. I'd say, yeah, guns are frowned upon here, but even most Canadians are unaware at what is legal and not. Generally speaking I can own most rifles, shotguns and handguns, as long as they are not fully automatic. .25 and .32 caliber handguns are prohibited, but I cna pretty much buy any other handgun with a barrel length of over 4".

Some rifles have been deemed prohibited, but if I want an AR-15 (civilian version of M-16) a Canadian with a PAL license can get one no problem.

Yeah my mistake.

I just read through a link explaining that.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Oh...and a month ago, this would've never made the front page of cnn.com.

I think six people being mowed down would make the front page anytime.

Now . . if it was three, maybe not. Six definitely.

Cowperson

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Here you go.

Canada has a rate of homicide at 1.83 murders per 100,000. The U.S. has a rate of 6.62 per 100,000 as of 1998.

For firearm related murders Canada is at 0.5 per 100,000, the U.S is at 4.4 as of 1998. (I have newer rates from both countries but not in the same study, so I went with this one.)

Not even close man.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/The...unControl.html

And the recent activities are showing the U.S. is getting worse for firearm deaths. Canada has actualy stayed pretty level.

The murder rate is almost 4 times higher in the states and the murder rate with guns is 9 TIMES HIGHER!

9 times. So no, it's not just population and ratios. This is already divided up into ratios. This is 9 times more at the same 100,000.

I addressed that like 2 pages ago that they were not accurate numbers, nor were they pretending to be. It was supposed to show that due to sheer size differential alone, they will have a lot more.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't care about stats.

What I care about is 'why' people kill each other with guns. Is it because more guns exist, or because they grew up in a more violent society?

Are we going to worry about the demand, and teaching our kids that killing people is wrong, just like drinking and driving is wrong, or are we going to ban guns and alcohol and hope for the best?

Seriously, by saying that guns are ONLY used....here...this is what you said..



Again, the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I don't even know what to say.

I never said anyting about banning alcohol. alcohol may cause accidents, but it isn't used to outrght kill people, big difference.

Yes we should teach people. But the fact of the matter is, and the situation shows it, that guns help people kill too easily, to indiscrimintely.

Guns were made to kill. Alcohol wasn't. Huge difference.

And when was the last time you used your gun for defence? Even if you have (cause I feel a story coming on here) the fact is most are not and it's the biggest red hering in the whole argument.

The second ammendment gives one the right to bear arms. If you look at it closely, it says nothing about guns. In fact, it doesn't saymuch about how people take it now.

But if arms means weapons, dos that mean you have the right to weapons grade plutonium?

And I'd prefer it if you didn't attack me by saying 'this is the dumbest and most ignornat thing ever.'

If you got a point make it.

P.S. very sorry that you hate stats...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I think six people being mowed down would make the front page anytime.

Now . . if it was three, maybe not. Six definitely.

Cowperson

I'm not so sure....and they weren't mowed down...only two seriously hurt.

I think the events of the last month have made them eager to post anything remotely close to being 'another Virginia Tech' as quickly as possible.

You could be right though.

I know we've had 2 quadruple murders in Wichita since I moved here and neither one made national headlines.