OT: 27 Killed, 18 elementary school students shot dead CON

[BOOMbip]

Upon closer examination of the data I was reading about last night I guess the number of deaths by firearm I mentioned were being classified as homicides and that accounts for 40% of all deaths with suicide being the leading firearm death and accounts for 55% of all firearm deaths. Also DUI accident deaths account for 30% of all vehicle accident deaths. These are US numbers.

This morning in an attempt to verify my statements I stumbled across this website that a ton of data on guns, gun control, crime... just so much it's almost too much to read and digest I haven't read even a fraction of it yet. Although I noted that some of the surveys and data is outdated or collected many years and in some cases decades ago even if the page has been revised as recently this month.

I'm still trying to find some information I was seeking this morning, which is how many of the homicides, not suicides, are committed with legally registered guns by the legally registered owners and/or how many are committed by people who are not the legal owners and/or not legally permitted to carry a gun. If any other stat sleuth feels the urge to help find that I would appreciate it I think the discussion would benefit from it.

[adrenaLINe]

the number is around 30000 a year killed by gun violence in the USA every year....

does it matter it is by accident, suicide, or murder or the hands of the police?

[Thugger HBC]

the number is around 30000 a year killed by gun violence in the USA every year....

does it matter it is by accident, suicide, or murder or the hands of the police?

Nope, it shouldn't matter..one is too much.

The key is to find solutions which can bring that number down over time, because the problem is not likely to go away in it's entirety.

[BOOMbip]

Well if eliminating something because of one death is the goal then we need to do exactly as I said before. Ban cars along with guns because one death is too many, right? Since context is something that is too much for people to grasp and doesn't matter anyway. While we are at it we need to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, fast food, prescription drugs.... heck even trampolines. Because one death is too many.... and accidents happen so we need to protect people from themselves....

I came across another stat on that site as I was trying to sift through all the data. In the US about a million times a year armed citizens protect themselves or thwart a crime all of types with a gun. I believe that's just private citizens not including law enforcement or security personnel.

[ShaolinAssAsin]

Well if eliminating something because of one death is the goal then we need to do exactly as I said before. Ban cars along with guns because one death is too many, right? Since context is something that is too much for people to grasp and doesn't matter anyway. While we are at it we need to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, fast food, prescription drugs.... heck even trampolines. Because one death is too many.... and accidents happen so we need to protect people from themselves....

I just dont get this argument. Does anyo one think that guns have the positive utility of cars or perscription meds? Iant it silly to really try to equate them?

It isnt a stretch to call a gun an instrument of death. It has a very low positive utility, and a huge potential negative effect.....the deaths and all...

To me its obvious guns carry far more trouble than they're worth on the whole. Ive yet to come across a solid line of reasoning that yields 'Thus, guns are good for us all'.

Im not even trying to be argumentative. I really dont get the the rationale, from a perspective of the best interests of society at large.

[Thugger HBC]

Well if eliminating something because of one death is the goal then we need to do exactly as I said before. Ban cars along with guns because one death is too many, right? Since context is something that is too much for people to grasp and doesn't matter anyway. While we are at it we need to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, fast food, prescription drugs.... heck even trampolines. Because one death is too many.... and accidents happen so we need to protect people from themselves....

I came across another stat on that site as I was trying to sift through all the data. In the US about a million times a year armed citizens protect themselves or thwart a crime all of types with a gun. I believe that's just private citizens not including law enforcement or security personnel.

Sounds like you can't understand context.

No one is talking about accidental death, which does occur behind the wheel of a car, unless you can find data that plainly states how many people actually use cars, and fast food with the purpose of killing people.

Even as a law enforcement official, i know guns sole purpose to is to critically injure....as protection, you'll eventually have to use it.

Cars, medicine, fast food doesn't have that primary intent and to compare the two is just dumbing down conversation.

[Knicks_Fan2]

Well if eliminating something because of one death is the goal then we need to do exactly as I said before. Ban cars along with guns because one death is too many, right? Since context is something that is too much for people to grasp and doesn't matter anyway. While we are at it we need to eliminate alcohol, tobacco, fast food, prescription drugs.... heck even trampolines. Because one death is too many.... and accidents happen so we need to protect people from themselves....

I came across another stat on that site as I was trying to sift through all the data. In the US about a million times a year armed citizens protect themselves or thwart a crime all of types with a gun. I believe that's just private citizens not including law enforcement or security personnel.

Sounds like you can't understand context.

No one is talking about accidental death, which does occur behind the wheel of a car, unless you can find data that plainly states how many people actually use cars, and fast food with the purpose of killing people.

Even as a law enforcement official, i know guns sole purpose to is to critically injure....as protection, you'll eventually have to use it.

Cars, medicine, fast food doesn't have that primary intent and to compare the two is just dumbing down conversation.

Not to mention the positive utility associated with those products. You always have to balance utility v. risk of harm. Here, I just don't understand what the utility is in widespread proliferation of guns.

[BOOMbip]

It doesn't matter about purpose, it matters just in results. Things result in deaths means that what the purpose isn't the concern when just one death is too many.... can't have it both ways now. It doesn't matter that a million times a year an American citizen legally protects with a gun... it matters that someone illegally uses a gun to kill an innocent even once so the right of everyone needs to be trampled to protect. I'm with you on it. All of it needs to go, I'm tired of hundreds of thousands of people dieing a year because they don't know how to responsibly use things so we need to protect them from themselves even the ones who responsibly know how to use them.

[ShaolinAssAsin]

It doesn't matter about purpose, it matters just in results. Things result in deaths means that what the purpose isn't the concern when just one death is too many.... can't have it both ways now. It doesn't matter that a million times a year an American citizen legally protects with a gun... it matters that someone illegally uses a gun to kill an innocent even once so the right of everyone needs to be trampled to protect. I'm with you on it. All of it needs to go, I'm tired of hundreds of thousands of people dieing a year because they don't know how to responsibly use things so we need to protect them from themselves even the ones who responsibly know how to use them.

The argument about the RIGHT to arms is a better one.

To equate gun death with choking on candy or some other perfectly normal behavior that results in death is almost intellectualy dishonest. Completely skirts the issue. Its not a logical rebuttle.

[ShaolinAssAsin]

Isnt it obvious having less guns around would benefit more than harm society? Speaking strictly of the positive/negative value of them?

[Thugger HBC]

It doesn't matter about purpose, it matters just in results. Things result in deaths means that what the purpose isn't the concern when just one death is too many.... can't have it both ways now. It doesn't matter that a million times a year an American citizen legally protects with a gun... it matters that someone illegally uses a gun to kill an innocent even once so the right of everyone needs to be trampled to protect. I'm with you on it. All of it needs to go, I'm tired of hundreds of thousands of people dieing a year because they don't know how to responsibly use things so we need to protect them from themselves even the ones who responsibly know how to use them.

A gun has the sole purpose of the result of a kill, that is it's design and purpose.

Sure, you can only injury slightly or brandish as a deterrent, but it's purpose unlike some of the items you mentioned to to inflict a deadly blow.

When I state "one is too many:, it's merely a term to magnitude of consequence, but yes.... things definitely need to change, to hopefully lower the number, as there is no solution to the problem.

These aren't "crazies" who are committing these crimes, these are more times than not ordinary, everyday, yet at one frame of time escapes being sane.

Gun control, banning and tightening up the requirements don't eliminate the issue in entirety.

Most people have a moment when they would "click", but limiting the number of those who carry out their plans the only way to start.

[Thugger HBC]

Isnt it obvious having less guns around would benefit more than harm society? Speaking strictly of the positive/negative value of them?

Of course it would, doubt anyone is stating otherwise.

But do you think less guns would lower these type of killings? I don't.

It may lower the lower one on one types, but not the mass ones.

The mass ones will be committed by using another method even without the restrictions of guns.

Alot of these killings are done by persons who would normally qualify to own.

[ShaolinAssAsin]

But the whole 'ban cars' is facetious anyway. You dont really feel like that, but I wonder if people really feel like these kinds of statements carry validity?

For real b? Cars?

[BOOMbip]

I'm simply using the logic that people want to apply to the gun debate to everything to show exactly how shallow it is. I haven't found the data I was looking for to learn but I would guess that the majority of homicides in the US come from people not legally in possession of a legal gun. So restricting how people legally obtain guns isn't going to solve the issue. It's restricting how people without legal restrictions sell guns to people who do not have legal right to possess them and increase those criminal penalties so that it's a deterrent to do it.

Making it harder for citizens to legally possess gun has never helped lower crime or murder rates but allowing them legal access to them has actually lowered crime and murder rates. If we can make it prohibitive to legal owners to sell it to people who are not legally allowed to possess a gun we will be able to make an impact on decreasing criminal acts with a gun. That's why the talk of 'gun control' need to not be on limiting guns to people who can legally possess them, but restricting the unregulated sale or transfer of them to those that legally can't possess them.

[BOOMbip]

Isnt it obvious having less guns around would benefit more than harm society? Speaking strictly of the positive/negative value of them?

Of course it would, doubt anyone is stating otherwise.

But do you think less guns would lower these type of killings? I don't.

It may lower the lower one on one types, but not the mass ones.

The mass ones will be committed by using another method even without the restrictions of guns.

Alot of these killings are done by persons who would normally qualify to own.

Actually stats prove that people having legal access to guns lowers crime and murder. So it gives people who may not be able to defend themselves in strength by fighting off an attacker, namely women, children and the sick or elderly, the ability to defend themselves against violent criminals.

So in the hypothetical if all guns were gone and did not exists 'shooting deaths and crime' would disappear but not homicides and crime. In fact the strong would have an advantage over everyone and anyone who was not able to defend themselves.

Policing or more enforcement wouldn't change that.... they would only come take the report and clean up the blood after. As we have seen a lack of access to guns doesn't stop spree attacks from happening, just changes the methods and weapons. But not allowing people access to guns to defend themselves, 'gun free zones' and restrictive laws, allows people to go on rampage and spree killings with all sorts of methods and nobody is able to stop them.

So taking guns out of the hands of criminals or people not legally allowed to possess them should be the goal, not taking them out of the hands of responsible citizens.

[Thugger HBC]

Legally able or not, a person can get a firearm if they want one.

I don't equate a mass killing and a single murder in the same spectrum either.

These acts are not usually done by the same type of individual.

[HarthorneWingo]

British gun laws.

From The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexingto ... un-control

After a couple of horrible mass shootings in Britain, handguns and automatic weapons have been effectively banned. It is possible to own shotguns, and rifles if you can demonstrate to the police that you have a good reason to own one, such as target shooting at a gun club, or deer stalking, say. The firearms-ownership rules are onerous, involving hours of paperwork. You must provide a referee who has to answer nosy questions about the applicant's mental state, home life (including family or domestic tensions) and their attitude towards guns. In addition to criminal-record checks, the police talk to applicants’ family doctors and ask about any histories of alcohol or drug abuse or personality disorders.

Vitally, it is also very hard to get hold of ammunition. Just before leaving Britain in the summer, I had lunch with a member of parliament whose constituency is plagued with gang violence and drug gangs. She told me of a shooting, and how it had not led to a death, because the gang had had to make its own bullets, which did not work well, and how this was very common, according to her local police commander. Even hardened criminals willing to pay for a handgun in Britain are often getting only an illegally modified starter’s pistol turned into a single-shot weapon.

And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

I would also say, to stick my neck out a bit further, that I find many of the arguments advanced for private gun ownership in America a bit unconvincing, and tinged with a blend of excessive self-confidence and faulty risk perception.

I am willing to believe that some householders, in some cases, have defended their families from attack because they have been armed. But I also imagine that lots of ordinary adults, if woken in the night by an armed intruder, lack the skill to wake, find their weapon, keep hold of their weapon, use it correctly and avoid shooting the wrong person. And my hunch is that the model found in places like Japan or Britain—no guns in homes at all, or almost none—is on balance safer.

I would also add the background checks and psych profiles of anyone living in the same residence of the proposed gun purchaser.

[Thugger HBC]

Isnt it obvious having less guns around would benefit more than harm society? Speaking strictly of the positive/negative value of them?

Of course it would, doubt anyone is stating otherwise.

But do you think less guns would lower these type of killings? I don't.

It may lower the lower one on one types, but not the mass ones.

The mass ones will be committed by using another method even without the restrictions of guns.

Alot of these killings are done by persons who would normally qualify to own.

Actually stats prove that people having legal access to guns lowers crime and murder. So it gives people who may not be able to defend themselves in strength by fighting off an attacker, namely women, children and the sick or elderly, the ability to defend themselves against violent criminals.

So in the hypothetical if all guns were gone and did not exists 'shooting deaths and crime' would disappear but not homicides and crime. In fact the strong would have an advantage over everyone and anyone who was not able to defend themselves.

Policing or more enforcement wouldn't change that.... they would only come take the report and clean up the blood after. As we have seen a lack of access to guns doesn't stop spree attacks from happening, just changes the methods and weapons. But not allowing people access to guns to defend themselves, 'gun free zones' and restrictive laws, allows people to go on rampage and spree killings with nobody able to stop them.

So taking guns out of criminals or people not legally allowed to possess them should be the goal, not taking them out of the hands of responsible citizens.

Mass murders can happen and do without any form of firearm, it happens all the time.

The possession of the firearm make it easier to accomplish the task, but that same effect can be had WITHOUT the firearm.

There is already methods to prevent illegal gun sales, I'm sure it could be stricter.

But i do think it's really naive to think that these crimes are being done by folks who cannot legally obtain a gun.

[BOOMbip]

Exactly... criminals can get one if they want one, so why make restrictions to people who legally can own one and responsibly use them? You are just giving the criminal or the 'insane' the advantage and more ability to kill many more. Statistics support this.

Especially since it's a right that many cherish, and justifiably so in my mind for more reasons than just self defense. We need to look at the debate not as restricting the carrying of or from taking the guns out of the hands of legal responsible owners but making it harder for those who don't have the legal right to possess or irresponsibly use them.

[HarthorneWingo]

Exactly... criminals can get one if they want one, so why make restrictions to people who legally can own one and responsibly use them? You are just giving the criminal or the 'insane' the advantage and more ability to kill many more. Statistics support this.

Especially since it's a right that many cherish, and justifiably so in my mind for more reasons than just self defense. We need to look at the debate not as restricting the carrying of or from taking the guns out of the hands of legal responsible owners but making it harder for those who don't have the legal right to possess or irresponsibly use them.

This is nonsense. Doing nothing is not an option. "A right that people cherish ..." Huh? What's THAT supposed to mean? 9,000 deaths per year in the U.S. from gun violence. And you think that is a "cherished right"?