Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
Oh God here we go. The grammar police! Do you want to discuss the topic at hand, or do you want to check my homework?
I speak three languages. How many do you speak?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
Oh God here we go. The grammar police! Do you want to discuss the topic at hand, or do you want to check my homework?
I speak three languages. How many do you speak?
The matter at hand is not your grammar. What does it matter how many languages, you don't need to prove anything to me. Your words in no matter what language tell the full story.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMaga
Here's a fact. It will happen again and soon.
Ok not literally a fact, but these are;
153 Americans were shot that day, the Annual score is approaching 100,000. You are 42 times more likely to be shot in America, than Britain. Etc.. etc...etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
Point Blank!
Gun related crime may have fell, but (off the top of my head, I don't have the facts right on hand) violent crime and theft in general has soared. In fact, ignore what I said about not having the facts on hand, I just googled it and it's easy enough to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Do you not find it strange that when the strict gun laws were added, violent crime rose in general? That's because an unarmed target is an easy target, and criminals have very little to fear.
Now, as heartless as this may sound, I really don't believe all these gun massacres are hugely important in the discussion. Sure, they're big and get all the media attention, but do they really make up the majority of gun murders in the world?
I have a feeling America will be pretty high up the Violent crimes league as well. A good point though, its all about perception and fears. Its a vicious cycle, you fear guns so you arm yourself, and the next man arms himself because he fears you, and so on.
I think the massacres are significant because the victims are always random and innocent, They demonstrate that no one is safe.
Do you not find it strange that when the strict gun laws were added, violent crime rose in general? That's because an unarmed target is an easy target, and criminals have very little to fear.
You make the statement as if in response to gun control, violent crime has risen which is incorrect and has no foundation. Googling the rising statistics of violent crime doesn't prove a correlation between the two, it only serves to reinforce your belief that society would be safer with guns.
So, you respond by claiming he is incorrect even though your statement has no foundation and you provide no evidence to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
That said, in the US at least, there is a strong correlation between strict gun control laws and high crime. On the other hand, allowing civilian concealed carry has been shown to lower crime rates precisely because criminals are scared of targets that can defend themselves. And yes, in many countries (England as an example) violent crimes of all kinds have been on the rise ever since gun control laws were put into place and criminals make it quite clear when captured that they're taking advantage of people who are unable to defend themselves. Come to think of it, criminals in the US do the same when they've just shot up a gun-free zone.
Googling any statistics proves nothing except what the googler wants them to prove. However, while I don't think society would be safer with guns, I certainly would. In fact I have an air pistol that I bought to scare pigeons from the garden; it's within legal limits but it would do significant damage to an intruder if fired at close range to the head. That's why I keep it handy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
So now the solution is to relax those laws we implemented after Port Arthur and we will see a sharp decline in general crime and less violence?
Great logic.
Careful with stats. I was caught out by "shootings" rather than "killings" this morning. However according to three different sites, violent crime is down by about 9% in Britain , but the perception is that it is up.
That sounds like the kind of *BS* the NRA puts out. Gun control of some form or other has existed in the UK since 1870. Has there been an increase in violent crime in UK during that period? I don't have access to crime statistics that go that far back but more recent statistics suggest that violent crime is decreasing (there was a peak period in 1995). See the BCS report here: http://www.usak.org.tr/istanbul/files/bcs25.pdf and the Home Office report here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...11?view=BinaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark Star
Notable extracts:
Also, when you're referring to 'violent crime' what exactly do you include in that spectrum? The BCS statistics referred to include 'pushing and shoving' as a 'violent crime' and will include crimes which do not result in an injury to the person. For example, assault in the law of England & Wales is a 'violent crime' and would be recorded as such, but for a person to be assaulted they only need to be put in fear, they do not need to have been physically touched. Around half of violent crime resulted in injury (so around half didn't). From the report:Quote:
The BCS shows that the number of violent incidents increased gradually through the 1980s and then increased sharply after 1991 to reach a peak in the mid 1990s. The number of incidents then showed steep decreases in the late 1990s. Since then, despite non-statistically significant year-on year changes, there has been an overall decline. Comparing 2010/11 with 1995, the number of violent incidents has fallen by around one half (47%) and is at a similar level to 1981. In the 2010/11 BCS, there were nearly two million fewer incidents and around 750,000 fewer victims compared with the 1995 BCS (Figure 3.1 and Table 2.01).
On the subject of firearms:Quote:
According to the 2010/11 BCS, there were an estimated 1,211,000 incidents of violence with injury, accounting for just over one half (55%) of all violent incidents. There have been no statistically significant changes in levels of violence with injury estimated by the BCS in recent years (Table 2.01). Within this category, there was a 38 per cent increase in assault with minor injury, though this was preceded by small fluctuations in recent years with levels of these offences returning to those seen in 2006/07 (Figure 3.2).5 This seems to go against the general downward trend seen since levels of these offences peaked in 1995, and the current trend is uncertain.
Offences with injury accounted for nearly one half (45%) of all police recorded violence against the person offences in 2010/11.6 The police recorded 368,647 violence against the
person offences that involved injury in 2010/11, eight per cent less than in 2009/10, and the lowest figure since the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS)7 in April 2002 (Table 2.04).
The last gun control law passed in UK banned private ownership of handguns, following the tragedy of the Dunblane massacre. This law was passed in 1997. From both sources of crime data (BCS & Home Office) there are no indications that following the implementation of this particular gun control measure there has been an increase in other forms of violent crime. In fact the opposite appears to be true. And I think that trying to correlate other types of violent crime to gun control is a bit flawed in any event as the picture is always more complex than that (for example economics can play a large factor). Measuring the effect that gun control has had on gun related crime is probably as far as you can really take it.Quote:
Provisional statistics for 2010/11 are available for police recorded crimes involving the use of firearms other than air weapons (referred to as ‘firearm offences’ in the remainder of this section). Firearms are taken to be involved in an incident if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used in a threat. Finalised figures are planned for publication in January 2012.
Provisional figures show that 7,006 firearm offences were recorded in England and Wales in 2010/11, a 13 per cent decrease from 2009/10 (8,052). Of the firearm offences recorded in 2010/11, 55 resulted in fatal injury, compared with 40 recorded in 2009/10. The 55 fatal injuries recorded in 2010/11 includes the 12 people killed by Derrick Bird in June 2010 (Table 3.05).
Following the introduction of the NCRS in April 2002, there were small increases in the number of firearm offences recorded by the police until they peaked at 11,088 in 2005/06. Since the peak, there has been a 37 per cent decrease (Figure 3.3 and Tables 3.05 and 3.06). This mirrors the trend in overall police recorded violence against the person.
Delta as odd as it may seem to you, yes it could.
The stricter gun laws were a knee-jerk reaction in response to the shooting, and as a result violent crime has on the whole increased - there is more rape, assault and robbery. Murder rates have gone down by 31.9% though, that proves the gun ban worked, right? Well, murder rates have also gone down by 31.7% in the USA, so stricter gun laws can't be the reason for this (well, I admit they could, but it proves it is also possible without a gun ban).
Main Source: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
Agreed to both^
Suffice it to say, we are a species capable of great violence by any means.
A few random recent examples:
Fertilizer bomb in Oklahoma 1994 168 killed
Vehicle in China 2010 17 killed
Guns in Britain 2010 12 killed
Guns and bomb in Switzerland 2001 14 killed
Bombs and guns in Norway 2011 77 killed
Guns in Germany 2009 15 killed
Knives in Japan 2001 8 killed
Gas on train in Japan 1995 13 killed
Setting fire to a train in Korea 2003 198 killed
Etc., etc., …
This helps put the bigger picture in perspective - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way”
---------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Or feral hogs down here.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
http://www.outdooralabama.com/oaonline/feralhogs09.cfm
The feral hogs have wreaked much havoc on the agricultural industry and therefore have become a popular game for hunters and they do make a decent sausage. I haven’t hunted them myself, but I do have a standing invitation at my sister’s place to help out if I care to. I understand they are tough brutes requiring a higher caliber with more punch.
I have my doubts that a .22 will do much other than make them angry, but a 1943 Smith Corona 03-A3 will do the trick.
.
As the last few posts on this subject has shown, different sets of statistics show opposite results. One of the main, but not the only, reasons that statistics cannot be relied upon is that they obviously only record reported crimes. Therefore it cannot be known, at any given time, how many people have been the subject of a criminal act. It is a known fact that many crimes go unreported as witness this extract from a BBC report on the subject dated 2006:
The independent review, commissioned by former home secretary Charles Clarke, says recorded crime data - police crime figures - ignore the 60% of offences that go unreported.
The reason for the public 'perception' of criminality that contradicts the official version is clearly illustrated in this observation from the review:
Review chairman Professor Adrian Smith said: "It's very important that the public trusts crime statistics."
He said if you had statistics the public perceived to be in conflict with their experiences or that left out whole areas of criminal activity, then their confidence and trust were undermined.
"I have my doubts that a .22 will do much other than make them angry, but a 1943 Smith Corona 03-A3 will do the trick."
What? I know those typewriters are heavy, but..
haha- No; throwing a typewriter wouldn't do much good either.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Out of respect for this thread, I'll swing by the Dreary Beery and share a couple of pics.
Nice way to back peddle... Perhaps next time instead of attacking someone's grammar, which is clearly a form of insecurity, you should stick to the topic at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
How 'bout metal detectors, coded gates, video surveillance and guards at schools? AND tighter gun control. The people fighting so hard against better tests, licensing regulations and fees are the most terrifying to me. If you want easy access guns at all times, and if you want psychos to be able to access guns just as easily, there might be something severely wrong with you.
Now there is something I do agree with Varenne. Better tests, more security, that I would support. But not the outright ban of certain weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
I think I owe Mr Rumfield an apology. He is exactly right, that is one of the main reasons why the 2nd amendment exists. For insurrection against a tyrannical Government. To have that written into your constitution must be very effecting.
Good point Pren. Couple stats with perception and who knows what the truth is. Under these circumstances, it's best to stick to one's own.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
This is what I get for talking about this stuff. My google ads are now for things like "Concealed weapons courses." Sigh.
Flowers, music, art, love, pandas, tigers, lions, invention, science, discovery, magic, beauty, feeling, books, peace, wisdom, words. Process that, action software.
Just heard President's speech, Will anything change? Politicians are only effective when going with the flow.
I can't deny that the case for cause and effect is not watertight, you can't say that guns cause massacres, but you can say they facilitate them. Perhaps a small start is needed, something within the terms of the second ammendment. Perhaps on the type of weapon, like they did in Australia. People need to realise that owning a gun is a great responsibility.
All I know is that I don't want to live here anymore. The response among my friends and family has been to proclaim passionately that they are going out to buy more guns.
The gunman's mother was a gun enthusiast who made him go shooting with her. He didn't want to. She bragged about it. The reaction from the US community has been shocking. This is grotesque. All of it.
From The Onion (El Sancho’s favorite news source)
Sometimes, it seems to me, satire gets at social issues better than serious news, just as good fiction gets at history better than, well, history.Quote:
WASHINGTON—In the wake of yesterday’s gruesome mass shooting that claimed the lives of 27 people, including 20 schoolchildren, the United States ratified a new constitutional amendment this afternoon guaranteeing American citizens the right to live life in a perpetual state of abject horror. “The provisions of the 28th Amendment will fully protect the right of all individuals to spend every waking moment utterly terrified at the thought of a deranged stranger with a semiautomatic combat rifle gunning them down,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), explaining that the measure also permits Americans to suffer panic attacks anytime their loved ones go to work, school, malls, or virtually any other public location. “In addition, the new amendment prevents the government from ever infringing on a citizen’s inalienable right to lie awake at night visualizing the images of crying children being ushered out of a school and wondering where it could happen next.” The new amendment comes on the heels of numerous other proposed changes to U.S. law, including a highly contested bill that would protect the right of Americans to ignore a widespread, deadly problem until it is far too late.
I think this shooting may be a debate changer in the United States. And, in my humble opinion, it’s been a long time coming. (Don’t give up on us yet, Varenne. We need your voice)
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
"Let’s see, what else… oh, then there’s the “rebellion” argument. You know, how we need guns in case the government ever becomes tyrannical (or because it apparently is, in the eyes of alarmists). Because clearly, if the government ever did actually become tyrannical (as opposed to providing healthcare), you would surely be able to fend off stealth bombers dropping bombs on you from 40,000 feet with handguns, and your assault rifle is really going to chip the paint off their tanks."
Sure we may laugh now, but during the second world war my great-uncle was a partigiano and with a few pistols rifles and improvised explosives they managed to do a hell of a job despite all of Mussolini's Fiat made Bomber and Fighter planes and all those Armored cars and tanks. Remarkable how difficult it is for a government to suppress violent revolutionaries with its great technologically advanced weapons, particularly because if that tank or that bomber accidentally hits a family home instead of a partigiano, the next day the Partigiani had a whole neighborhood of new young men as recruits.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMaga
Most of the technological advanced made by armies are effective when fighting wars on soldiers, for fighting against civillian rebels, as we have seen in Iraqe and Afganistan those great weapons of mass destruction are rendered useless exactly because they are weapons of mass destruction rather than accurate destruction. Killing more civillians then rebels has historically never suppressed a revolution.
An interesting comment because it mirrors what is happening in Syria now. The government has been perceived as tyrannical by a section of the Syrian public and despite the fact that the government has a modern arsenal of planes tanks and heavy weapons, the rebels are fighting them to a standstill. I have no interest in who's victorious but it does demonstrate that it isn't necessarily those with the biggest guns who win. Another consideration, if a similar situation were to prevail in the USA, is the reliability of the military: for although the President is the commander in chief, it's a constitutional requirement that could be ignored if a sufficient number of the armed forces felt it necessary to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMaga
I'm just gonna point out that all those bombs and advanced weaponry have in the past been proved to be ineffective in fighting a guerilla force. Take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, damn near every war the US has been in recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMaga
And Varenne, the point about his mother being a gun enthusiast is really the stupidest thing I've heard. His mother liked shooting guns, which is why he snapped and butchered a bunch of kids? Yeah, right.
EDIT: Oh, looks like two other people got there before me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I appreciate how Lamaga's post sparked the same and instantaneous train of thought in all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
Volya, that is not what I said at all, but I don't think the answer to the gun problem is for everyone to go out and buy more guns. My friends are talking about arming and training their kids with firearms ASAP. This is my personal experience with the reaction to this tragedy. If you don't like it, the mob might be who you want to talk to.
People have been saying we should look at the shooter's mental health and his upbringing instead of just talking about gun control. I do think it's pertinent information that he was a straight A student, a nerdy guy who liked sci-fi and video games, and in the last five or six months of his life, his mother made him go shoot things when he didn't want to. He shot her to death before he left the house to kill those kids. He wasn't connected to the school. All of the adults he killed were women. These are huge points of interest to me in trying to determine motive. If you want to dismiss or discard any of it, you're free to do so. I will not be training my children to blow people away. Keep directing your anger at me if you want to. I won't be angry back. :)
I wonder whether it is more of a mental thing than a legal thing? I'll admit I am to some extent making suppositions, given my status as an observer from across the pond, but it seems to me that the gun culture in America is too celebratory generally. There seems to be a trend, certainly in the American media that makes it over here, that guns are cool and macho - and ownership of them seems so blazé as to make a Brit seem shocked. One of my dearest friends is a bubbly, happy, sweet-natured, very Catholic Texan girl, who nevertheless frequently claims to miss the revolver she habitually carried in her handbag over there, and loves telling the story of the time her sweet old mother machinegunned a rattlesnake in the back yard. It scares the hell out of me.
I own a .22 air rifle, just about the most powerful thing you can own without a licence here in Britain - and I'm a damn good marksman with it. But I treat it with care and respect, and use it only for the purpose for which it was purchased, which is shooting vermin. I would never, never shoot a fellow human being with it.
Ultimately, I don't think legal action is the solution, or perhaps not the complete solution - the strict gun-control measures brought in over here following the Dunblane massacre did nothing to stop, say, Raoul Moat or Derrick Bird. I think first and foremost there needs to be a change in the way guns are percieved. Only then will the situation improve.
Oh, and the guns he used were registered to his mother. All of them obtained legally. She was described as "an avid gun collector and enthusiast."
To the people claiming criminals are the ones we need to watch out for if we impose stricter gun rules; most mass shootings are carried out with legally procured and registered weapons. I'm not going to be intimidated into becoming a thug to defend myself against other thugs in a thug world. Please yourselves.
I agree. The people here get into frenzies. I've heard several say that they wish the gunman was still alive so that they could torture him to death. They say they wish he could have been given to the families to be torn apart. The pack mentality is horrendous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Thank you, Sancho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
I'm just gonna point out that all those bombs and advanced weaponry have in the past been proved to be ineffective in fighting a guerilla force. Take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, damn near every war the US has been in recently.
Unfortunately this... and similar comments reveal an absolute ignorance of history and warfare. The only reason the US forces didn't obliterate the Vietnamese or the Iraqis is because the goal was to win the hearts and minds of the enemy... or so the theory goes. In reality, the aim was to defeat the enemy with the least possible casualties in order not to outrage the international community... and especially our allies. There was no such thinking involved in WWII... or in the American Civil War where Sherman unleashed the concept of "total war" upon American Confederate civilians and military alike. You might want to examine just how well the passionate and motivated Confederate forces did... even with the help of brilliant generals... against the vastly superior technological/industrial might of the American north. And please tell me just how well the Germans eventually held out against the allied dominance of the air. Or just look more recently at Waco, Texas. A couple bumpkins from Idaho and Colorado armed with semi-automatics are not going to last against a division of attack helicopters, heavy armor, and the highly trained troops of the US military if they are given the go ahead to use whatever force necessary. How long do you imagine the Vietnam War would have lasted had the US employed the same sort of carpet bombing used during WWII?
The idea that we need weapons in order to protect ourselves against our own government is unrealistic in this current age... but I guess there are more than a few who feel that any number of children murdered each year is a small price to pay in order to still their personal paranoia concerning the statistically insignificant chance that they may be the victim of some violent attack in their quiet suburban home on the open range... or that the government might decide to begin rounding up all those who who voted the wrong way.
Luke; That being said, do you really think the government would employ such measures on their own people? After all, there's no point ruling a country if your populace is dead/can't work.
I agree with Varenne and others that the real issue here is a mental one. If we seek to stop any kind of evil, the root cause we should be looking at is WHY these people do it, not just taking away the tools they use, especially when said tools can in fact be used for good (and in this I mean everything, not just guns). If we can work out why these things happen, we can try and single out the people who are going to do it, predict when an attack could occur, and work out a way to prevent people from becoming like this.
You're living in la la land Volya. Prevention is better than cure so what is the problem with gun control, including banning of some weaponry? It is going to be far more effective than trying to gaze into a crystal ball and predict who out of millions of people is going to blow away a bunch of innocent people. You're speaking in all or nothing terms Volya. People are proposing more responsible laws and a social change in attitude toward guns. They're not saying the US should be a gun free country.
You’re Welcome, and Thank You.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
And just so everybody knows exactly what’s being debated - it's the 2nd amendment to the U.S Constitution. It says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It’s a simple statement, also a maddeningly ambiguous one.
The first ten amendments are known as The Bill of Rights, designed to guarantee the natural rights of the citizens, and were a condition for the ratification of the Constitution by the States, way back then.