Another mass shooting in the U.S

Flier

MadsL wrote: »

If you are claiming that is due to gun control (I assume you are not though) then why is that not true for Chicago where the homicide rate has jumped by a third.

No, I'm not saying it's due to gun control. Just don't like to see mistruths posted as fact.

Wompa1

MadsL wrote: »

Switzerland for one, begs to differ.

I'm no expert when it comes to Switz laws but I'm pretty sure when I talked to a Swtiz guy they said he had to go to training...

books4sale

ray2012 wrote: »

People (mainly Americans themselves) that are completely against the banning (or stricter laws) on guns, I can't understand at all. We had the Colorado shooting not too long ago, and now this. When is it going to get into their minds that a ban on guns WOULD help .

Its easy to understand once you look into it.

The American people aren't in control of their country, I would have thought that was obvious at this stage, just look at the piss poor excuses for politicians that get voted in.

The American political system is contolled by corporations and that includes the powerful gun lobbies. Any politicians who stands against these sicko lobbies can kiss their careers goodbye.

You can be sure members of these lobbies won't bat an eyelid at these young kids being mowed down. They're a bunch of sick money grabbing bast*ards who wouldn't have an ounce of morality between the whole lot of them.

Suryavarman

kincsem wrote: »

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a historical list of countries by firearm-related
death-rate per 100,000 population in one year

...


I see Switzerland and Finland have high death rates.
In Finland there are 32 privately owned firearms per 100 civilians. By the end of 2006 there were more than 1.6 million licensed firearms.
In Switzerland the total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.

My guess is more guns result in more deaths.

Interesting that you bring that up. Only last week I threw together an excel spreadsheet comparing gun ownership and homicide rates for 156 different countries. Some countries are excluded because they either had homicide rates missing or because gun ownership rates were missing. The general relationship was that more guns were present in societies with less homicides. Homicide rates are taken from here and gun ownership rates are taken from here. The excel spreadsheet is at the bottom of the post.

uncleoswald

Suryavarman wrote: »

People are more likely to die in the US because it is a more violent country. There's no proof that it is because there are more guns.

Oh I agree, gun ownership does not in itself lead to higher gun crime. But the countries used as proof of this static are hardly comparable to the USA. I believe a tightening of gun laws is a more likely solution than the US suddenly resembling a Scandinavian country socially and economically. Australia might be a better example to follow:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate

China has been mentioned here an awful lot as proof that random acts of mass violence isn't an America only problem but the amount of fatalities aren't comparable at all. Something has to give in the US and I don't see any solutions from the pro gun lobby.



People also state that it's not legally owned guns causing the problem but where do they think the black market is getting the guns? From licensed sellers and owners.

http://goo.gl/AiEGB

MadsL

Wompa1 wrote: »

I'm no expert when it comes to Switz laws but I'm pretty sure when I talked to a Swtiz guy they said he had to go to training...

And after training he takes his weapon home and is part of a militia, is he not.

He is also free to buy more weapons.

wonderfullife

Suryavarman wrote: »

Interesting that you bring that up. Only last week I threw together an excel spreadsheet comparing gun ownership and homicide rates for 156 different countries. Some countries are excluded because they either had homicide rates missing or because gun ownership rates were missing. The general relationship was that more guns were present in societies with less homicides. Homicide rates are taken from here and gun ownership rates are taken from here. The excel spreadsheet is at the bottom of the post.

Surely a straight comparison between gun ownership and homicides is meaningless if the statistics are not broken down into the type of guns legally available.

Ireland according to that chart has 8.6/100 but you can bet your bottom dollar that these are not automatic/semi-automatic/high caliber guns. There's a vast difference between legal gun ownership by farmers, shooting enthusiasts etc to being able to legally own guns capable of killing 30 people in double quick time.

Thrill

shooting suspect wore "black battle fatigues, military vest," law enforcement source says

A Dub in Glasgo

What a fcuking bastrad

darced

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Source?

You as in america,I dont get personal on the interwebz.

Well, you did a good impersonation of starting getting personal.

I'm bowing out anyway it is natural for you to defend your own.

Now you are making a fool of yourself, as I am not American, and a bigger fool of yourself because you cannot back up your absurd exaggerations. Best to run off and hide, so. Any word on your view about war crimes?

wonderfullife

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What a fcuking bastrad

sadly true

Not defending anybody for a second but early reports suggest the shooter suffered mental illnesses (according to the facebook page of the shooters brother labelled him "developmentally disabled" whatever that means). May turn out he didnt get the help he needed.

People are right though in a sense that guns dont kill people and it's hard to stop every mentally unhinged person doing this - but having legally attainable high powered weapons sure makes it easier for people to commit these atrocities. I strongly doubt he kills 20 kids armed with a knife anyway.

Pique

I wonder if this will make the pro gun lobby change their tune wrt total availability of weapons because of the 200 year old constitution?

Manic Moran

statesaver wrote: »

Maybe since this is Obama's last 4 years and does not need votes he might make one final attempt to take on the gun lobby in the US.

No chance. It may be Obama's last four years, but the congresscritters who want to stay on beyond the next election who have to actually vote for the bill might have more long-term survival plans. The last time Congress tried an extensive firearms law saw the largest swing in Congressional history the next election: Went from very Democrat to Very Republican overnight. Clinton wasn't too pleased, in hindsight.

aloyisious wrote: »

Even though this might sound silly or illogical, there's a push by the Gun-owners lobby to have state laws banning concealed-weapons overturned, so that those with licensed fire-arms can carry weapons under their clothing. Some of the states have laws licensing licensed fire-arms owners to carry concealed weapons.

49 do. And as of this week, resulting from an opinion in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, #50 has 180 days to join the rest of the country.

Was the guy not Kevlared up to the teeth?

Apparently not. Though there were reports he was wearing a bullet-proof vest at the time, it seems he actually purchased a load bearing vest.

In previous school shootings, people have been armed with fully automatic guns

Name one. Since the passage of the National Firearms Act 1934, there have been precisely two murders known to have been committed with legally posessed automatic weapons in the US. One was a policeman using his issued weapon, the other was a guy in Florida in the 1980s, I can't recall off the top of my head who he shot.

All because they are afraid of their government ... can you believe this sh1t ? you could not make it up. The Land of the Free .... the Greatest Country in the World .... you know ... all the garbage they keep telling the rest of us ? Yet they are so afraid of their Government that they want everyone to have guns.

For the record, here's the applicable line in the Constitution in this case: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state" (Article 1, Section 15) Doesn't say anything directly about the oppressve government there, though I guess it can be considered as a subset of 'defense of himself'

The problem in this case is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. I don't know how difficult it is in America to repeal this, or get the sufficient support to do so. It's clear that it was brought in quite early in the history of the US - and was mainly to prevent against tyranny. The 2nd Amendment as it is currently understood would never consider that as an option

44 of the 50 States in the Union have a right to bear arms in their State Constitutions. Many of them, such as Connecticut's above, are very explicit in that it is an individual right for many purposes, others even more so. For example, in Delaware, it states "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use", or New Hampshire: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state"

There is somewhere more chance of my becoming the President of the United States than there is of a Constitutional right to arms being removed in the US at even the Federal level.

kincsem wrote: »

From Google.

The term militia, or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.

From US Law: (10 USC S311)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

MadYaker

This is horrific. Obama looked pretty shell shocked in his speech.

darced

This post has been deleted.

darced

This post has been deleted.

wonderfullife

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is very harsh and cynical.

He was genuinely upset and had no reason to "act". whatsoever. He has kids and has always struck me as a good hearted man.

A Dub in Glasgo

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You clearly have lived a sheltered life

ebbsy

Suryavarman wrote: »

And you have met over 150 million Americans to come to that conclusion?

Its scary that so many idiots could have access to guns.

Pique

Well the restriction on the ownership of weapons to bolt action rifles or non repeating weapons wouldn't be anti constitutional though. For the sake of future generations of America, I hope something is done.

MadsL

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I thought you didn't get personal?

90,000 people shot a year in the us not including suicides from various sources
works out at about 250 a day or 10 or so an hour.

No sources? How many die?

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

So 13k - so more like 250 a week not a day. Just a sevenfold exaggeration by you then.

Any word on those 13 mass shootings in the last 3 months?

What war crimes are you refering to?

The one where you were justifying bombing civilians in a pub.

Witcher

Pique wrote: »

Well the restriction on the ownership of weapons to bolt action rifles or non repeating weapons wouldn't be anti constitutional though. For the sake of future generations of America, I hope something is done.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 only targeted future sales, firearms that were already in private ownership were grandfathered so they were still in civilian hands. People in the US panic buy firearms, magazines and other accessories whenever there is talk of a ban so it's not like a ban will remove these items from their hands and shootings such as these will still happen regardless.

Pique

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a pathetic comment.
I'm a recent father in a country 3000 miles away and I was welling up watching the news.
You're a pretty heartless ****er if you mean that imo.

Suryavarman

uncleoswald wrote: »

Oh I agree, gun ownership does not in itself lead to higher gun crime. But the countries used as proof of this static are hardly comparable to the USA. I believe a tightening of gun laws is a more likely solution than the US suddenly resembling a Scandinavian country socially and economically. Australia might be a better example to follow:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

To quote from this blog post:

Here is the actual data from Australia. First note that homicides didn't fall until eight years after the laws. It is not clear what theory they have for why the long delay would occur. Nor can I even find an acknowledgment of that long lag in the cited literature.

And from a study cited in that blog post:

This paper takes a closer look at the effects
of the NFA on gun deaths. Using a battery of
structural break tests, there is little evidence to
suggest that it had any significant effects on
firearm homicides and suicides. In addition,
there also does not appear to be any substitution
effects—that reduced access to firearms
may have led those bent on committing homicide
or suicide to use alternative methods.

...

Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical
and sensible policy that helps to placate the
public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that
in the Australian context, the high expenditure
incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not
translated into any tangible reductions in
terms of firearm deaths.

China has been mentioned here an awful lot as proof that random acts of mass violence isn't an America only problem but the amount of fatalities aren't comparable at all. Something has to give in the US and I don't see any solutions from the pro gun lobby.

The solution the gun lobby proposes is that it should be easier for people to have concealed carry permits and help protect themselves in these situations and to prevent them from occurring in the first place.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Surely a straight comparison between gun ownership and homicides is meaningless if the statistics are not broken down into the type of guns legally available.

Ireland according to that chart has 8.6/100 but you can bet your bottom dollar that these are not automatic/semi-automatic/high caliber guns. There's a vast difference between legal gun ownership by farmers, shooting enthusiasts etc to being able to legally own guns capable of killing 30 people in double quick time.

The poster I was quoting claimed that more guns in a country resulted in more deaths. I showed the opposite.

Also there is no reason to assume that the guns that Irish people have access to couldn't be used to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time. If the shooter was skilled at reloading the weapon they could conceivably kill as many people as they wanted provided they can carry the amount of ammo required to do so.

cena

My heart goes out to all them parents of the kids. Also the kids not harmed well never be the same again.

ebbsy

God bless America. Muppets.

Suryavarman

Pique wrote: »

Well the restriction on the ownership of weapons to bolt action rifles or non repeating weapons wouldn't be anti constitutional though. For the sake of future generations of America, I hope something is done.

Yes it would. It was only found the other day that Chicago's ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

Pique wrote: »

That's a pathetic comment.
I'm a recent father in a country 3000 miles away and I was welling up watching the news.
You're a pretty heartless ****er if you mean that imo.

It's not an unfair comment to make. In his time in office, Obama has ordered many drone strikes which have resulted in the deaths of children. He also ordered the assassination of a 16 year old American. I don't think it's unfair to be cynical about the tears a man is shedding over the death of young children when he has in fact murdered children himself.

EZ24GET

wonderfullife wrote: »

sadly true

Not defending anybody for a second but early reports suggest the shooter suffered mental illnesses (according to the facebook page of the shooters brother labelled him "developmentally disabled" whatever that means). May turn out he didnt get the help he needed.

People are right though in a sense that guns dont kill people and it's hard to stop every mentally unhinged person doing this - but having legally attainable high powered weapons sure makes it easier for people to commit these atrocities. I strongly doubt he kills 20 kids armed with a knife anyway.

There are gun control laws in existence which should prevent some one who is mentally disabled from obtaining guns legally. If people break the laws already in existence what would make them obey any future laws that might be enacted? So people who are law- abiding follow the laws and those who are criminals don't?

This is a tragedy, if it had occurred anywhere in the world it would be a tragedy. For some reason when it occurs in the US it is somehow the countries fault.

My heart goes out to all those who have lost children today, I mourn all those beautiful young lives cut off before they had a chance to grow. My prayers are for those left behind that they may somehow find comfort.