Another Senseless Slaying in the USA

dejongj said:
And not just the ewes, the traffic jams in Wales are horrendous :p
Click to expand...

But if it's nose to tail cars, wouldn't that just make it a huge gay sheep orgy....and out in the open!
 
viv1969 said:
Whilst on the whole I agree with you, there's no possible way you can be sure of that.
If someone's fuse pops, there's really no predicting the outcome.
Click to expand...

OK I generalised but in principle of what appears to be the mindset of some people...if no gun but a tyre iron he may well have chanced it. But like with all cowardly acts that would been more "up close & personal" which a gun allows the perpetrators to be removed from. Use of a gun appears to depersonalise the interaction and in many situations the 'remove' possibly removes the moral/ethical responsibility of the gun holder.
 
Box Brownie said:
Plus I thought the Swiss model of gun ownership was based their civil defence structure with many reservists being available for call up in rapid response..........if not still the case what is their licensing system for such ownership?

The USA have in effect made owning a gun as simple as buying a TV. As for apparently law abiding citizens and the sort of crime that started this thread, no doubt it is almost impossible to mitigate for the irrational crazy acts but the fact that guns are so to speak "everyday" in that society and their use might be seen impersonal, just how much do people value others lives!

I was listening to an item a few days ago about 4 black guys who were playing the car stereo loudly in the parking area of a petrol station.........another white motorist it seems went out of his way to drive over wind down his window and complain about the noise. It was turned down but turned back up once he had moved away. He returned shouted at them and then pulled out his handgun shooting the driver, then got out of his car to walk around the other car shooting the 3 passengers. The report said a total of 10 shots were fired killing the driver and wounding the other passengers.

The shooter instigated the argument, could or would not "walk" away and leave the matter alone then used lethal force to finish it. If he had no gun there would have been no fatalities. It is tragic in a society that holds up personal freedoms so highly does not equally or should that be to a greater degree the ultimate freedom of the right of life!
Click to expand...
There are unreasonable and unstable people of every race and in every country.

In my view, the biggest single problem in the U.S. isn't the number of guns per se, it's the almost total lack of controls over both their ownership and use. It varies a lot from state to state but in many states, not only can almost everyone buy a gun legally, they can also carry them around in the car, keep them in the house not locked up and even carry them in a holster when they go shopping or to church...
Contrary to public opinion, the vast majority of people in this country can legally own a gun too, (handguns not included, they are more difficult to obtain legally) but there are major differences.
1. Everyone is carefully checked out - background, medical, alcohol abuse.
2. Storage - all guns must be locked away when not in use
3. Good reason - other than shotguns, where no reason is needed, there must be a legitimate reason for owning each firearm.
4. Guns can't be left unattended in motor vehicles, and although it isn't specifically illegal to carry one in a car, it's a breach of certificate conditions to carry one around unless the shooter is going either to or from using it.
5. Except in Northern Ireland, guns cannot be owned for the purpose of self defence.

And how does that work out? Within my memory there have been only 3 mass killings carried out by people who held guns legally - Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton and Derrick Bird, and two people who each killed 2 members of his own family with legally held shotguns (including one police officer). In each case, with the possible exception of the police officer, none of the individuals concerned should have been granted, or have been able to keep, their certificates and if the police, as the licensing authority, had done their job properly the killings would have been avoided.

Again, the public may not know this, but over 700,000 people in this country have guns legally. It's the certification process, and the rules that we abide by, that keeps people safe. There is very little gun crime in this country, and virtually none by the legitimate gun owners.
 
dejongj said:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Whilst I'm not disputing the actual statistics, things do get interesting when you broaden it out a bit. For example if you were to look at overall violent crime per 100,00 then the USA is at about 401'ish. Yet the UK is at nearly 1,800 per 100,000 people. But fair enough I would be disingenuous if I didn't highlight that the way the fbi record that figure is differently than the UK. So if we filter out violent crimes where there was not actual injury recorded, merely ;) a threat with the weapon then the UK drops down to about 700. Still 300'ish more than the USA dispute our gun control and many other laws.

Focussing on the weapon is the wrong focus imo. We should focus on the individuals involved.
Click to expand...
Sorry but thats irrelevant, were talking about murder rate here not violent crime, you can try and cloud the issue by introducing a new variable but it still remains immaterial. And yes of course we should be focussing on the individuals not the weapon, but the weapon is a major factor in the individuals actions, without it the potential to cause damage may not be eliminated but is severely reduced.
 
dejongj said:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Whilst I'm not disputing the actual statistics, things do get interesting when you broaden it out a bit. For example if you were to look at overall violent crime per 100,00 then the USA is at about 401'ish. Yet the UK is at nearly 1,800 per 100,000 people. But fair enough I would be disingenuous if I didn't highlight that the way the fbi record that figure is differently than the UK. So if we filter out violent crimes where there was not actual injury recorded, merely ;) a threat with the weapon then the UK drops down to about 700. Still 300'ish more than the USA dispute our gun control and many other laws.

Focussing on the weapon is the wrong focus imo. We should focus on the individuals involved.
Click to expand...

What are the figures for gun related deaths rather than violent crime? if the FBI record their stats different to us then surely the only unequivocal yardstick is the number of gun crime deaths both here and in the US?
 
Let's just cloud the issue and talk about some other set of figures.
Talk about gun homicides and opponents to firearm restrictions talk about hand guns to whittle the figures down, as no-one would think to include rifles.
That's a whole different issue!

Homicides, gun crime, hand guns, rifles, shotguns...let's throw in knives as well, and hammers...

Anything to show that the issue is not guns, gun ownership and US society.
 
jakeblu said:
Sorry but thats irrelevant, were talking about murder rate here not violent crime, you can try and cloud the issue by introducing a new variable but it still remains immaterial. And yes of course we should be focussing on the individuals not the weapon, but the weapon is a major factor in the individuals actions, without it the potential to cause damage may not be eliminated but is severely reduced.
Click to expand...
Maybe to you it is irrelevant, to me it isn't. A violent crime remains a violent crime and impacts the victim regardless. Sure we may have very few crimes in comparison with a firearm yet I still wouldn't like to be a victim of a violent crime and statistically there are more off those in our supposed controlled area. As per my original point in this thread, it would merely shift to another weapon in my opinion and the violent crime would still be committed. Unless the people issue gets sorted.

Another thing that I find weird is how the rest of the world is making those noises for the USA, yet only 25% in the USA supports gun control issues and then specifically actually regarding conceiled gun carrying. Yet in the mean time here in the UK we actually have more violent crimes then they have there. Why is there is particular focus on guns. What is the rationale behind that?
 
Oddly enough I don't have to many issues with someone owning and keeping say a handgun in there house for protection against buggers of intrudors. Sometimes I think it would be a good idea here and then I wake up.

The American problem is how big business has exploded the concept of the words in the first amendment to the point that an AK47 assault rifle is the same as a musket :-)

I feel sadness for the yanks and for there future as I don't think much will change at all.
 
dejongj said:
I'm not particularly passionate about pro or con personal gun ownership. However I don't think this is a particular problem with gun ownership. This is a clear problem with people, if there wasn't a gun he'd have used something else. I mean the guy wrote a 220 page manifesto regarding his grudge with his former employer.
Click to expand...

that - if he wasn't able to get a gun (per the UK) chances are he'd have used a knife - its not like this was a mass spree where the gun was central to his ability to carry it out.

I do agree that it is a bit nuts that private citizens can own assault rifles but it isn't germane to this crime
 
viv1969 said:
So using that daft rationale, we should also not be seeing reports on foreign conflicts that don't involve us....chinese chemical explosions that don't involve us...etc etc...
Click to expand...


The problem with gun control could be easily solved - if there was a will, which there is not. So, we therefore have the single most powerful country in the World, a country which would like to also think of itself as the best and most technologically advanced, and also the finest "moral compass", letting everyone have free access to firearms - what could possibly go wrong.
The US is a violent country, within the US (citizens murdering other citizens in the tens of thousands), and outside, where it has an unbroken 70 year history of using violence against other countries.
Every time there is an inevitable shooting, where one of its citizens goes barking mad and then invokes the "2nd Amendment", our news media goes totally OTT - trying to think why it happened, pathetic little words about a "tragedy", not stopping to think that maybe they should just have one dedicated channel devoted to shootings (which would probably run 24/7).
The only reason that this shooting made the news, is because it was broadcast live, and everyone witnessed it live.
Will this change anything about the US obsession with owning guns and killing people with them?
No, it will not.
 
dejongj said:
. Yet in the mean time here in the UK we actually have more violent crimes then they have there.
Click to expand...

You are mixing up your statistics.
For a start you should check that the figures are for the UK and not just England, Scotland and NI have their own statistics.
Violent crime in the US figures are only classed under 4 headings: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The 'UK' figures include domestic violence and all sexual offences, and theft (which includes purse snatching and bicycle theft).
The Home Office publishes a 6 page document detailing all the offences that make up their statistics.

It's comparing two differently compiled sets of statistics.
 
Urbanised America will just end up like South Afrika has done.
Gated communities and Armoured cars for the well off.

But it will then be called the American dream :-)
 
Mr Bump said:
Urbanised America will just end up like South Afrika has done.
Gated communities and Armoured cars for the well off.

But it will then be called the American dream :)
Click to expand...

Conjures up an image of the usa of the groups of citizens ranging from ~ survivalists in their enclaves & bunkers > gated communities with watch towers and guards > gated communities with the residents armed to the teeth > 'ordinary' neighbourhoods relying on the police and protection gangs >................all the way down to the average folk who for them live in areas where crime is at low level and gun ownership is only ever used for hunting and target.

It is always the extremes that have shock power and as stated above there has yet to be a slaying/murder to start the groundswell of change. It will not happen (?) yet. I suppose nobody there has yet to ask the right question that will have sufficient effect in every state to start the conversation avoiding the simply yes or no/my right vs your right sort of answer.

For what it is worth it will never be simply about guns but the people and their mind sets. In my late teens to twenties I learned archery (naturally strung 100lb pull long bows) and .22 rifle and pistol in all instances I knew that all of those could be lethal but I knew without the need to be told never to point them at another person, though all that was covered in the training briefings. So what is it about some people in modern civilian society that endows them with twisted state of mind that pointing a gun at someone is ever justified let alone actually firing it which IMO is an act of abject cowardice!
 
andy700 said:
The problem with gun control could be easily solved - if there was a will, which there is not. So, we therefore have the single most powerful country in the World, a country which would like to also think of itself as the best and most technologically advanced, and also the finest "moral compass", letting everyone have free access to firearms - what could possibly go wrong.
The US is a violent country, within the US (citizens murdering other citizens in the tens of thousands), and outside, where it has an unbroken 70 year history of using violence against other countries.
Every time there is an inevitable shooting, where one of its citizens goes barking mad and then invokes the "2nd Amendment", our news media goes totally OTT - trying to think why it happened, pathetic little words about a "tragedy", not stopping to think that maybe they should just have one dedicated channel devoted to shootings (which would probably run 24/7).
The only reason that this shooting made the news, is because it was broadcast live, and everyone witnessed it live.
Will this change anything about the US obsession with owning guns and killing people with them?
No, it will not.
Click to expand...

There are alot of US shootings that are widely broadcast, after the fact, so no, your reasoning for the coverage this time is naive.

We live in a time where information is available at a click. The world is "smaller", better informed and to a large extent less misled regarding news and international affairs) than ever.

Are you suggesting that be curtailed? Or even that doing so is possible?
That's even less likely than US gun control reform.

It needs to be shown....the more shocking the better imo...and shown also to children., because it's their generation that might just be so sickened by it that they effect change.
 
dejongj said:
I'm not sure about those states without a source, my point is that to compare stats like for like one should compare all violent crime not just that involving firearms as that may provide a skewed picture.
Click to expand...
I counted them on Wikipedia which has a list. I left out the ones where the attack was foiled. School shootings..children dying. Easy access to guns makes mass murder easy.
 
kendo1 said:
You are mixing up your statistics.
For a start you should check that the figures are for the UK and not just England, Scotland and NI have their own statistics.
Violent crime in the US figures are only classed under 4 headings: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The 'UK' figures include domestic violence and all sexual offences, and theft (which includes purse snatching and bicycle theft).
The Home Office publishes a 6 page document detailing all the offences that make up their statistics.

It's comparing two differently compiled sets of statistics.
Click to expand...
@kendo1 yes absolutely agree, they aren't comparable. Hence I wrote this...you may have missed the bits in bold the first time around :thumbs: ;)

dejongj said:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Whilst I'm not disputing the actual statistics, things do get interesting when you broaden it out a bit. For example if you were to look at overall violent crime per 100,00 then the USA is at about 401'ish. Yet the UK is at nearly 1,800 per 100,000 people. But fair enough I would be disingenuous if I didn't highlight that the way the fbi record that figure is differently than the UK. So if we filter out violent crimes where there was not actual injury recorded, merely ;) a threat with the weapon then the UK drops down to about 700. Still 300'ish more than the USA dispute our gun control and many other laws.

Focussing on the weapon is the wrong focus imo. We should focus on the individuals involved.
Click to expand...
 
dejongj said:
@kendo1 yes absolutely agree, they aren't comparable. Hence I wrote this...you may have missed the bits in bold the first time around (y) ;)
Click to expand...
I missed the first time around, somehow! :coat:
 
Easily done in these fast moving threats :thumbs:

Ultimately whatever figure is too high, and I also don't understand why people love their concealed fire arms. And to me the answer to bad guys with guns is most definitely not more good guys with guns. I think we should have learned that lesson from WWI. However, emotive feelings of guns aside, the real issue here is people with very low respect for life and a way to high violent crime rate in my opinion.
 
viv1969 said:
It needs to be shown....the more shocking the better imo...and shown also to children., because it's their generation that might just be so sickened by it that they effect change.
Click to expand...


I used to think that Ruth, but the children are indoctrinated into using guns from an early age. Then you have the ever increasing violence in films and games, and the fact that in the US there are large military camps all over the place, where it is commonplace to see uniformed personnel walking around.
I watched Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine" years ago, which detailed the disgusting and horrifying massacre at Columbine High School, and it made me think about the contradiction, that the US is supposed to be (according to them) a shining beacon of civilisation, yet has this problem, which means that every year, more people are killed in the US by guns, than the netire number of coalition troops killed in the Iraq war.
I looked up a quote from the film.

What a wonderful world.

Is America a nation of gun nuts? Or just nuts?

Are we a nation of gun nuts or are we just nuts?

One Nation Under The Gun
 
I don't believe there's any correlation between video games and violent tendencies on the whole, and I'm far from being a fan of Mr Moore.
We disagree, thats fine.
 
Dave1 said:
Knives are illegal? When did that happen?
Click to expand...

I guess he means that its illegal to carry a fixed blade more than 2.5 inches without a good reason - however they aren't exactly difficult to lay hands on which is the sailent point - if you are about to commit a double homicide you aren't going to be deterred by the legality of carrying a blade , but in the UK unless you are a criminal or have criminal connections it isnt likely you can lay hands on a hand gun
 
big soft moose said:
I guess he means that its illegal to carry a fixed blade more than 2.5 inches without a good reason -
Click to expand...

It's actually 3" to carry in public without good reason, but that doesn't make the statement "knives are illegal" correct.
 
Dave1 said:
It's actually 3" to carry in public without good reason, but that doesn't make the statement "knives are illegal" correct.
Click to expand...

To be fair it didn't take a genius to know what he meant.
 
Last edited:
What is amazing is seeing the President of the USA's frustration that he just cant get through to the gun nut's that they should perhaps just look at some measures to stop these incidents. Supposed to be the most powerful man in the world yet he is totally powerless when it comes to getting his people to accept any concessions at all in relation to firearms possession. Completely Mad.
 
viv1969 said:
To be fair it didn't take a genius to know what he meant.
Click to expand...

So what does "knives are illegal" mean? In your genius opinion. Just the 3 words as written...

Let's try some others:

Murder is illegal
Cocaine is illegal
Slavery is illegal
 
Dave1 said:
So what does "knives are illegal" mean? In your genius opinion. Just the 3 words as written...

Let's try some others:

Murder is illegal
Cocaine is illegal
Slavery is illegal
Click to expand...
Is this really necessary? It was a rather good discussion and totally clear without the need for this kind of argumentative nitpicking.
 
dejongj said:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Click to expand...
And ironically you go on to quote your own statistics incorrectly.
dejongj said:
So if we filter out violent crimes where there was not actual injury recorded, merely ;) a threat with the weapon then the UK drops down to about 700. Still 300'ish more than the USA dispute our gun control and many other laws.
Click to expand...
Thats the higest possible figure of violent crimes in the uk when using the FBI criteria the lowest figure was 271. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. actually its not the statistics that are bending the truth here ;)
 
Last edited:
Simplythebeast said:
What is amazing is seeing the President of the USA's frustration that he just cant get through to the gun nut's that they should perhaps just look at some measures to stop these incidents. Supposed to be the most powerful man in the world yet he is totally powerless when it comes to getting his people to accept any concessions at all in relation to firearms possession. Completely Mad.
Click to expand...
Problem the the anti gun lobby have is that the whole armament industry is so large in America, they have the power over so many senators. I cannot see an end to the situation they find themselves in.

Which is verging on the ridiculous, so many " Medal of honour" veterans.
 
big soft moose said:
that - if he wasn't able to get a gun (per the UK) chances are he'd have used a knife - its not like this was a mass spree where the gun was central to his ability to carry it out.
Click to expand...
But if he had been limited to using a knife they might still be alive. Nothing facilitates mass murder like s firearm
 
jakeblu said:
But if he had been limited to using a knife they might still be alive. Nothing facilitates mass murder like s firearm
Click to expand...

Not really -someone with a major artery cut with a knife is probably less likely to survive than someone with a bullet in the chest - plus any fool can use a knife it takes a degree of skill to hit what you are aiming at with a gun
 
Simplythebeast said:
I would rather face someone with a knife than someone with a gun anyday. This conversation is just getting silly.
Click to expand...
Personally i hope its neither, ever. But yeah a knife is preferable gives you a fighting chance
 
Simplythebeast said:
What is amazing is seeing the President of the USA's frustration that he just cant get through to the gun nut's that they should perhaps just look at some measures to stop these incidents. Supposed to be the most powerful man in the world yet he is totally powerless when it comes to getting his people to accept any concessions at all in relation to firearms possession. Completely Mad.
Click to expand...


That has a lot to do with their totally ridiculous political system IMO. You would think that the POTUS has the final say - not in a million years.
 
big soft moose said:
Not really -someone with a major artery cut with a knife is probably less likely to survive than someone with a bullet in the chest - plus any fool can use a knife it takes a degree of skill to hit what you are aiming at with a gun
Click to expand...

Blimey Pete, I could take out someone at half a mile with a rifle, and that is based on recent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top