- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Isn't that covered by the official motto "In god we trust"So how come the constitution doesn't enshrine the right to bear children?
and please use their services
How frequent are mass shootings in the USA? You might be surprised
- Thread starter StewartR
- Start date
One last response... I am sure they think the guns will protect their children... Just, sod the rest of humanity who are caught in the cross fire. Over and out.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
@dejongj I'm pretty sure is a Netherlander whether or not he lived there I don't know,
But at least one other member does / did. He may or may not drop by.
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
It is a passport I have indeed. I've lived in 17 countries. Guns weren't the issue in any of them, including the US, people that shot other people with them was the issue.
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh and yes I've been around them from young. Got shot by a friend once as well by accident. Wasn't the fault of the shotgun either, just stupidity of mean walking in front of it and him pulling the tricker. No reason to ban the things I would say.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We're having a particularly bad year, but were not special...
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/co...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/co...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
That's been answered now.
I'm British, but my mother was South African, and I've lived in SA for most of my adult life. We do have a different relationship with firearms, and licensed gun owners can carry concealed for self defence, but we don't have a right to keep and bear arms like the US. SA's murder and other violent crime rates are appalling, but the incidence of criminal misuse of firearms by licensed owners is pretty insignificant.
OP
StewartR
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That really is an incredibly poor piece of "research". The CPRC claims to be objective, but its bias is laughably evident in pretty much everything it publishes. Though I guess that's about what you'd expect from an organisation whose founder and president has written books titled "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns".
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sure, but you also have to consider the size and population in your comparisons... The entire UK is smaller than the state of California, and the UK population is roughly equivalent to just our northeast region states (11 states, most of them quite small).
I'm not making excuses/justifying/minimizing... it's pretty terrible what has happened.
If it makes any difference, I own guns, I have a concealed carry permit, and I'm in favor of (*some*) gun ownership controls/limits... but I'm pretty sure they won't/wouldn't really work. You can't regulate away something the people want. It hasn't work with alcohol, drugs, or anything else.
And someone who is determined to kill many others and willing to/planning on dying in the process certainly isn't going to care about breaking an extra law along the way. Maybe guns won't be the chosen weapon as often... but IED's and poisonous gases are easy enough.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Serious question......No agenda.
What makes you feel that it's necessary for you to carry a concealed weapon?
You see, above you pretty much say "it's not that bad".
But to be carrying a loaded concealed handgun, you've got to be pretty damned afraid of something, no?
Or is it not fear at all, but simple a case of "because I can"?
As I said, I'm not looking for an argument, just very curious.
JonathanRyan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,765
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In that case, let's talk about India. Roughly the same rate of gun related homicides per capita as the UK (0.28 vs 0.26 per 100,000) and they have like a billion people.
They have had about 10 "mass shootings" this century.
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Saw an interesting interview with a UK police forensics expert the other night.
Apparently illegal firearms are in such short supply here that criminals have to borrow them - the same weapon gets linked to different crimes all over the country. Many are WW2 or older.
So the idea that only the law abiding are restricted would appear to be a false notion for the UK at least - being an island nation no doubt helps with this.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't typically carry...
But I sometimes do when I go to a "bad section" of town, or I'm carrying expensive equipment out alone at night in the city... Not that I have any intention to shoot someone; they can have my gear, it's insured.
I've had innocent people beaten with a pipe and robbed in front of my house. I've been assaulted/robbed on the street, and I've had people inside my house robbing us while my wife and I slept. Not where I live now, but it still happens in the area occasionally.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
You are making excuses and minimising. The sad fact is there has been, on average a mass shooting a day in the US and none at all in the UK in 2015. That's not just down to population size
OP
StewartR
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OK, where do we start with this. I'll assume for the purposes of the argument that the people who run the Politifact website are sincere and unbiased. However they seem to be short on skills when it comes to logic and statistics. Or maybe they're not short on logic and statistics, in which case we'd have to conclude that the shortcomings I outline below are wilful.
Firstly, you'll note that Obama's quote was about "violence", but the Politifact response was about "killings". That's a subtle move, and essentially they're answering a different question than the one was asked.
Secondly, they're nit-picking when they dissect Obama's grammar. When he said "this type of violence does not happen in other advanced countries", it's absurd to suggest he meant that it never happens. The second half of his statement was "It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency" and it's obvious that the first half of his quote was a rhetorical device. "This type of violence" was clearly a reference to the frequency.
Next, they trot out the usual comparisons showing that the rate of incidents in the USA isn't extreme compared to other countries. This show a complete ignorance of statistical principles because the USA is so much more populous than most countries with which it's being compared. It would make more sense to compare the rates in individual states of the USA with European countries, but that's never done.
Some of the best data I've ever seen on this subject comes from the now defunct "Rampage Shooting Index" which has been archived here: http://archive.is/f4gbv It shows the USA in 6th place on a list of 34 countries. That kind of statistic is frequently used by the pro-gun lobby to argue that the USA is not exceptional. However a far more relevant approach is to compare the USA data with those aggregated for other countries to correct for the massive population imbalances. For example the EU would seem to be a natural comparison and this table includes 20 countries in the EU which have a combined population of 431 million. Aggregating the statistics for those 20 countries gives incident rates and fatality rates which are almost exactly 1/4 of those in the USA. Or in other words the rate in the USA is 4 times as high as in the EU.
Personally I think there's an argument for looking at "mass shootings" rather than "mass killings". That's what the source I referenced in the first post in this thread did. The reason for preferring this is that it takes out of the equation factors such as the the quality and accessibility of medical care and the skill of the shooter. (The underlying assumption is that when an individual shoots 4 or more people, he or she does intend to kill them.) This definition produces vastly more incidents than the definition used by Rampage Shooting - typically over 300 per year in the USA rather than 38 over 5 years. Unfortunately similar data aren't available for other countries. I think it would be reasonable to expect that the much greater availability of guns in the USA would lead to a much greater number of these incidents compared to Europe, but unfortunately I can't test that.
Hope you thought this was helpful.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And they have very stringent gun control laws (you basically can't legally have one). But yet they have a murder rate that is essentially the same as the US. I don't think "the weapon" matters much... It's the mentality/mindset behind the actions. And you just can't regulate that (I do think it's somewhat cultural though).
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Nope licensed firearms are easy to get. There are some controls on ammo though.
It's avoiding the issue, and hiding from the fact this is a gun thread. About firearms violence in the US. Not murders in a 3rd world country
I'm always fascinated to know why Americans wish to leave military hardware and ammo in civilian hands?
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't post the sources because they had anything to do with Obama's statements... I posted them because they have to do with the subject at hand... mass killings.
We have a lot, but as I said, I believe it is cultural. How many anti-government organizations/compounds do you have? We have more than a few (~100 active organizations), and they are entirely legal (in concept, not necessarily actions).
Personally I think they should be legal, and the people should have the right/means to overthrow the government if that is the majority opinion (and FWIW, I served over 30yrs in the army).
No, I am not correlating the militias to the mass shootings... it's just indicative of our culture and tolerance of "other beliefs" that leads to them (at least in part).
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I suppose if you consider a single shot 22 rifle a significant threat... But anything 9mm and above in caliber, and anything semi-automatic and above is prohibited.
I understand that this thread is about "gun violence," and we certainly have more than our share... But I believe that making it "about guns" is a bit misleading... It's about our culture/tolerance/intolerance more than anything.
As I said, I believe "civilians" should have the right and ability to mount an effective civil war if that is the majority position... In fact, I think they have "a duty" to do so... It's part of the "of the people/by the people/for the people" and "independence" ideology of government. But I doubt it will ever happen because people (in general) don't seem to want independence (almost certainly not at the great expense such an action would involve).
The reason I "support" gun regulation is because I hope that it would minimize/eliminate accidental/heat-of-the-moment killings. And maybe stop some of the mass killings just by making it a bit less "easy."
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In Europe, we have these things called 'elections', whereby the majority can overthrow their government without anyone getting shot.
Apparently it was tried in America, but they keep electing the same families and letting a candidate's brother decide the outcome. I'm sure they'll get the hang of it eventually...
I suggest you look at that link which you posted again, because it clearly shows that the homicide rate for the US is nearly 5 times that of the UK, and that is per 100,000 people, so it takes into account population differences.
I agree with you in general about weapons being passed around, but this happened in August of this year in Kent and not a million miles away from where I live.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/seven-on-gun-charges-appear-42698/
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A "government" by it's nature is self supporting... you cannot "vote in" a new form of government. And an elected individual or small group of individuals is not going to be effective in making any large changes. At best/worst they will make the government ineffective in change/direction... that's pretty much exactly what has happened/is happening with our government at present.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
That's interesting. I wonder if any of those 'militias' think they have a realistic chance of doing that if it came to it.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sure, and if you look at the number of incidences very few come close to us. But for instance, Switzerland has very similar gun control laws to ours and a relatively high level of gun ownership, yet nowhere near the statistics we have in the US.
I'm pretty sure that if they make gun ownership illegal we will still continue to do terrible things to each other.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would imagine they have some form of belief that they could...otherwise there would be little point to it other than taking "personal opinion" stance. I don't think there's a chance even if they all banded together and organized. At the moment, they are still a small portion of the population and not representative of "the people." Personally, I don't see "overthrow" as a realistic potential in any circumstance... I think collapse is more likely.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Conversely though, I had to surrender a starter pistol a couple of years ago cause it was of a type easy to convert to live ammo. You're getting desperate when you're converting starter pistols
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I have one for work, they've changed them now, there is a substantial gap between the chamber and the barrel,
its still possible though, I would have thought, with basic engineering skills.
OP
StewartR
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's probably the defining difference between the USA and Europe as far as this issue is concerned. In the USA many people would consider that to be an entirely reasonable attitude. In Europe, very few people would consider it to be a reasonable attitude.
I'm not saying you're wrong and we're right - just pointing out an enormous gulf in attitudes.
Anyone with basic engineering or mechanical skills could make a working firearm from scratch, using hand tools, in the same way as guns were produced for hundreds of years before mass production was introduced. Machine tools would make it easier, but they're not really necessary.
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Accent? looks? mentality?
Anyway I much prefer it over French which is the usual assumption.
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Actually it isn't, it's the wound caused by the bullets fired out of the gun, as a result of a human being pointing the gun and pulling the trigger.
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
It seems the 3D printers are also very good at it