How frequent are mass shootings in the USA? You might be surprised

Cobra said:
And from that Graph
far less people have died in 1066 days (1,347 total)
than in RTA's in 365 days (2014) in the UK


The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police increased by 4 per cent to 1,775 in 2014
http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a1

So thats 2.9 years ( 1066 days)
RTA deaths x 2.9 =5147.5

I really think we should be cleaning up our own act before we criticise another nations laws.
I'm sure we can do something about fatal RTA's but
How ever much we bitch and whinge, there is b****r all we can do about the gun laws in the USA.
(I'm fairly sure that Obby isn't a member here)
Click to expand...


Erm Chris I suggest you've got that very wrong, I suggest you look up total gun deaths in the U.S. excluding self inflicted and I think you'll find the number much larger, the number you linked in just from the massacre figures

Edit: 2013 alone saw over 11,000 homcides via firearm and over 33,000 fatalities via firearm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
the number you linked in just from the massacre figures
Click to expand...
Yep as that was what being discussed it was deliberate, but thanks for your concern Matt :thumbs:
If you wish to delve deeper the suicide rates are quite scary too.
 
Cobra said:
Certainly not in this thread no, but again it was a generic term.
I'm sure your''ll agree that that there are a few that get very aggressive, certainly hot under the collar at the very least, in threads that mention guns, and then somehow try and relate it to gun ownership in this country,
and the fact that we all ( gun owners) are or at least have to potential to become murdering swine's.


Crazy isn't it?
Click to expand...
I think that's slightly unfair, and it's oddly similar to the daft view the Yanks have.

The problem they have is that any potential psycho can get hold of a gun, that's clearly not true over here, so you shouldn't feel that you're being described as such.

As I pointed out earlier, people identified as a threat to the state are free to buy automatic weapons and all the components to make pipe bombs, that's just nuts.

The problem with making gun ownership open to all, is that political extremists, religious nutters, the mentally ill and everyone else is free to buy. It's never been about everyone with a gun being a potential murderer, it's every potential murderer having the means readily to hand.
 
Cobra said:
the fact that we all ( gun owners) are or at least have to potential to become murdering swine's.
Click to expand...


don't we all ;)

I don't have a problem with gun ownership per see. I'll continue to enjoy both the odd target and game shoot.

I do wonder why some folks (particularly in the US) will insist on owning a weapon (like an assault rifle) that has no other purpose then to kill as many people, as quickly, as possible. Its hard to see a use outside of that outside of the military.
 
boyfalldown said:
don't we all ;)

I don't have a problem with gun ownership per see. I'll continue to enjoy both the odd target and game shoot.

I do wonder why some folks (particularly in the US) will insist on owning a weapon (like an assault rifle) that has no other purpose then to kill as many people, as quickly, as possible. Its hard to see a use outside of that outside of the military.
Click to expand...
It's a hobby where they are interested in guns. They see them as a neat piece of kit. Like collectors. If they grow up with films and PC games where guns are cool, they don't see it as a dangerous object. It's too normal. Plus they convince themselves that it's handy to blow holes in an intruder. So if you are an intruder, you'd better get a better gun. Or better still, some grenades.
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
Erm Chris I suggest you've got that very wrong, I suggest you look up total gun deaths in the U.S. excluding self inflicted and I think you'll find the number much larger, the number you linked in just from the massacre figures

Edit: 2013 alone saw over 11,000 homcides via firearm and over 33,000 fatalities via firearm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why I made the point earlier that one had to be careful with these kind of stats. By themselves and without comparison it is just a number.
 
boyfalldown said:
don't we all ;)

I don't have a problem with gun ownership per see. I'll continue to enjoy both the odd target and game shoot.

I do wonder why some folks (particularly in the US) will insist on owning a weapon (like an assault rifle) that has no other purpose then to kill as many people, as quickly, as possible. Its hard to see a use outside of that outside of the military.
Click to expand...
A reason to me is that it is incredible fun shooting with such a weapon. It is exciting. The weapon doesn't choose to go on a killing spree, nor do most people. I don't for example. But yes nutters can. Just like nutters can use a blade to slice someone on the tube in London.
 
But a nutter with a knife doesn't regularly get the opportunity to kill 4, 6 or 14 before being brought down.

We get it that it's still the same nutter, but there's no way a nutter should have access to that kind of weaponry.
 
dejongj said:
A reason to me is that it is incredible fun shooting with such a weapon. It is exciting. The weapon doesn't choose to go on a killing spree, nor do most people. I don't for example. But yes nutters can. Just like nutters can use a blade to slice someone on the tube in London.
Click to expand...


We.ve had a very similar conversation before. I agree, a nutter will use whatever tool he can to kill people. Such a gun ( one made with the sole purpose of killing as fast as possible) is a remarkably efficient tool to achieve that aim..

Aside from fun (I can't see it myself) why in heavens name would you need (or even want one). If it is purely fun wouldn't storing it at a gun club be an option?
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
We.ve had a very similar conversation before. I agree, a nutter will use whatever tool he can to kill people. Such a gun ( one made with the sole purpose of killing as fast as possible) is a remarkably efficient tool to achieve that aim..

Aside from fun (I can't see it myself) why in heavens name would you need (or even want one). If it is purely fun wouldn't storing it at a gun club be an option?
Click to expand...
Definitely would be an option. But then again if you have a lot of land why go to a gun club if you can use it on your own land?

And yes this conversation has been had before and will be had many more times. Fortunately it is not just a one sided conversation and those same guns have helped gain and keep that freedom have these conversations.

As there isn't a single true answer that fits all, it won't be the last time this conversation is held.
 
Phil V said:
But a nutter with a knife doesn't regularly get the opportunity to kill 4, 6 or 14 before being brought down.

We get it that it's still the same nutter, but there's no way a nutter should have access to that kind of weaponry.
Click to expand...
I agree that a nutter shouldn't have access, heck I wish we didn't have nutters and people can just be sensible.
 
dejongj said:
I agree that a nutter shouldn't have access, heck I wish we didn't have nutters and people can just be sensible.
Click to expand...
Then you need to remember that we don't 'ban guns' we only control them.

And our Murrican cousins are arguing for 'no controls' which means just that.

I can't get my head around the mentality of someone shouting to defend 'personal freedom' when it means allowing people on terrorist watch lists freedom to buy enough guns to destroy a small town. That is certainly not what the people had in mind when they were arguing for everyone to be allowed to own a musket.
 
dejongj said:
Definitely would be an option. But then again if you have a lot of land why go to a gun club if you can use it on your own land?

And yes this conversation has been had before and will be had many more times. Fortunately it is not just a one sided conversation and those same guns have helped gain and keep that freedom have these conversations.

As there isn't a single true answer that fits all, it won't be the last time this conversation is held.
Click to expand...



You mean freedom from ' taxation without representation'? That's probably the last freedom the US citizen won with a gun. It was a while ago. Statements about freedom won at the barrel of a gun need to be placed into context today.
 
Phil V said:
Then you need to remember that we don't 'ban guns' we only control them.

And our Murrican cousins are arguing for 'no controls' which means just that.

I can't get my head around the mentality of someone shouting to defend 'personal freedom' when it means allowing people on terrorist watch lists freedom to buy enough guns to destroy a small town. That is certainly not what the people had in mind when they were arguing for everyone to be allowed to own a musket.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I'm not against appropriate checks at all. Just like many people require for work including taxi drivers and uber drivers etc. However, it is just that, a list focussed on a moment in time covering people we already know about. It's not a guarantee as can be seen by many crimes performed by previously unknown people.
 
boyfalldown said:
You mean freedom from ' taxation without representation'? That's probably the last freedom the US citizen won with a gun. It was a while ago. Statements about freedom won at the barrel of a gun need to be placed into context today.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean anything specifically, just a general point. But if anything today's context could be argued requires more. Plenty of nutters about.

I wish there were less strict controls in the uk as I'm starting to feel like I would want to carry one all the time. Unfortunately not possible to do that legally.
 
dejongj said:
I wish there were less strict controls in the uk as I'm starting to feel like I would want to carry one all the time. Unfortunately not possible to do that legally.
Click to expand...


I'm genuinely fascinated as to why. I've never felt on ongoing need or reason to defend myself or my family like that. In fact nothing fills me with dread more then knowing there's lots of people like me with guns.

I rather like my daughter doesn't have 'there is a nutter with a gun' drill at school. My friend's daughter (in Chicago) does. I'd also argue that's not freedom
 
boyfalldown said:
I'm genuinely fascinated as to why. I've never felt on ongoing need or reason to defend myself or my family like that. In fact nothing fills me with dread more then knowing there's lots of people like me with guns.

I rather like my daughter doesn't have 'there is a nutter with a gun' drill at school. My friend's daughter (in Chicago) does. I'd also argue that's not freedom
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is down to experience. It was normal growing up in farm communities. It was normal having been in the army. I've been subjected to two attempted car jackings, and shot at twice on separate occasions in the uk.
 
dejongj said:
Perhaps it is down to experience. It was normal growing up in farm communities. It was normal having been in the army. I've been subjected to two attempted car jackings, and shot at twice on separate occasions in the uk.
Click to expand...


I've no idea why anyone would ever shot at you JP :) :)

More seriously though I guess that experience and training is why we see differently. As soon as you suggest some kind of training, you're instantly into advocating control.it always seems any form of even the most moderate ( & I think sensible) controls meet resistance
 
boyfalldown said:
I've no idea why anyone would ever shot at you JP :) :)

More seriously though I guess that experience and training is why we see differently. As soon as you suggest some kind of training, you're instantly into advocating control.it always seems any form of even the most moderate ( & I think sensible) controls meet resistance
Click to expand...
Aw xx :) luckily they missed.

I think one of the problems in moving the debate onwards and tightening some of the controls is the fear for total ban. There are too many in the opposition who demand a total ban, or at the very least come across like that.

From a psychology perspective it is actually quite interesting and parallels with the Dutch Sinterklaas tradition. I mean some American guy and Jamacain women taking everything out of context in a very confrontational manner. No wonder they felt the wrath of 17M cloggies.

If things calm down a bit and are being approached in a less confrontational manner than over time change with improved controls will be possible.
 
boyfalldown said:
I do wonder why some folks (particularly in the US) will insist on owning a weapon (like an assault rifle) that has no other purpose then to kill as many people, as quickly,
Click to expand...
Your'll be surprised at some of the firearms they use to shoot Moose etc,
then again, maybe you wouldn't. So large calibre rifles do have a use other than kill people.

ianp5a said:
It's a hobby where they are interested in guns. They see them as a neat piece of kit. Like collectors. If they grow up with films and PC games where guns are cool, they don't see it as a dangerous object. It's too normal. Plus they convince themselves that it's handy to blow holes in an intruder. So if you are an intruder, you'd better get a better gun. Or better still, some grenades.
Click to expand...
Talk about prejudging, prejudice and stereotyping

Phil V said:
Then you need to remember that we don't 'ban guns' we only control them.t.
Click to expand...

Hand guns banned after one incident
Semi automatic rifles banned after one incident.
( Save .22 rimfire and the later .17)
 
Cobra said:
Your'll be surprised at some of the firearms they use to shoot Moose etc,
then again, maybe you wouldn't. So large calibre rifles do have a use other than kill people.
Click to expand...

It's not large Caliber I meant...but large capacity semi auto assault weapons.
 
Cobra said:
At least there are guys at the front ready to take over.
But no I don't fly that often.
Click to expand...

Fighter pilots would be unable to fly their planes at all without software adding corrections to their inputs......The fly by wire systems are massively complex and the jets are now designed for efficiency over stability.
 
dejongj said:
Perhaps it is down to experience. It was normal growing up in farm communities. It was normal having been in the army. I've been subjected to two attempted car jackings, and shot at twice on separate occasions in the uk.
Click to expand...
I'd hazard a guess in both situations things happened so quickly that even if you'd had a gun in the glove box you wouldn't have had time to reach it.
So it would serve no purpose other than to give bravado that gets you killed, or to escalate a road rage incident into something far worse.
 
dejongj said:
Agreed, I'm not against appropriate checks at all. Just like many people require for work including taxi drivers and uber drivers etc. However, it is just that, a list focussed on a moment in time covering people we already know about. It's not a guarantee as can be seen by many crimes performed by previously unknown people.
Click to expand...
We don't just ban people who have already previously been bad though :)

And actually, the scary thing is that my presumption is incorrect, the 2nd amendment exists so that US citizens are able to raise a militia should the government act against them. It could be argued that's exactly what was happening this week. :naughty:
 
Cobra said:
I know its not comparing like for like, I was just showing far more people die in the UK from RTA's than being shot in the USA.
And yet "we" are all up in arms <sic> starting threads ( this isn't the first thread and I'm sure it won't be the last) about something we have no influence over, and yet,
no one seems to start them at the atrocities of death by car.

Of course the argument is, cars are necessary / are a life style choice / we couldn't live without them.
Having spent 6 months in South Dakota, I would also suggest all the above reasons apply to gun ownership out there.


The mind boggled :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, their RTA death rate per 100K is three times higher than ours, so what does that tell you about them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
 
Phil V said:
We don't just ban people who have already previously been bad though :)
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? I mean on what grounds if someone hasn't been bad previously can that legally be done?
 
Phil V said:
Signs of mental illness?

The rest? I'm not an expert, but @Garry Edwards or @Cobra can probably fill in the blanks.
Click to expand...
Really? A mental illness grants you an entry on the persona non grata list? Are you serious? Really....
 
dejongj said:
Really? A mental illness grants you an entry on the persona non grata list? Are you serious? Really....
Click to expand...
No, it stops you being able to buy a gun here.

I think we're at slight cross purposes. :)
 
Llamaman said:
I'd hazard a guess in both situations things happened so quickly that even if you'd had a gun in the glove box you wouldn't have had time to reach it.
So it would serve no purpose other than to give bravado that gets you killed, or to escalate a road rage incident into something far worse.
Click to expand...
And a guess is all it is indeed as you weren't there on any of those occasions. Amazing really how you know better :God:
 
In 1996, a lone gunman massacred people in Port Arthur, Hobart. The very unpopular PM took immediate action and put in place gun control. Result: no more massacres. The NRA have many deaths to answer for.
 
Chipper said:
In 1996, a lone gunman massacred people in Port Arthur, Hobart. The very unpopular PM took immediate action and put in place gun control. Result: no more massacres. The NRA have many deaths to answer for.
Click to expand...
Surely it's the law makers that have to answer for listening to the points against?
 
Phil V said:
No, it stops you being able to buy a gun here.

I think we're at slight cross purposes. :)
Click to expand...
Yes, my bad thanks for the clarification.

In that context the license doesn't get granted but only if those involved are aware of a mental illness. And I don't think it is a watchlist of people with mental illnesses either. As such I would argue that again it's a check against people we already know about, albeit not from a list in this scenario but from a professional who may or may not be in the know.

Don't get me wrong, it's better than not checking at all, but let's not lure ourselves into false security. Two examples come to mind; Sohom murders and that licensed black cab driver.
 
dejongj said:
Yes, my bad thanks for the clarification.

In that context the license doesn't get granted but only if those involved are aware of a mental illness. And I don't think it is a watchlist of people with mental illnesses either. As such I would argue that again it's a check against people we already know about, albeit not from a list in this scenario but from a professional who may or may not be in the know.

Don't get me wrong, it's better than not checking at all, but let's not lure ourselves into false security. Two examples come to mind; Sohom murders and that licensed black cab driver.
Click to expand...
The terror 'watchlist' ought to be one of the reasons, the others too.

If the Yanks are happy to stop me getting on a plane because I once went to a 'rock against racism' gig (and therefore constitute a threat to National Security), they should feel justified stopping me buying a gun too.

I know nothing of the black cab driver, but the Soham murders were due to intelligence not being shared (leading to a tightening of procedures).

You're clearly right that everyone does something awful 'for the first time' once, but obvious risk management says that we should at least keep an eye on those caught before or suspected of doing a bad thing. Which of course we do (and so do the Yanks)! But again, the Yanks don't think that's a good enough reason to stop someone buying enough guns to wipe out a town. It's indefensible, and arguing the semantics doesn't make it any better.
 
Cobra said:
And from that Graph
far less people have died in 1066 days (1,347 total)
than in RTA's in 365 days (2014) in the UK


The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police increased by 4 per cent to 1,775 in 2014
http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a1

So thats 2.9 years ( 1066 days)
RTA deaths x 2.9 =5147.5

I really think we should be cleaning up our own act before we criticise another nations laws.
I'm sure we can do something about fatal RTA's but
How ever much we bitch and whinge, there is b****r all we can do about the gun laws in the USA.
(I'm fairly sure that Obby isn't a member here)
Click to expand...

Well, any way you measure it, the US has a lot more deaths in RTA than the UK. Like a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

In fact, being shot is 9th on the list of preventable causes of death in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#Annual_number_of_deaths_and_causes

While in the UK, it's about the same as falling off a ladder.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ty-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2009

I'm amazed there are so many 'mericans left TBH.
 
A very few incidents in the last month that show exactly why not everyone should have guns. All tragic


A woman complained about the pornographic movie playing in my SUV in the drive-thru line at McDonalds, so I shot the 13-year-old kid in the back seat of her car. (FL, 11/03)
http://www.wesh.com/news/victims-family-believes-argument-over-adult-movie-led-to-shooting/36291348

My lady friend and I decided to add some role playing to our "freaky sex" so I put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger. I had removed the magazine but forgot about the bullet in the chamber. She's dead now. (FL, 11/7)
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/crim...identally-shooting-woman-during-sex/75646104/

My fellow patriot and I had different views about how exactly to overthrow the tyrannical government of the United States, so I shot and killed him. (IA, 11/10)
http://www.carrollspaper.com/Conten...-s-political-spat-ends-with-gunshot/1/1/21157

The mother of my child didn’t want to reimburse me for diapers and baby wipes, so I shot and killed her. (PA, 11/12)
http://6abc.com/family/cops-mother-of-8-killed-by-ex-after-fight-over-diaper-money/1080715/

The mother of my twin daughters left me and moved in with her dad, so I went over and shot all of them. I made my ex hold our babies in her lap while I killed them. (FL, 11/13)
http://www.people.com/article/flori...=social&utm_source=BANNED&utm_campaign=buffer

My son was arguing with me about biscuits and gravy, so I shot him dead. (IN, 11/14)
http://fox59.com/2015/11/14/indianapolis-police-arrest-father-for-fatally-shooting-his-son/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top