Shooting at Florida School

Trumps has tweeted a full explanation that he never said arm the teachers

His full 4 tweets were:

I never said “give teachers guns” like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC. What I said was to look at the possibility of giving “concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience - only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able to

....immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions. Highly trained teachers would also serve as a deterrent to the cowards that do this. Far more assets at much less cost than guards. A “gun free” school is a magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD END!

...History shows that a school shooting lasts, on average, 3 minutes. It takes police & first responders approximately 5 to 8 minutes to get to site of crime. Highly trained, gun adept, teachers/coaches would solve the problem instantly, before police arrive. GREAT DETERRENT!

....If a potential “sicko shooter” knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won’t go there...problem solved. Must be offensive, defense alone won’t work!




So I never said give teachers guns, but we should give teachers guns....
biggrin.gif
 
he gets a tiny amount of credit, still incredibly insulting to not accept that accepting money from the NRA means a lot more than he says...
 
The russian bot accounts are working overtime. Working that divisional tactics...

I’m so sorry for what happened in Florida High School but there is no way I’m letting the generation that was eating Tide Pods just the week before tell us what we need to do about gun control.

Especially ones that are actors, Don't actually attend the school in question,forgets his script in a news interview and has an ex FBI agent as a father. If only the FBI was good at protecting schools as they are with Clinton/Obama
 
"attacks would end!!!""

look, even those of us who support gun control don't think it's going to eradicate them, so more b*****ks....

so 20% of students will be protecting, the other 80%, bad luck, you die, SAD.

'sickos' as he calls them are highly unlikely to be deterred by armed teachers to the extend he is saying - the fact they are shooting up a school suggest their logic is perhaps not firing correcntly
 
Byker28i said:
The russian bot accounts are working overtime. Working that divisional tactics...

I’m so sorry for what happened in Florida High School but there is no way I’m letting the generation that was eating Tide Pods just the week before tell us what we need to do about gun control.

Especially ones that are actors, Don't actually attend the school in question,forgets his script in a news interview and has an ex FBI agent as a father. If only the FBI was good at protecting schools as they are with Clinton/Obama
Click to expand...

the various tweets of people saying "i went to school with this guy, he's 25, look at my year book" including a photo of someone that looks nothing like the kid
 
StewartR said:
Peddling blatant untruths, which you clearly haven't bothered to check, doesn't help your argument.

The Trump presidential campaign raised a total of $333 million, of which just under $1 was from pro-gun organisations [1]. To put that in context, as if $333 million isn't sufficient context, the Walt Disney Company contributed over $5 million to Trump's campaign [2].

By all means attack Trump's position on this. But do it on the basis of real facts, not made-up lies. Or else just shut up. Because this isn't helping.

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns?utm_campaign=guns-021518

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=N00023864
Click to expand...
You mean approx 10%, 30,3 Mio $. Of which 2/3 where used in campains against Hillary Clinton. So actually Trump recieved around 11 Mio $ from NRA who then also funded anti Clinton campains with around 19 Mio $ + the change thrown after other republicans and against other democrats. Its only because they dont want it to obvious its not called the clip and the champer instead of the the senate and house of representatives
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StewartR said:
Peddling blatant untruths, which you clearly haven't bothered to check, doesn't help your argument.

The Trump presidential campaign raised a total of $333 million, of which just under $1 was from pro-gun organisations [1]. To put that in context, as if $333 million isn't sufficient context, the Walt Disney Company contributed over $5 million to Trump's campaign [2].

By all means attack Trump's position on this. But do it on the basis of real facts, not made-up lies. Or else just shut up. Because this isn't helping.

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns?utm_campaign=guns-021518

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=N00023864
Click to expand...

How many deaths per $ contribution is a result of the impact of Disney lobbying ?
 
Byker28i said:
Fox news of course are running with a sherrif saupporting Trumps views:
Sheriff Grady Judd: “We have got to wake up, wake up and understand that we have to have… specially trained people that have concealed firearms that can run to the threat and protect our children.”
https://BANNED/foxnews/status/964840168036462592

This guy posted a good response: https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1605583792810351

Jim Wright replying:

“We have got to wake up, wake up and understand that we have to have… specially trained people that have concealed firearms that can run to the threat and protect our children.”

"specially trained"

By ... who?

Who designs the training. On what criteria? To what standards? No, don't just say, "the local police department" or something similar. This training would have to specially designed because you're talking about non-professionals with guns in a building full of panicked children AND those "specially trained people" will be very likely facing a CHILD with a gun who is killing other children. We don't train soldiers for that. We don't train cops for that. So we're going to need special training, including not just the mechanics and theory of combat arms, but the psychology of killing a CHILD in an active shooter situation. If you don't understand why this is a problem, then you're very likely unqualified to be in this conversation in the first place. It takes years of training to condition a soldier to kill another human being on command, let alone a child. And when that killing occurs, it's usually in a warzone, alongside your squadmates, and while that engagement is very, very often chaotic, it can't be compared to the confusion and chaos of a building packed with screaming running children that you are supposed to be protecting. In a warzone, if your bullets hit a civilian, even a child, well, that's collateral damage. It happens. It can't NOT happen. That's war. But a school? Full of American kids? You starting to see why you'd need some VERY, VERY specific training?

Who pays for it? Combat arms is a perishable skill, so how often is refresher training and re-qualification mandated?

Who do these "specially trained people" answer to? Are they trained to work together? Or are they Lone Wolf McQuade?

How do you insure the school in this situation?

Because you going to HAVE to insure the school.

Are the specially trained people personally liable for their fire? If they hit an innocent kid, if they kill an innocent kid or cripple him or her for life? Who's responsible for that?

Moreover, is the "specially trained person" responsible for failure to stop an active shooter?

Well?

No. No. Don't roll your eyes. You live in America (most of you). We are a litigious society. Somebody has to be responsible. You were trained. You had a gun. You failed to stop the shooter, when the grieving parents sue you, will the school board pay your legal fees? Or will the the school, school board, state take responsibility?

SOMEBODY has to be legally responsible.

What weapons?

It makes a difference, you know. Larger, high velocity rounds can penetrate body armor, but also walls, doors, etc, meaning increased chance of collateral damage in a building full of children. We made the cockpit doors on commercial aircraft bullet proof, are we going to do that with classrooms? If not, well, we're back to that question of who's responsible when the school gets sued for not protecting the students from stray bullets fired by their own teachers.

So, do you mandate acceptable weapons? Ammunition? Fields of Fire? Zones of responsibility. Or is it the Wild West?

How do the cops know who the licensed and qualified "specially trained people" are?

This hole is bottomless.

You are essentially talking about turning teachers into soldiers and schools into warzones. You would do everything, EXCEPT address the actual problem. Easy availability of high powered weapons of war.

Now look, I did not say there shouldn't be armed guards in schools. I didn't say there should.

Likewise, I didn't say teachers shouldn't be armed. Or that they should.

Instead, I asked some VERY basic questions regarding the proposed idea of allowing or even mandating armed teachers and school personnel.

I used to do this for a living. I've had advanced training and extensive experience in this area. I was trained by both military and civilian schools. I taught combat arms. I'm a gun owner. I have a concealed carry permit. I'm hardly anti-gun. I didn't suggest anything, one way or the other. Instead, I'm asking BASIC questions about this idea of arming up teachers and putting amateurs with guns in schools. Questions that any competent gun operator should ask.

You want to put more guns, carried by amateurs, into a building packed full of children. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.
Click to expand...
A rational view on the 'solution' proposed, somehow I doubt he will have many of those very valid points answered.
 
We all agree that taking away the guns is the only solution. Offcource well have to give them something back to ease the pain and withdrawal symptoms and make the gunowners feel save

fisher_price_rattle_fairy.jpg
Makes funny noises too :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
soeren said:
We all agree that taking away the guns is the only solution.
Click to expand...
My opinion as an American, 30yr army vet, and gun owner (hunting rifle/shotgun and pistols). I'm not a "gun advocate" per se, and I don't belong to the NRA.

Yes, access is the issue, but also part of the problem. You can't specify any individual type of gun because even one shooting/death is too many. The assault types are really just semi-automatics. The AR-15/assault rifle 5.56 ammo isn't particularly special. etc. etc. You can't even just say "rifles" as a semi/pump shotgun can be much more devastating in close conditions, and a pistol can do plenty of damage in a hurry as well. You can't limit clip size/capacity as clips (and speed loaders for revolvers) can be changed very quickly. And who's going to charge the guy holding a 3 shot pump shotgun with one in the chamber while he reloads two more? So where do you draw the line? On what basis?

Part of the issue is our concept of individual freedom, independent rights, and limited government. The issue is (as I see it), if an individual is law abiding, keeps proper control of a weapon (security), and uses it in a safe/responsible manner, then what is the basis for saying they shouldn't have one?

I firmly believe no hunter needs more than three rounds. But I also think that shooting a high powered machine gun is kinda fun... so again, where's the line, on what basis? How much damage can be done, how much is acceptable?

I don't believe having more people armed (especially in school) is a realistic answer... firing a pistol with any kind of accuracy in a high stress/adrenaline situation is very difficult even for those who are trained/experienced. Make it a small "concealed" type and it's even harder. And "securing" the weapon only means it won't be available when needed. The only answer that will minimize these types of events is a total ban on individual weapon ownership.

Keep in mind that we became an independent country primarily due to civilians with guns. And we are a large country with a lot of open areas where hunting for food/sport is endemic to the culture, and it's somewhat necessary for population/species management... the idea of no individual weapon ownership will probably never fly.

TBH, I don't think gun ownership (or type) is really a primary contributor to these instances, the percent of American households with guns has been on a general decline since at least the early 70's (although, the number of guns in circulation continues to increase). I think there's something that has shifted w/in our society (or society in general) that is making these types of events more common... but I don't know what that is.
 
sk66 said:
TBH, I don't think gun ownership (or type) is really a primary contributor to these instances, the percent of American households with guns has been on a general decline since at least the early 70's (although, the number of guns in circulation continues to increase). I think there's something that has shifted w/in our society (or society in general) that is making these types of events more common... but I don't know what that is.
Click to expand...
Nice to have the perspective of an American in all this. As you may have noticed, most non Americans can't get their head around it.

The number of guns in circulation increasing whilst ownership has decreased is difficult to comprehend when you can't fathom why anyone would need a gun, having multiple guns is even harder to comprehend. :thinking: The perception that it is so easy to get guns over the counter is quite scary too, :eek: though you may know how easy that is in reality

sk66 said:
The issue is (as I see it), if an individual is law abiding, keeps proper control of a weapon (security), and uses it in a safe/responsible manner, then what is the basis for saying they shouldn't have one?
Click to expand...
The problem seems to be that a number are not law abiding and/or can't control/secure their weapons. And when one of these weapons can do so much damage, and take so many lives, just one in the hands of a criminal, someone mentally ill or a terrorist, it is a huge problem for the rest of the population.

If it was an easy fix, these types of tragedies wouldn't be happening so often. It can't even start to be addressed in any way though if those in charge don't even seem to (want to) consider that guns could be part of the problem.
 
I heard today that an armed Deputy did not enter the building despite being onsite within 90 seconds, I guess fear for his own life prevailed and he failed in his duty, so what chance an armed teacher?
he has since resigned, a shame in some ways because that poor man now has to live with his thoughts for the rest of his life, had there been no gun attack he would still be living a peaceful life and the dead would be alive.
A dreadful situation all round, but as Steve has said above, no easy solution.

Matt
 
I was shown some figures by some Americans who believe that US gun death figures are not much more than in Europe. And I'm looking for a link to some clearly neutral, non politically motivated statistics, that cover a reasonable period, from a trusted source to enlighten them with. Any suggestions?
 
sk66 said:
My opinion as an American, 30yr army vet, and gun owner....
Click to expand...
Its interesting and valuable to get your input, because most of these issues are just so alien to us in the UK.

sk66 said:
Yes, access is the issue, but also part of the problem. You can't specify any individual type of gun because even one shooting/death is too many.
Click to expand...
If you don't mind me saying so, you seem to be subscribing to this "absolutist" approach that we see in US politics -"It won't stop *ALL* school shootings, therefore <insert proposed measure here> shouldn't be adopted." Virtually everyone here, I think, would say that if it were possible to cut the frequency of these incidents from weekly to, say, monthly, that would be a good thing. (And a good start.) But a significant proportion of the US don't seem to go along with that kind of reasoning. I wonder why?

sk66 said:
Part of the issue is our concept of individual freedom, independent rights, and limited government. The issue is (as I see it), if an individual is law abiding, keeps proper control of a weapon (security), and uses it in a safe/responsible manner, then what is the basis for saying they shouldn't have one?
Click to expand...
If an individual is law abiding, keeps their car properly maintained, undergoes regular 'advanced driver' training, and uses their car in a safe/responsible manner, then what is the basis for saying they shouldn't be allowed to drive at 120mph on the freeway?

The paradox here is that it is *only* with the issue of gun ownership that Americans assert these rights. Americans accept all sorts of Government-imposed restrictions in other walks of life, even to the point where Europeans would think them over-regulated.

Want to show visitors around Washington DC? Until recently you had to pay $200, pass an exam and obtain a licence before being allowed to. (That law was struck down on the grounds of free speech, but the wonder is that it ever existed in the first place.) [1]

Want to become a barber in California? That will require studying the art of cutting and blow-drying for almost a year. Want to work in the wig trade in Texas? You will need to take 300 hours of classes and pass both written and practical exams. Want to be a manicurist in Alabama? 750 hours of instruction and a practical exam. Want to be an interior designer in Florida? Four-year university degree, two-year apprenticeship, two-day examination. [2] Want to buy a high powered weapon? Sign here.

I should stress that I'm not trying to get at you personally, and not trying to be argumentative. Just pointing out some of the contradictions that people outside the USA seem to perceive, which people in the USA seem quite happy to tolerate.

Edited to add sources:
[1] https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21606283-budgets-tight-cutting-taxes-hard-so-american-states-should-cut-red-tape-unshackle
[2] http://www.economist.com/node/18678963
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
I heard today that an armed Deputy did not enter the building despite being onsite within 90 seconds, I guess fear for his own life prevailed and he failed in his duty, so what chance an armed teacher?
he has since resigned, a shame in some ways because that poor man now has to live with his thoughts for the rest of his life, had there been no gun attack he would still be living a peaceful life and the dead would be alive.
A dreadful situation all round, but as Steve has said above, no easy solution.

Matt
Click to expand...


He will have to live with it, but he had to go as he failed all those who died.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634
 
StewartR said:
If an individual is law abiding, keeps their car properly maintained, undergoes regular 'advanced driver' training, and uses their car in a safe/responsible manner, then what is the basis for saying they shouldn't be allowed to drive at 120mph on the freeway?
Click to expand...

Because that would presumably be breaking the law.
 
sk66 said:
My opinion as an American, 30yr army vet, and gun owner (hunting rifle/shotgun and pistols). I'm not a "gun advocate" per se, and I don't belong to the NRA.

Yes, access is the issue, but also part of the problem. You can't specify any individual type of gun because even one shooting/death is too many. The assault types are really just semi-automatics. The AR-15/assault rifle 5.56 ammo isn't particularly special. etc. etc. You can't even just say "rifles" as a semi/pump shotgun can be much more devastating in close conditions, and a pistol can do plenty of damage in a hurry as well. You can't limit clip size/capacity as clips (and speed loaders for revolvers) can be changed very quickly. And who's going to charge the guy holding a 3 shot pump shotgun with one in the chamber while he reloads two more? So where do you draw the line? On what basis?
Click to expand...
Time! The Anatomy of these shooting! How Long does they usually last? And how many shots are fired in that period? I think taking that into account considered type, caliper and capacity for weapons is a rouge to go. I know your hunting traditions and game are different than here in DK and you may find the 5,56 a very usefull caliber for that but consider for a moment making a split where e.g you use .22 Magnum for small (real small) game and then consider 308/ 7.62 the smallest legal round for hunting. There is a wast difference between the comfort of the soft recoil og the 5,56 and the one from a 7,62mm. limit to bolt action with access to semiauto on special permit and speed has been taken out of the equation. Here we have the impression you can pick up an AR15 from the shelfes next to the cereals and tha thats just to easy access

sk66 said:
Part of the issue is our concept of individual freedom, independent rights, and limited government. The issue is (as I see it), if an individual is law abiding, keeps proper control of a weapon (security), and uses it in a safe/responsible manner, then what is the basis for saying they shouldn't have one?

I firmly believe no hunter needs more than three rounds. But I also think that shooting a high powered machine gun is kinda fun... so again, where's the line, on what basis? How much damage can be done, how much is acceptable?
Click to expand...
I get the feeling Ive served to and Im trained in severel weapons and can understand the attraction and fun on the range wheather its with the personal weapon, the submachingun, longrange with the scoped rifle or tearing a target area appart with the Buzzsaw, the "LMG" or blowing stuff up with our Carl Gustav. But the thing is there was a reason for that training.
sk66 said:
I don't believe having more people armed (especially in school) is a realistic answer... firing a pistol with any kind of accuracy in a high stress/adrenaline situation is very difficult even for those who are trained/experienced. Make it a small "concealed" type and it's even harder. And "securing" the weapon only means it won't be available when needed. The only answer that will minimize these types of events is a total ban on individual weapon ownership.
Click to expand...
Probably the reason that cop didnt enter outgunned and struck with fear as he was. being at the recieving end sucks

sk66 said:
Keep in mind that we became an independent country primarily due to civilians with guns. And we are a large country with a lot of open areas where hunting for food/sport is endemic to the culture, and it's somewhat necessary for population/species management... the idea of no individual weapon ownership will probably never fly.

TBH, I don't think gun ownership (or type) is really a primary contributor to these instances, the percent of American households with guns has been on a general decline since at least the early 70's (although, the number of guns in circulation continues to increase). I think there's something that has shifted w/in our society (or society in general) that is making these types of events more common... but I don't know what that is.
Click to expand...
I wont claim to know or fully understand your history and what it means to todays american culture bu the second amendmend made sence when it was written in 1787, since then the govenment has aquired tanks, aircraft carriers, drones, heavy bombers and subs armed with nukes, thats an arms race lost with or without your AR15's- The idea of being able to protecti yourself against a government gone to far is of the past, romantic but naive and there should be a lot more control over who get to have how many and which guns and why
 
ianp5a said:
I was shown some figures by some Americans who believe that US gun death figures are not much more than in Europe. And I'm looking for a link to some clearly neutral, non politically motivated statistics, that cover a reasonable period, from a trusted source to enlighten them with. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Surely anything you show them that they don’t like will be ‘politically motivated’ and instantly dismissed.

IMHO the scary statistics are the number of ‘mass shootings’ which is a ‘common occurrence’ in US and not really anywhere else.
And the other one is the number of people shot by toddlers.

It’s difficult to defend ‘ordinary law abiding citizens’ who are ‘responsible’ with their weapons when ordinary people leave their guns where toddlers can get them and shoot people.

But reasonable isn’t going to work I’m afraid. Because a nation that’s happy to ban a kinder surprise because it’s ‘dangerous’ accepts they can’t take a bottle of water on a plane for ‘safety’ reasons but happily sells a weapon designed purely to kill people to someone not old enough to buy a beer is beyond help.
 
sk66 said:
And we are a large country with a lot of open areas where hunting for food/sport is endemic to the culture, and it's somewhat necessary for population/species management... the idea of no individual weapon ownership will probably never fly.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Its a very black and whit view thats simply not the same as having some sort of sensible weapons control. It often surprises Americans (maybe you already knew, I'm sorry if you did) that there are about 1.8 million legally held guns in the UK.Theres also a pretty strict certification program and a mechanism where by if someone is showing mental health issues (amongst other things) those guns will be removed pretty quickly. I'm not seeing the harm taking guns away from someone who shows issues can cause?

sk66 said:
I firmly believe no hunter needs more than three rounds.
Click to expand...


Agreed

sk66 said:
. But I also think that shooting a high powered machine gun is kinda fun...
Click to expand...


But why is fun an

acceptable trade off for the damage that can be caused?

sk66 said:
ou can't specify any individual type of gun because even one shooting/death is too many. The assault types are really just semi-automatics. The AR-15/assault rifle 5.56 ammo isn't particularly special. etc. etc. You can't even just say "rifles" as a semi/pump shotgun can be much more devastating in close conditions, and a pistol can do plenty of damage in a hurry as well. You can't limit clip size/capacity as clips (and speed loaders for revolvers) can be changed very quickly. And who's going to charge the guy holding a 3 shot pump shotgun with one in the chamber while he reloads two more? So where do you draw the line? On what basis?
Click to expand...

Probably a very brave cop. But being serious for a moment you're likely to kill far fewer people with 4 rounds in a shotgun the 30 in an AR-15. There is proportionality and other countries (Canada for one) manage it. What would be the issue with creating a framework similar to Canada's PAL requirements. They're not exactly onerous
 
redhed17 said:
Nice to have the perspective of an American in all this. As you may have noticed, most non Americans can't get their head around it.
Click to expand...

I actually find that quite insulting, because I think most non Americans see these never ending tragedies, then see the response of American gun addicts/politicians/NRA, and realise that the next massacre is just around the corner.
Just listen to US media, the nutjobs forever pushing the idea that you need more guns, Trump advocating "concealed carry" in all schools - he may try to deny it, but that is what he said.
The last people who should be trying to justify gun laws in the US, are the gun addicts/politicians receiving money from the NRA/and the NRA themselves.
 
ianp5a said:
I was shown some figures by some Americans who believe that US gun death figures are not much more than in Europe. And I'm looking for a link to some clearly neutral, non politically motivated statistics, that cover a reasonable period, from a trusted source to enlighten them with. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Ask them for the source. Without attribution it's just fake news.

This is a chart I drew from the data in Wikipedia. The red bar is the USA, blue bars are EU countries, green bars are other countries.

upload_2018-2-23_8-20-50.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
 
Last edited:
Dave70D said:
They ALL failed in my eyes, even the officer.
Click to expand...
I dont see it that way. fear of death is natural. its only understandable he didnt go in and face the shooter. Either he wasnt trained well enough or... well i dont know but its the police department that didnt make the proper screaning, training or whatever it would take to prepare their officers to face a guy with anautomatic weapon alone in a school full of frightened kids. hell he might even have shot a kid himself had he gone in. could be he shouldnt have been in the police in the first place but its not his fault he is not cut for that stuff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StewartR said:
Ask them for the source. Without attribution it's just fake news.

This is a chart I drew from the data in Wikipedia. The red bar is the USA, blue bars are EU countries, green bars are other countries.

View attachment 120828

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Click to expand...
Could be very misleading, as with all statistics.
Numbers per 100,000 doesnt mean too much when you have a huge population, or even a small one. Actual numbers killed is a much more meaningful statistic.
 
In 2016, there were 38,000 firearm related deaths in the US, an increase of 4,000 on the previous year, and that figure reprents 12 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people.

http://time.com/5011599/gun-deaths-rate-america-cdc-data/

In England and Wales in 2012, there were 104 firearm related deaths (crime,suicide, accidents etc)

http://www.gunbabygun.com/many-people-die-end-gun-england-wales-data-examined/

We know that the US has a population roughly six times that of the US - 360 million to 60+ million, therefore the adjusted figure for the UK in 2012, would be 624 firearm deaths compared to 30,000 in the US.
So, when any US citizen tells you that gun crime is on the increase in the UK/Europe, just look at them, shake your head and walk away, because it is not possible to reason with idiots.
 
MatBin said:
Could be very misleading, as with all statistics.
Numbers per 100,000 doesnt mean too much when you have a huge population, or even a small one. Actual numbers killed is a much more meaningful statistic.
Click to expand...


Sorry Matt, but that is the whole point of showing gun deaths per 100,000 people, it allows you to make a direct comparison.
In 2012, based on population comparison, the US had FORTY EIGHT times more firearm related deaths than the UK.
 
andy700 said:
Sorry Matt, but that is the whole point of showing gun deaths per 100,000 people, it allows you to make a direct comparison.
In 2012, based on population comparison, the US had FORTY EIGHT times more firearm related deaths than the UK.
Click to expand...
The trouble with that is that if you look at the chart above you "could" make a case that the USA isnt doing at all badly by comparison to those to the right of their bar. Whilst I agree 48 times worse than the UK is awful, the sheer number of people (38,000) is a number that should be wholly unacceptable.
 
MatBin said:
Could be very misleading, as with all statistics.
Numbers per 100,000 doesnt mean too much when you have a huge population, or even a small one. Actual numbers killed is a much more meaningful statistic.
Click to expand...
Sorry Matt, as a statistician I say that's complete rubbish. If you look at absolute numbers, for any kind of activity whatsoever, all you conclude is that lots of things happen in big countries.

Worldwide there are FAR more breakdowns of Toyotas than Lamborghinis. Does that mean Toyotas are much less reliable? No, because there are far more Toyotas on the road and the average Toyota probably gets driven more than the average Lamborghini. You have to look at the rate (per car, or per 1000 miles driven or whatever).

Same here. There are FAR more gun deaths in the USA than in, say, Denmark. Does that mean there's a worse problem in the USA? No, because there are far more people in the USA, so you'd expect there to be far more of everything. In fact the population in the USA is over 50 times that of Denmark. But it turns out that there are not 50 times as many gun deaths in the USA, but 400 times as many. If tyu look at the rate, it shows this clearly: the rate per 100,000 population is 10.54 in the USDA and 1.28 in Denmark.
 
MatBin said:
The trouble with that is that if you look at the chart above you "could" make a case that the USA isnt doing at all badly by comparison to those to the right of their bar. Whilst I agree 48 times worse than the UK is awful, the sheer number of people (38,000) is a number that should be wholly unacceptable.
Click to expand...
That chart was drawn specifically to address the previous poster's question, about the number of gun deaths in the USA compared with Europe. The assertion was that the US figures are not much more than Europe, and the chart shows that - using the statistics and definitions in that Wikipedia article - the US figures are much more than Europe.

I think most people would expect European countries - stable, liberal, wealthy democracies with advanced economies and sophisticated legal systems - to be reasonable comparators for the USA in most respects. Throw in places like Canada, Australia and New Zealand too if you like, for the same reasons. But I think it takes an extraordinary amount of special pleading to claim that doing better than, say, Guatemala or Swaziland, is grounds for patting oneself on the back.
 
StewartR said:
But I think it takes an extraordinary amount of special pleading to claim that doing better than, say, Guatemala or Swaziland, is grounds for patting oneself on the back.
Click to expand...

And you dont think some quarters will?
 
StewartR said:
Sorry Matt, as a statistician I say that's complete rubbish. If you look at absolute numbers, for any kind of activity whatsoever, all you conclude is that lots of things happen in big countries.

Worldwide there are FAR more breakdowns of Toyotas than Lamborghinis. Does that mean Toyotas are much less reliable? No, because there are far more Toyotas on the road and the average Toyota probably gets driven more than the average Lamborghini. You have to look at the rate (per car, or per 1000 miles driven or whatever).

Same here. There are FAR more gun deaths in the USA than in, say, Denmark. Does that mean there's a worse problem in the USA? No, because there are far more people in the USA, so you'd expect there to be far more of everything. In fact the population in the USA is over 50 times that of Denmark. But it turns out that there are not 50 times as many gun deaths in the USA, but 400 times as many. If tyu look at the rate, it shows this clearly: the rate per 100,000 population is 10.54 in the USDA and 1.28 in Denmark.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying you can twist the stats to show what you want them to show, we all know that to be the case.
More Britons voted out than stay in our recent referendum, so obviously Britain overwhelmingly wants to leave EU. On the other hand it was a very close run thing with only a tiny majority so clearly Britain isnt sure.
Bottom line is if 38000 people died in the USA its a stat that is appalling by any measure.
 
Allow single shot hunting rifles, ban semi automatics ownership. They can still be shot at authorised ranges etc.
Ban open carry of rifles/semi autos
Computerised database of gun ownership that dealers immediately put details into, that all law agencies have immediate access to.
Gun ownership to be licenced, signed off by the local police, after a visit and interview
A rationalisation of gun laws across all states so all have the same rules for ownership
 
Byker28i said:
Allow single shot hunting rifles, ban semi automatics ownership. They can still be shot at authorised ranges etc.
Ban open carry of rifles/semi autos
Computerised database of gun ownership that dealers immediately put details into, that all law agencies have immediate access to.
Gun ownership to be licenced, signed off by the local police, after a visit and interview
A rationalisation of gun laws across all states so all have the same rules for ownership
Click to expand...
Cant see that ever happening in the USA
 
Byker28i said:
Allow single shot hunting rifles, ban semi automatics ownership. They can still be shot at authorised ranges etc.
Ban open carry of rifles/semi autos
Computerised database of gun ownership that dealers immediately put details into, that all law agencies have immediate access to.
Gun ownership to be licenced, signed off by the local police, after a visit and interview
A rationalisation of gun laws across all states so all have the same rules for ownership
Click to expand...


That would be the best thing they could do, but agree with Matt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top