Jump to content
disolusiond

Yet another school shooting in the US

Recommended Posts

Guest xyzzy frobozz

... there's no conclusive evidence that gun control actually works.

OK smart arse, if that's the minimum standard that YOU are going to apply to this discussion, you must to be able to show me conclusive evidence that gun control doesn't work.

 

Is that correct? You have conclusive evidence gun control doesn't work?

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japanese airsoft toys. Doubt you'd see any folks serious about weaponry toting them anywhere but Japan, where they are probably made for chloroform induced daughter-father reverse rape role play. Probably no worse than those little toy guns with the trigger powered flywheel thingy inside really

Not the point.

 

I question whether all of those are toys, anyway (I suspect the M16 is), but I don't know for sure one way or another. The point is not whether they are toys or the real thing made to look like toys - the point is that they make people feel that they are something to be comfortable with.

 

Yes, I know kids have been playing with "6 gun" (revolver) cap guns since forever. I don't think that's terribly responsible either.

 

I hear you... but the 'cool' image of guns is probably a more relevant consideration than the 'cute' image of guns. Just saying. Edited by komuso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... there's no conclusive evidence that gun control actually works.

OK smart arse, if that's the minimum standard that YOU are going to apply to this discussion, you must to be able to show me conclusive evidence that gun control doesn't work.

 

Is that correct? You have conclusive evidence gun control doesn't work?

 

No I don't have conclusive evidence it doesn't work, just like you don't have conclusive evidence that it does.

 

It's not either of our faults - it's just that there isn't anything conclusive.

 

All I am able to show you is that there are at least two countries we've both discussed that have or had falling rates of gun crime while the number of guns per capita rose.

 

All that this means is that there are factors much more powerful than the mere presence of guns - that reduce gun crime despite rising gun numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is not going to wake up to itself until it has its nose repeatedly rubbed in it.

 

Articles like this, brought to greater attention might widen their vision:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol...k_shooting.html

 

In finding that I came across another report from the CDC of child deaths per annum by gunfire, averaging around 100 per year, going to be skewed for 2012 I guess.

 

Ironic that CDC produced that report, perhaps they do at least accept that guns are a disease in the wrong hands. However it's more likely that the agency data-mines such reports from receiving all mortality figures by cause.

 

I suppose they could also be calculating it as a factor in population control.

 

There reaches a point Leo where statistical analysis falls down, when gun ownership becomes almost ubiquitous, as it is in the US, then crime statistics are not the full picture, death by gun for any reason is significant when arguing for increased gun control to begin the process of arms reduction.

 

A long road certainly, but it has to start somewhere.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

300 million guns Chris. Far too late for gun control.

 

America tried as has been mentioned by xyzzy - from 1994 to 2004. The manufacturers simply modified the production to go around the ban and continued selling assault weapons.

 

It's not easy to legislate against culture, when at least half the country, long term, disagrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

No I don't have conclusive evidence it doesn't work, just like you don't have conclusive evidence that it does.

OK, thanks for being honest.

 

That being the case, and given that the current system that effectively is a gun free-for-all don't you think that it makes some sense to try? Throwing your hands up in the air and saying "It's all too hard" doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

 

Also, I want to ask you, rather than me trying to interpret your figures, can you point out to us what countries have higher gunshot mortality rates than the U.S.A.? The reason I'm asking you to point this out is that you obviously have a few in mind as you keep referring to them.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

300 million guns Chris. Far too late for gun control.

 

America tried as has been mentioned by xyzzy - from 1994 to 2004. The manufacturers simply modified the production to go around the ban and continued selling assault weapons.

 

It's not easy to legislate against culture, when at least half the country, long term, disagrees.

Not at all easy I agree, and that it is cultural, but that 50% figure might pause to think when they have the real cost of guns in human terms presented to them.

 

The tentative buybacks the past couple of weeks have actually done quite well, a more structured initiative offering fair value would most likely produce a bigger response.

 

Baby steps, but reversing the ownership number trend is a beginning.

 

Much tougher limitations on gun type, total number of guns per person allowed, all things that were applied in Australia successfully, Federal rather than State gun laws, all would have some effect - probably a bit early to ban the NRA :)

 

More seriously making club ownership and attendance mandatory to have a gun is actually quite effective, clubs self-police and offer a screen to identify those not suitable to own guns.

 

All beginnings.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

More seriously making club ownership and attendance mandatory to have a gun is actually quite effective, clubs self-police and offer a screen to identify those not suitable to own guns.

I couldn't agree more Chris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't have conclusive evidence it doesn't work, just like you don't have conclusive evidence that it does.

OK, thanks for being honest.

 

That being the case, and given that the current system that effectively is a gun free-for-all don't you think that it makes some sense to try? Throwing your hands up in the air and saying "It's all too hard" doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

 

Also, I want to ask you, rather than me trying to interpret your figures, can you point out to us what countries have higher gunshot mortality rates than the U.S.A.? The reason I'm asking you to point this out is that you obviously have a few in mind as you keep referring to them.

 

They've already tried. Didnt work. Why try again?

 

Brazil and Jamaica, as far as I know - both have higher gunshot mortality rates than America. There are prob more if I cared to look.

 

More seriously making club ownership and attendance mandatory to have a gun is actually quite effective, clubs self-police and offer a screen to identify those not suitable to own guns.

That's sensible, because it doesn't actually impact the second amendment.

 

Americans will grumble. Loudly. But it's prob within reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

Brazil and Jamaica, as far as I know - both have higher gunshot mortality rates than America. There are prob more if I cared to look.

Have you considered that maybe some of that higher mortality may be attributable not to the rate of shooting, but the standard of health care post wounding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brazil and Jamaica, as far as I know - both have higher gunshot mortality rates than America. There are prob more if I cared to look.

Have you considered that maybe some of that higher mortality may be attributable not to the rate of shooting, but the standard of health care post wounding?

 

You mean you want me to compare America with no free universal public health care vs Brazil with free universal public health care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

Brazil and Jamaica, as far as I know - both have higher gunshot mortality rates than America. There are prob more if I cared to look.

Have you considered that maybe some of that higher mortality may be attributable not to the rate of shooting, but the standard of health care post wounding?

 

You mean you want me to compare America with no free universal public health care vs Brazil with free universal public health care?

 

That's a neat side step. It's also totally irrelevant.

 

It is illegal to turn emergency patients away in the US.

 

Answer the question.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like any large complex task, it has to be broken down into manageable, easily digested parts.

 

Both Jamaica and Brazil have lawlessness problems, the latter in a big way, any change in crime relative to gun ownership is going to be very relative - hell, if you are wealthy in Brazil you don't travel on the street, you have a helicopter.

 

Those countries have their own problems, Jamaica not too hard to fix, Brazil a long road because of a large population a large under-society of deperate poor people and engrained corruption.

 

But we are talking about the US, if they wanted to look they could see some "don't go there" signs in what Brazil currently is.

 

A lot of Americans are going to complain about any gun law but by not immediately conflicting with the 2nd amendment you turn their argument, or one of them back upon them.

 

To step down from assault rifles, maximum magazine sizes, maximum calibre, tighten up on registration and registration renewal, maximum number of operable guns owned, collectors can have what they want, so long as it cannot fire, make club ownership mandatory, also mental health checks, a host of other small actions that do not contravene the amendment add up to a beginning.

 

They need the amendment shoved up their ass anyway, it states physically able MEN as being allowed to bear arms, makes no mention of mental health, prohibits by implication women from owning guns. Equal rights would prevent disarming women, but pointing it out shows how farcical its interpretation has become as something to hide behind to have deadly toys.

 

Collectors utterly bemuse me, all the manufacturers put out limited edition runs of their weapons, very expensive. Fire one and you just dropped its value hugely - yeah, you are not in love with your guns at all are you America?

 

Cheers

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

It's like any large complex task, it has to be broken down into manageable, easily digested parts.

 

Both Jamaica and Brazil have lawlessness problems, the latter in a big way, any change in crime relative to gun ownership is going to be very relative - hell, if you are wealthy in Brazil you don't travel on the street, you have a helicopter.

 

Those countries have their own problems, Jamaica not too hard to fix, Brazil a long road because of a large population a large under-society of deperate poor people and engrained corruption.

 

But we are talking about the US, if they wanted to look they could see some "don't go there" signs in what Brazil currently is.

 

A lot of Americans are going to complain about any gun law but by not immediately conflicting with the 2nd amendment you turn their argument, or one of them back upon them.

 

To step down from assault rifles, maximum magazine sizes, maximum calibre, tighten up on registration and registration renewal, maximum number of operable guns owned, collectors can have what they want, so long as it cannot fire, make club ownership mandatory, also mental health checks, a host of other small actions that do not contravene the amendment add up to a beginning.

 

They need the amendment shoved up their ass anyway, it states physically able MEN as being allowed to bear arms, makes no mention of mental health, prohibits by implication women from owning guns. Equal rights would prevent disarming women, but pointing it out shows how farcical its interpretation has become as something to hide behind to have deadly toys.

 

Collectors utterly bemuse me, all the manufacturers put out limited edition runs of their weapons, very expensive. Fire one and you just dropped its value hugely - yeah, you are not in love with your guns at all are you America?

 

Cheers

I agree with everything you've said.

 

Gun control doesn't mean "gun ban".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brazil and Jamaica, as far as I know - both have higher gunshot mortality rates than America. There are prob more if I cared to look.

Have you considered that maybe some of that higher mortality may be attributable not to the rate of shooting, but the standard of health care post wounding?

 

You mean you want me to compare America with no free universal public health care vs Brazil with free universal public health care?

 

That's a neat side step. It's also totally irrelevant.

 

It is illegal to turn emergency patients away in the US.

 

Answer the question.

 

I am answering the question. How would you like me to compare Brazil's system with the American one?

 

You're just sidestepping the fact that brazil has twice the rate of firearm death than America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

Brazil and Jamaica, as far as I know - both have higher gunshot mortality rates than America. There are prob more if I cared to look.

Have you considered that maybe some of that higher mortality may be attributable not to the rate of shooting, but the standard of health care post wounding?

 

You mean you want me to compare America with no free universal public health care vs Brazil with free universal public health care?

 

That's a neat side step. It's also totally irrelevant.

 

It is illegal to turn emergency patients away in the US.

 

Answer the question.

 

I am answering the question. How would you like me to compare Brazil's system with the American one?

 

You're just sidestepping the fact that brazil has twice the rate of firearm death than America.

 

I'm not sidestepping anything.

 

See, the way I remember it, you were the one decrying drawing correlations between binary factors. It has been pointed out to you by both Chris and myself that there are many factors that would influence gunshot mortality, such as quality of care, access to that care, crime, poverty and a myriad of other factors.

 

You're also comparing a first world nation with second world and third word nations.

 

It's you sidestepping a simple and direct question that I put to you. Let me ask it again:

 

Have you considered that maybe some of that higher mortality may be attributable not to the rate of shooting, but the standard of health care post wounding?

 

It's this constant changing of the standard of conversation that makes you extremely non-credible Leonid. If anyone puts forward a proposition you demand incontrovertible proof thereof before you'll accept it.

 

But you're happy to blow complete unsubstantiated bullshit onto the breeze and expect people to accept it.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality of care has nothing to do with the Mortality rate. Look at Juarez in Mexico on the border with the US and see how many shootings their are a day ,and how many survive. In this place Ambulances need a armored escort due the violence and gunfire. Most will survive as Ambulances are highly trained in Gunshot wounds ,but then again most also die as too much gunfire prevents medical aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need the amendment shoved up their ass anyway, it states physically able MEN as being allowed to bear arms, makes no mention of mental health, prohibits by implication women from owning guns. Equal rights would prevent disarming women, but pointing it out shows how farcical its interpretation has become as something to hide behind to have deadly toys.

Not quite:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

There's nothing there about men.

 

Brazil and Jamaica, as far as I know - both have higher gunshot mortality rates than America. There are prob more if I cared to look.

Have you considered that maybe some of that higher mortality may be attributable not to the rate of shooting, but the standard of health care post wounding?

 

You mean you want me to compare America with no free universal public health care vs Brazil with free universal public health care?

 

That's a neat side step. It's also totally irrelevant.

 

It is illegal to turn emergency patients away in the US.

 

Answer the question.

 

I am answering the question. How would you like me to compare Brazil's system with the American one?

 

You're just sidestepping the fact that brazil has twice the rate of firearm death than America.

 

I'm not sidestepping anything.

 

See, the way I remember it, you were the one decrying drawing correlations between binary factors. It has been pointed out to you by both Chris and myself that there are many factors that would influence gunshot mortality, such as quality of care, access to that care, crime, poverty and a myriad of other factors.

 

You're also comparing a first world nation with second world and third word nations.

 

It's you sidestepping a simple and direct question that I put to you. Let me ask it again:

 

Have you considered that maybe some of that higher mortality may be attributable not to the rate of shooting, but the standard of health care post wounding?

 

It's this constant changing of the standard of conversation that makes you extremely non-credible Leonid. If anyone puts forward a proposition you demand incontrovertible proof thereof before you'll accept it.

 

But you're happy to blow complete unsubstantiated bullshit onto the breeze and expect people to accept it.

 

Congratulations xyzzy - you've just provided a whole multitude of reasons other than guns for high firearm death rates.

 

Now, could it be that there are a whole multitude of reasons for high firearm death rates in America?

 

Or is gun control your only answer?

 

Do you understand what I'm saying xyzzy?

 

Every country we've compared the USA too with high gun mortality but low gun ownership rates - you've tried to blame everything but guns.

 

When it comes to the USA, you only blame guns.

 

It's fucking amazing actually. Are you some kind of anti-American bigot?

 

---

 

The Guardian nails it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/in...p-homicides-map

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

Congratulations xyzzy - you've just provided a whole multitude of reasons other than guns for high firearm death rates.

Or is gun control your only answer?

It's certainly part of the answer. Frankly, it seems a whole lot better that your proposal - do nothing.

Do you understand what I'm saying xyzzy?

Do you?

It's fucking amazing actually. Are you some kind of anti-American bigot?

Find me one anti-American statement that I have made.

 

***In fact, don't bother posting one more thing in this thread until you do. ***

 

Would you like me to quote numerous statements BY YOU that state that the problem is the American psyche? Do you want me to do that Leonid?

 

You're a hypocrite.

 

PS - Your little Guardian link. All it does it prove that the US has a problem with firearms. It also shows that some other countries have problems with firearms too.

 

Perhaps those other countries could do with some gun control too.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

Got this from a legal friend Leo, beyond that no idea where it came from but its a US court decision in respect to the amendment.

 

"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defence…’ (Justice McReynolds on US vs. Miller)"

 

It's been years since I read the amendment, about as relevant as Magna Carta to the modern day in my view, but they love their Constitution so...

 

If/when Australia adopts a Constitution as part of becoming a Republic we had best be damned careful what it says... :)

 

Cheers

 

Edit:

 

Oh, here is a fuller quotation of the decision:

 

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

 

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

 

Quote from: Justice McReynolds on US vs. Miller

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I get what you're saying Leo, but from my point of view, the availability of guns in the US is a huge problem, and tight gun control (like what we have in Australia) is but one step in the right direction.

 

Further funding into mental health care would also be another big step.

 

More guns isn't the answer, but then again who takes the NRA seriously? According to them its video games...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Ghar the NRA is a powerful political force.

 

I agree reducing and more totally controlling guns, a long process, is only one step, but it is a beginning.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

 

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

 

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

 

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

 

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.

 

On December 17, 2012, recent breakup set off a shooting spree that ended with the suspect wounding a man at the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 movie theater Sunday night before being shot by an off-duty deputy, authorities said. Police are shown questioning men outside the theater Sunday night.. Jesus Manuel Garcia, 19, an employee at a nearby China Garden restaurant, apparently became upset Sunday night after his girlfriend broke up with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I likey this one.

 

Woman kills ex-boyfriend who invades her home

 

Published 10:05 am, Wednesday, December 26, 2012

 

ABILENE, Texas (AP) — Abilene police say a 34-year-old man has been shot and killed by his estranged girlfriend after he barged into her home.

 

Police found Earnest Gonzales wounded early Wednesday in the front yard of the woman's home. He died later at a hospital.

 

Authorities say Gonzales tried to break in Christmas night but fled. He returned hours later, forced open the door and assaulted the woman. She managed to retrieve a handgun and fired once, hitting him in the left side. The woman's two children — 16-year-old and a newborn — were in the home at the time.

 

Police say the woman had legal possession of the handgun and the case would be referred to a grand jury. They also say no criminal charges are expected

 

 

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/art...p#ixzz2Gg8Jd440

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think the best idea is to give more people guns? or the 'right' people guns?

 

I'm all in favour of the second one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×