Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
Apologies if this has already been posted, but it amazes me:
- For every U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan during 11 years of war, at least 13 children were shot and killed in America.
- More than 450 kids didn’t make it to kindergarten.
- Another 2,700 or more were killed by a firearm before they could sit behind the wheel of a car.
- Every day, on average, seven children were shot dead.
- In America between 2002 and 2012, at least 28,000 children and teens 19-years-old and younger were killed with guns.
Just to put that in to some sort of context; 28,000 is the capacity of the Britannia Stadium. Just staggering.
Additionally, I did a little adding up before to compare the EU as a whole to the US. Based on 2007 figures (a little out of date I know):
US Population: 301 million. Gun deaths: 9,146
EU Population: 497 million. Gun deaths: 1,221
The US has a huge, huge problem which seemingly will never end. I don't see how any intelligent person could see otherwise.
- For every U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan during 11 years of war, at least 13 children were shot and killed in America.
- More than 450 kids didn’t make it to kindergarten.
- Another 2,700 or more were killed by a firearm before they could sit behind the wheel of a car.
- Every day, on average, seven children were shot dead.
- In America between 2002 and 2012, at least 28,000 children and teens 19-years-old and younger were killed with guns.
Just to put that in to some sort of context; 28,000 is the capacity of the Britannia Stadium. Just staggering.
Additionally, I did a little adding up before to compare the EU as a whole to the US. Based on 2007 figures (a little out of date I know):
US Population: 301 million. Gun deaths: 9,146
EU Population: 497 million. Gun deaths: 1,221
The US has a huge, huge problem which seemingly will never end. I don't see how any intelligent person could see otherwise.
Edited by benny.c on Tuesday 6th October 17:50
Jon321 said:
London424 said:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/tag/weekend-shootings/ That link is a week by week summary of 1 US city.
Holy f
k!!!doogz said:
creampuff said:
That is an unrealistic and unachievable objective. And there is nothing unsafe about a gun to which children don't have access. I assume you don't get bothered about walking around in the United Kingdom, because there are plenty of shotguns around.
It isn't. It really isn't.Matt Harper said:
Illinois has one of the most aggressive gun control policies in the US. i.e. law abiding citizens have greater gun control restrictions on them than pretty much anywhere else. So what does this suggest?
It suggests to me that they have a particularly huge gun problem, and are desperately trying to clamp down on it.Matt Harper said:
Sounds like you've got it all figured out and the rest of us are just to dumb to "get it". Please enlighten me with your solution.
- too
Matt Harper said:
doogz said:
creampuff said:
That is an unrealistic and unachievable objective. And there is nothing unsafe about a gun to which children don't have access. I assume you don't get bothered about walking around in the United Kingdom, because there are plenty of shotguns around.
It isn't. It really isn't.TankRizzo said:
No, see, you can't have them in a locked safe because then they can't be used for home defence when all the burglars break in to steal your TV murderers break in to kill you and your family.
May be helpful to define the concept of home invasion in simpler terms, for those, like this person, who seem to struggle with the concept.This is a crime that is a little different than the regular theft of property by the aspiring sports-kids, who just got mixed up with the wrong crowd. Those kind of burglaries tend to take place during the day, when the likelihood of the homeowners being inside is minimized.
Home invasion is different, in that it relies on the victims being present - so the home-invader anticipates that the victims will be on the premises when they force their way in. They are not after your TV. They want your cash, cards/PIN numbers, cars, prescription and illicit drugs and firearms. Some also just want to f
k you and your family up a bit, for additional sts and grins.Between 2003 and 2007 FBI stats suggest that 266,500 home invasions involving violence toward the occupants were reported and that in nearly 29,000 of those invasions, the perpetrators were armed. 29,000 families were victims of violence by armed criminals who forced their way in - in the space of 4 years.
An interesting thing happened in the US, beginning here, in Florida in 2005. The so-called "Castle Doctrine" or stand your ground law meant that victims of crimes like home invasion were no longer required to capitulate and could defend themselves, using deadly force if necessary without fear of prosecution. It's a law that was subsequently adopted by almost all US states by 2008. Have a guess what happened to the home invasion statistics.
As an aside, I'm sure I read somewhere that in Australia, after the confiscation of most firearms from the public, there were some quite negative repercussions.
Armed robbery, armed assault, murder involving firearms and - yup - the new (to them) concept of armed home invasion, all increased quite dramatically. How could that be? (if it's true)
What this suggests to me is that criminals who are prepared to break their way into people's homes with the intention of terrorizing them into handing over their valuables (or worse) are becoming less inclined to perpetrate this crime as the chances of them being shot in the process increases - and are more inclined to use the method as the chances of them being shot is essentially removed. But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that one out, does it?
For the record, I'm not particularly pro-gun, nor am I a glassy eyed republican nut-case. I would rather live in a society without guns, assuming that also meant that criminals were equally starved of their weapons, to the extent that they are in say, the UK. So, despite sharing the views in this thread regarding the horror that guns have visited on this society, I like to think I'm also pragmatic and realistic.
I've given up reading all of the smart-assed vitriol - but I think that practical suggestions on how to realistically control weapons ownership in the US make interesting on-topic reading. I still feel that mandatory weapon registration, limitations in who can and who cannot sell weapons and ammunition and psychological evaluation at the gun owners expense of any person in possession of a firearm would be a step in the right direction. It would cause a s
t-storm here, but I think it would be worthwhile.I suspect that some attempted arbitrary siezure, would result in total chaos and major civil unrest.
Finally, despite my view that the 2nd Amendment argument is weak at best, has this been aired yet?
https://youtu.be/B5ELyG9V1SY
EliseNick said:
Matt Harper said:
Illinois has one of the most aggressive gun control policies in the US. i.e. law abiding citizens have greater gun control restrictions on them than pretty much anywhere else. So what does this suggest?
It suggests to me that they have a particularly huge gun problem, and are desperately trying to clamp down on it.VX Foxy said:
Matt Harper said:
Sounds like you've got it all figured out and the rest of us are just to dumb to "get it". Please enlighten me with your solution.
- too
I notice you still haven't provided us with the magic practical and workable answer to the problem, so I'll ask again.......
Matt Harper said:
May be helpful to define the concept of home invasion in simpler terms, for those, like this person, who seem to struggle with the concept.
This is a crime that is a little different than the regular theft of property by the aspiring sports-kids, who just got mixed up with the wrong crowd. Those kind of burglaries tend to take place during the day, when the likelihood of the homeowners being inside is minimized.
Home invasion is different, in that it relies on the victims being present - so the home-invader anticipates that the victims will be on the premises when they force their way in. They are not after your TV. They want your cash, cards/PIN numbers, cars, prescription and illicit drugs and firearms. Some also just want to fk you and your family up a bit, for additional sts and grins.
Between 2003 and 2007 FBI stats suggest that 266,500 home invasions involving violence toward the occupants were reported and that in nearly 29,000 of those invasions, the perpetrators were armed. 29,000 families were victims of violence by armed criminals who forced their way in - in the space of 4 years.
An interesting thing happened in the US, beginning here, in Florida in 2005. The so-called "Castle Doctrine" or stand your ground law meant that victims of crimes like home invasion were no longer required to capitulate and could defend themselves, using deadly force if necessary without fear of prosecution. It's a law that was subsequently adopted by almost all US states by 2008. Have a guess what happened to the home invasion statistics.
As an aside, I'm sure I read somewhere that in Australia, after the confiscation of most firearms from the public, there were some quite negative repercussions.
Armed robbery, armed assault, murder involving firearms and - yup - the new (to them) concept of armed home invasion, all increased quite dramatically. How could that be? (if it's true)
What this suggests to me is that criminals who are prepared to break their way into people's homes with the intention of terrorizing them into handing over their valuables (or worse) are becoming less inclined to perpetrate this crime as the chances of them being shot in the process increases - and are more inclined to use the method as the chances of them being shot is essentially removed. But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that one out, does it?
For the record, I'm not particularly pro-gun, nor am I a glassy eyed republican nut-case. I would rather live in a society without guns, assuming that also meant that criminals were equally starved of their weapons, to the extent that they are in say, the UK. So, despite sharing the views in this thread regarding the horror that guns have visited on this society, I like to think I'm also pragmatic and realistic.
I've given up reading all of the smart-assed vitriol - but I think that practical suggestions on how to realistically control weapons ownership in the US make interesting on-topic reading. I still feel that mandatory weapon registration, limitations in who can and who cannot sell weapons and ammunition and psychological evaluation at the gun owners expense of any person in possession of a firearm would be a step in the right direction. It would cause a st-storm here, but I think it would be worthwhile.
I suspect that some attempted arbitrary siezure, would result in total chaos and major civil unrest.
Finally, despite my view that the 2nd Amendment argument is weak at best, has this been aired yet?
https://youtu.be/B5ELyG9V1SY
I like how you've omitted the pertinent data.This is a crime that is a little different than the regular theft of property by the aspiring sports-kids, who just got mixed up with the wrong crowd. Those kind of burglaries tend to take place during the day, when the likelihood of the homeowners being inside is minimized.
Home invasion is different, in that it relies on the victims being present - so the home-invader anticipates that the victims will be on the premises when they force their way in. They are not after your TV. They want your cash, cards/PIN numbers, cars, prescription and illicit drugs and firearms. Some also just want to f
k you and your family up a bit, for additional sts and grins.Between 2003 and 2007 FBI stats suggest that 266,500 home invasions involving violence toward the occupants were reported and that in nearly 29,000 of those invasions, the perpetrators were armed. 29,000 families were victims of violence by armed criminals who forced their way in - in the space of 4 years.
An interesting thing happened in the US, beginning here, in Florida in 2005. The so-called "Castle Doctrine" or stand your ground law meant that victims of crimes like home invasion were no longer required to capitulate and could defend themselves, using deadly force if necessary without fear of prosecution. It's a law that was subsequently adopted by almost all US states by 2008. Have a guess what happened to the home invasion statistics.
As an aside, I'm sure I read somewhere that in Australia, after the confiscation of most firearms from the public, there were some quite negative repercussions.
Armed robbery, armed assault, murder involving firearms and - yup - the new (to them) concept of armed home invasion, all increased quite dramatically. How could that be? (if it's true)
What this suggests to me is that criminals who are prepared to break their way into people's homes with the intention of terrorizing them into handing over their valuables (or worse) are becoming less inclined to perpetrate this crime as the chances of them being shot in the process increases - and are more inclined to use the method as the chances of them being shot is essentially removed. But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that one out, does it?
For the record, I'm not particularly pro-gun, nor am I a glassy eyed republican nut-case. I would rather live in a society without guns, assuming that also meant that criminals were equally starved of their weapons, to the extent that they are in say, the UK. So, despite sharing the views in this thread regarding the horror that guns have visited on this society, I like to think I'm also pragmatic and realistic.
I've given up reading all of the smart-assed vitriol - but I think that practical suggestions on how to realistically control weapons ownership in the US make interesting on-topic reading. I still feel that mandatory weapon registration, limitations in who can and who cannot sell weapons and ammunition and psychological evaluation at the gun owners expense of any person in possession of a firearm would be a step in the right direction. It would cause a s
t-storm here, but I think it would be worthwhile.I suspect that some attempted arbitrary siezure, would result in total chaos and major civil unrest.
Finally, despite my view that the 2nd Amendment argument is weak at best, has this been aired yet?
https://youtu.be/B5ELyG9V1SY
Of those 266,560 violent home invasions 65percent of offenders were known to the victim, only 28percent were strangers, these so called 'murderers' only looking to steal your s
t and fk you up for fun. 31percent of offenders were current or ex partners and the other 34percent were friends, relatives or acquaintances.Furthermore, households with a white head of house were somewhat less likely than a black head of house to experience a burglary whilst a household member was present.
OpulentBob said:
Matt Harper said:
doogz said:
creampuff said:
That is an unrealistic and unachievable objective. And there is nothing unsafe about a gun to which children don't have access. I assume you don't get bothered about walking around in the United Kingdom, because there are plenty of shotguns around.
It isn't. It really isn't.My view is that whether I like it or not, if I were to be staring down the barrel of a gun, I want a response that's a little more aggressive than begging for my life. Not likely, thankfully - but a lot more likely than back home in leafy Yorkshire.
Without sounding like a stuck record, just banging-on, page after page, with "There are too many guns" and "Dumb Americans are too dumb to have guns" isn't really addressing the problem - it's just reiterating it.
Oakey said:
I like how you've omitted the pertinent data.
Of those 266,560 violent home invasions 65percent of offenders were known to the victim, only 28percent were strangers, these so called 'murderers' only looking to steal your st and fk you up for fun. 31percent of offenders were current or ex partners and the other 34percent were friends, relatives or acquaintances.
Furthermore, households with a white head of house were somewhat less likely than a black head of house to experience a burglary whilst a household member was present.
Oh - only 10,000 or so then - mere chicken feed - and - what's race got to do with it - are you racist? Are you suggesting I'm racist? What relevance does black/white have in all this?Of those 266,560 violent home invasions 65percent of offenders were known to the victim, only 28percent were strangers, these so called 'murderers' only looking to steal your s
t and fk you up for fun. 31percent of offenders were current or ex partners and the other 34percent were friends, relatives or acquaintances.Furthermore, households with a white head of house were somewhat less likely than a black head of house to experience a burglary whilst a household member was present.
Presumably, the 65% who knew their attacks somehow don't count then - like it didn't happen, because they knew the identity of the people who'd forced their way in.
"So called murderers"? So called by who, apart from you?
Edited by Matt Harper on Tuesday 6th October 20:15
Matt Harper said:
In fairness, I never disagreed. I suppose my own dilemma is that although I am as nauseated by the senseless waste of life, as the next sane person, I live in this society (and enjoy the benefits of it immensely) - I also live in an area that has significantly higher gun ownership per-capita than anywhere else in the US, bar Texas - and I own a shotgun and two handguns. My wife (who is also English, like me) concealed carries also - and as mentioned earlier my UK born adult daughter is a firearms specialist in our local Sheriffs Dept. Her work exposes her to quite a lot of gun crime, which in addition to being a worry for us, regarding her wellbeing, anecdotally has rubbed off on us too, to some degree.
My view is that whether I like it or not, if I were to be staring down the barrel of a gun, I want a response that's a little more aggressive than begging for my life. Not likely, thankfully - but a lot more likely than back home in leafy Yorkshire.
Without sounding like a stuck record, just banging-on, page after page, with "There are too many guns" and "Dumb Americans are too dumb to have guns" isn't really addressing the problem - it's just reiterating it.
It's a complex problem and complex problems don't have simple solutions. Banning firearms in the US probably wouldn't work. My view is that whether I like it or not, if I were to be staring down the barrel of a gun, I want a response that's a little more aggressive than begging for my life. Not likely, thankfully - but a lot more likely than back home in leafy Yorkshire.
Without sounding like a stuck record, just banging-on, page after page, with "There are too many guns" and "Dumb Americans are too dumb to have guns" isn't really addressing the problem - it's just reiterating it.
I think what those looking in find crazy is the hostility towards those who want any reform and the reasons and 'justifications' are based upon. To stop the government essentially attacking its citizens, for example.
There doesn't appear to be any room for reasonable debate and thus no scope to make any changes that will see this consistent numbers of deaths start to reduce every year and form a downtrend. Something which we see in other regulatory environments such as driving.
Matt Harper said:
May be helpful to define the concept of home invasion in simpler terms, for those, like this person, who seem to struggle with the concept.
I'm not struggling at all, Matt. People mostly want your stuff. Americans are just stupidly paranoid that everyone wants to break in and kill them.To deconstruct your post a little:
You say:
Matt said:
Home invasion is different, in that it relies on the victims being present - so the home-invader anticipates that the victims will be on the premises when they force their way in. They are not after your TV. They want your cash, cards/PIN numbers, cars, prescription and illicit drugs and firearms.
That's frankly just scaremongering rubbish. Following your logic, you can argue that a robbery here in the UK where the criminal wants your car and breaks in at night to steal the keys is a "home invasion" and you should keep a gun with you to shoot at them, rather than just giving them the keys. Or your cash, or card, or anything which can be replaced easily rather than starting a firefight and getting yourself killed. My family has been broken into three times in my life - all at night, all with people in the house. I guess these were all home invasions.Matt said:
Between 2003 and 2007 FBI stats suggest that 266,500 home invasions involving violence toward the occupants were reported and that in nearly 29,000 of those invasions, the perpetrators were armed. 29,000 families were victims of violence by armed criminals who forced their way in - in the space of 4 years.
It's rather telling that you can only find stats from 2007 to back up your argument. Your source, which I found, actually says this about "home invasions":source said:
Of the yearly 3.7 million burglaries, a household member was present in approximately 1 million of them, and around 266,500 victims became victims of violence.
The most common form of violence in these situations is simple assault, though robbery and rape do occasionally take place.
(...)
Most offenders were unarmed during violent confrontations, though approximately 12% of household members who encounter a burglar find the offender to be armed with a firearm.
So in the most armed country on earth, only 12% of actual confrontations involve a firearm. And the most common incident in these confrontations is assault to get your stuff. Not rape or murder. Not really much justification for keeping an AR-15 under your mattress.The most common form of violence in these situations is simple assault, though robbery and rape do occasionally take place.
(...)
Most offenders were unarmed during violent confrontations, though approximately 12% of household members who encounter a burglar find the offender to be armed with a firearm.
source said:
Serious injuries occurred in approximately 9% of cases where a member of the house experienced violence during a burglary.
So even when violence occurred which is a small fraction of burglaries anyway, only 9% of those ended up with serious injury.So in conclusion, statistically when someone breaks into your house, they are extremely likely to want to steal your things and get out. They may, very infrequently, be involved in a violent confrontation with you (possibly initiated by you yourself). They are very unlikely to be in possession of a firearm. Even if you get into a fight with them, you are very unlikely to come away with a serious injury.
And because of this the USA still feels it's appropriate to accept a state of affairs where an 11 year old can shoot an 8 year old dead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841
Or where a toddler can find a gun under a mattress and shoot his mother dead whilst she is changing her baby's nappy
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-s...
Or a 2-year-old can kill his 11 year old sister with a gun he found on top of the fridge
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2598431/Bo...
Or a toddler can shoot his mother dead in Wal-Mart.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2891673/Po...
Or where a 3 year old shoots himself playing with his mother's pistol.
https://www.rt.com/usa/266899-ohio-child-shoots-hi...
How many more before American society wakes up?
Matt, interesting post regarding 'home invasion'. Like 'suicide by cop' something I'm glad just doesn't seem to be an issue in the UK.
However, starting from the premise that there is a legitimate need for armed civilians in order to protect their home, how about removing the right to carry outside the home - and a requirement for specific storage methods within.
Then, anyone carrying in public is committing an offense, and can potentially be dealt with before the seemingly common 'he just looked like a normal dude (with holster) until he pulled it and started shooting' event occurs. Police/security staff exempted, but subject to mental health monitoring etc. in order to retain the permit to carry publically.
Within the home, have as many as you want, however they must be stored in biometrically locked cabinets/drawers at all times. That way if necessary you can have a loaded pistol within arm's reach at almost all times, yet they're safely out of harm's way day to day.
Practice can be done at ranges, using borrowed equipment matching your own. Larger weapons permitted once a suitable use case is presented.
It would seem to provide a step forward - the NRA's SA argument can be circumvented. People can feel safe at home. Kids aren't going to accidentally shoot themselves. Nor are other members of the family, as it'll be clear that the registered owner has opened the safe.
Not perfect, but feels like a start...
However, starting from the premise that there is a legitimate need for armed civilians in order to protect their home, how about removing the right to carry outside the home - and a requirement for specific storage methods within.
Then, anyone carrying in public is committing an offense, and can potentially be dealt with before the seemingly common 'he just looked like a normal dude (with holster) until he pulled it and started shooting' event occurs. Police/security staff exempted, but subject to mental health monitoring etc. in order to retain the permit to carry publically.
Within the home, have as many as you want, however they must be stored in biometrically locked cabinets/drawers at all times. That way if necessary you can have a loaded pistol within arm's reach at almost all times, yet they're safely out of harm's way day to day.
Practice can be done at ranges, using borrowed equipment matching your own. Larger weapons permitted once a suitable use case is presented.
It would seem to provide a step forward - the NRA's SA argument can be circumvented. People can feel safe at home. Kids aren't going to accidentally shoot themselves. Nor are other members of the family, as it'll be clear that the registered owner has opened the safe.
Not perfect, but feels like a start...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff