Another American shooting incident.

[jeff m]

Responsible gun owners hate these incidents just as much if not more than the regular man in the street.
We have more to lose. Our sport.
The anti gun lobby however seem to have little compassion for the victims as individuals they just start frothing at the mouth and treat it as an opportunity to further their agenda.
While we shout lock 'em up throw away the key. (no, not the victims)

No different to somebody having a really nice friendly Staffordshire that licks the postman every morning, but because some pillock has trained his as a fighting dog, escapes and kills a child your dog has to go!

Fair, of course it isn't.

With regard to an earlier post that I forgot to quote
Which went something like the person is checked once at 22 years old then the gun is with them til 75.
In certain cases that might be true. Most gun owners buy more than one gun so they would be checked at each purchase by at least "instant check". If they are unfortunate enough to live in New Jersey, they have to first apply for a firearm ID, then a separate "permission to purchase" for each handgun which depending upon where they live in the State can take at least 30 days.
I cannot buy a airgun without one of these individual permits. (airrifle yes, but not a hand gun type.) Fireworks are ilegal too. Not even a permit for those.

Not sure if this was addressed earlier. In theory, though certainly not in practice in NJ, the reason it may be difficult for someone in UK to understand the position of Americans with regard to gun ownership is that it is regarded as a right not a privalige.
You can lic a privalage, but not a right.
Driving is a privalage, therefore we have a lic.
In NJ we have an ID, which is effectivly a lic. but called an ID.

Nobody likes to give up a right. Gun owner or not.
I'm sure giving up a right makes it a little more understandable for many.
In UK you only have a few left So that should be quite "gettable"
In the US we currently have the pursuit of happiness in jeopody. (two years to go on that one)

It is also very different to have rights curtailed by rule and regulation than by legislation. Which is often the way things are tried to be implemented. In an effort to circumvent the court.

Even the ACLU which is full of pinkies support this position even though I guess many wish they didn't

[ErnestM]

Good post Jeff...

By the way - Florida should be "open carry" by June/July. You should get out of Joisey and move to Joisey South. You would like it down here...

[g4ry13]

So because back in the 18th Century someone said all american citizens should have the rights to protect themselves and bear arms it's still a modern day right? Akin to the right of freedom of speech? The modern world has changed dramatically and it's not a basic human right to bear arms. Just because it's written into the bill of rights it should not be treated as something set in concrete that can never be removed for the greater good. Although of course the NRA would never let something good happen out of their own selfish desires.

[elster]

-Pete- said:

This is going well. Anyway, my thoughts go out to the injured, the dead, and their families. Whatever's wrong, I hope some positive changes will come out of this.

Yes I hope those who are dead are remembered and those who were heroes are decorated.

I also hope there is not a British knee jerk reaction to this.

[ErnestM]

g4ry13 said:

So because back in the 18th Century someone said all american citizens should have the rights to protect themselves and bear arms it's still a modern day right?

Yes

g4ry13 said:

Akin to the right of freedom of speech?

Yes

g4ry13 said:

The modern world has changed dramatically and it's not a basic human right to bear arms.

Says who? Who is the ultimate adjudicator of what human rights should be. From where do they get their authority to make that decision?

g4ry13 said:

Just because it's written into the bill of rights it should not be treated as something set in concrete that can never be removed for the greater good.

I would like you to expand on this "greater good" how would an individual's "greater good" be enhanced by eliminating their ability to defend themselves?

g4ry13 said:

Although of course the NRA would never let something good happen out of their own selfish desires.

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly which selfish desires these are? Specifically.

- - - -

The US Constitution is quite unique. In it is contained the limitations of the power of the Federal Government. The bill of rights is a specific set of amendments that further identifies individual reservations of rights to the people or the States.

The founders never trusted strong central government. A majority of Americans still do not.

The bill of rights is sacrosanct. Attempting to eliminate or curtail any of them would result in a groundswell of public discontent (to put it mildly) that would rock the very foundation of society in the US.

[Jimbeaux]

youngsyr said:

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

g4ry13 said:

There's CCTV in the store. It will be more accurate in identifying the criminals than a person and I imagine most stores have panic buttons which get hit a high % of the time. The guns are taken to a robbery for intimidation, otherwise they won't get any respect just walking into a store and asking for the money. They are there to rob the store and get away ASAP, not stand around and start exchanging gunfire and kill people. A very low % of the time shots will be fired without the offender being attacked/threatened but looking over the reported stories the general case is a gun was drawn/the robber was threatened and a shootout proceeded. I'm sure it does happen that they kill people for the thrill but this is probably a rarity.

Edited by g4ry13 on Monday 10th January 19:44

OK.

To each his own. I prefer not to bet my life on the better angels of their nature. Especially when such angels may be clouded by the effects of pcp, heroin or crack (or withdrawal of same)

As far as panic buttons, remember the old saying... "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away..." (told to me by a Florida Highway Patrol officer, so I tend to believe him) Oh - and in Florida - you have to answer a call back from the alarm company before they will contact the police. False alarms you know...

Along the lines of:
"Do you have a gun in your house?"
"Yes."
"Is it loaded?"
"Yes."
"Why, are you expecting trouble?"
"No, but I have fire extinguishers here and they are loaded too."

I believe it was in "Freakonomics" that I read that a homeowner discharging a firearm inside their home is 10 times more likely to shoot a relative than an intruder.

Wow, that is certainly baseless. So you and a couple of others here have decided that something called "Freakanomics" has sorted all of this out and decreed that gun owners defending their home are going to shoot one of their own 10 times to 1??

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 03:50

[Jimbeaux]

g4ry13 said:

The modern world has changed dramatically and it's not a basic human right to bear arms.

Really? Who died and left you in charge?

[Bing o]

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

The modern world has changed dramatically and it's not a basic human right to bear arms.

Really? Who died and left you in charge?

It seems it depends where in the world you live...

Why do our US/Canadian contributors think that the US has higher rates of gun crime/deaths compared to Canada (not trolling, this is an honest question in which I'd be interested to know your opinions)?

[jeff m]

ErnestM said:

Good post Jeff...

By the way - Florida should be "open carry" by June/July. You should get out of Joisey and move to Joisey South. You would like it down here...

Thank you, I shall start saving for my Caddy with seat cusion.

(I'm always moaning about New Jersey, but it's not bad really)

[Jimbeaux]

Bing o said:

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

The modern world has changed dramatically and it's not a basic human right to bear arms.

Really? Who died and left you in charge?

It seems it depends where in the world you live...

Why do our US/Canadian contributors think that the US has higher rates of gun crime/deaths compared to Canada (not trolling, this is an honest question in which I'd be interested to know your opinions)?

Honest question. Although it is horribly un-PC, one will find that a very small minority of demographic account for a very large majority of gun deaths. Therefore, the stats are not indicative of the mainstream population.

[davepoth]

g4ry13 said:

So because back in the 18th Century someone said all american citizens should have the rights to protect themselves and bear arms it's still a modern day right? Akin to the right of freedom of speech? The modern world has changed dramatically and it's not a basic human right to bear arms. Just because it's written into the bill of rights it should not be treated as something set in concrete that can never be removed for the greater good. Although of course the NRA would never let something good happen out of their own selfish desires.

We can hardly talk about this. The US constitution says they have the right to bear arms specifically because we decided to ban them from having them in 1774. People in glass houses and all that. It's still a bit of a touchy subject.

[Bing o]

Jimbeaux said:

Honest question. Although it is horribly un-PC, one will find that a very small minority of demographic account for a very large majority of gun deaths. Therefore, the stats are not indicative of the mainstream population.

I had a quick google, which threw up the following - it certainly looks like minority males are the biggest cause (statistically). However, given that they are still Americans, what do you see as being the answer?

http://www.epi.state.nc.us/SCHS/pdf/sb-17.pdf

And would I be right in saying that most multiple shootings are conducted by white males?

George Hennard at Killeen
University of Austin clocktower, Texas
Oklahoma Postal worker (can't recall if he was coloured or not)
Columbine etc

[zakelwe]

FasterFreddy said:

zakelwe said:

Now how much time does the average person in the USA spend firing a gun per day? Now this is a really hard figure, but I would guess it is nearer to 2 minutes per day than 2 hours. Care to argue against that rough estimate?

Andy

I might be missing your point entirely but are you trying to say that firing a gun is more dangerous than driving a car?

If you are trying to compare the number of gunshot-related deaths and automobile-related deaths based on the time a person is engaged in each activity and you can only roughly estimate the numbers based on guesswork, what does that achieve? I just don't see what point you are trying prove.

The whole car/gun comparison thing is pointless, but often brought up in discussions like this for some reason. Yes, there are a lot of cars about, they are big, heavy and can go quite fast and as they are driven by humans there are inevitably lots of deaths and injuries caused as a result of careless or inexperienced use.

Most guns, on the other hand, are not owned by careless or inexperienced users and although there are a lot of them in circulation, there are very few 'accidental' deaths as a result.

So, guess what? The gun turns out to be the safer than the car. Who would have thought it?

Or are you trying to compare the nut behind the wheel with the person pulling the trigger?

I agree when you say the car / comparison analogy is pointless, I have commented above that the reason for use if difference so the comparison should not be made.

I disagree when you state, that guns are safer than cars, the statistics show that they are not when you take into the account the amount of time used. If people used guns for the same amount of time as they used cars, or if they used cars for a lot less time, then guns would kill more people given current rates of injury.

Andy

[zakelwe]

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

The problem is the US is so crap with their weapon control

Not so, kick in my door and see how well I control mine.

Do you stay in your home 24/7 then? Wouldn't a steel reinforced door that you couldn't kick in and protects you 24/7 be better than say if you have a gun but are at work?

Andy

[zakelwe]

ErnestM said:

Ayahuasca said:

ErnestM said:

Ayahuasca said:

Given that US society has chosen to accept a certain number of 'shooting incidents' as the price of its current gun laws, I wonder how many incidents it could tolerate before this acceptance is lost? One a month? One a week?

Depends what you mean by "incidents". There are already more examples of the legal use of firearms for defense than one a week/one a month. The problem is, these stories don't sell advertising time/space...

http://thearmedcitizen.com/wp/category/armed

No, I meant headline-hitting multiple shootings. I know they are not exactly commmon, but stuff like the Army base shootings, Virginia Tech, Crandon, The Red Lake school shootings, the Illinois College shooting, Columbine, the Amish school shooting, the University of Alabama shootings, the Washington Sniper and others that a few seconds on Google couldn't find.

I don't know/hard to say. However, of the ones that you have pointed out, let me show you a common denominator...

Ft. Hood - Under military regulations privately owned firearms were not allowed where the shooting took place
Virginia Tech - By law (because it is a campus) privately owned firearms were not allowed where the shooting took place
Crandon - Nutter - no common denominator
Red Lake - By law (because it is a school) privately owned firearms were not allowed where the shooting took place
Illinois College - By law (because it is a campus) privately owned firearms were not allowed where the shooting took place
Columbine - By law (because it is a school) privately owned firearms were not allowed where the shooting took place (not even teachers
UofA (Huntsville) - By law (because it is a campus) privately owned firearms were not allowed where the shooting took place
Washington Sniper - No real denominator here other than the fact that DC had very strict gun laws at the time - but the perp was a nutter.

So - for 6 out of 8 of the examples, the incident could have ended differently had an armed citizen been able to exercise a defensive posture. (armed student or professor in the case of the colleges, armed military personel in the case of the army or an armed security guard/teacher in the case of the High Schools)

All incidents were, arguably, commited by nutters. The one thing these crazies are very sure of, however, is that they know where law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry personal firearms.

In 8 out of 8 examples it could have been different if nobody had a gun. Conversely, if everybody had been armed then it could have been a lot worse. If everyone has guns how do people know who the real gunman is, how do the police know?

Most of these shootings actually happen by "law abiding" citizens, until they decide not to be law abiding anymore. It would be interesting to know how many people are shot each year in the USA by law abiding citizens compared to none.

Andy

PS Sorry for spamming, it is fascinating topic !

[zakelwe]

ErnestM said:

-Pete- said:

But to be brutally honest with you all, this kind of thing doesn't happen in countries where gun ownership is tightly controlled. Politicians in the UK don't get killed because random 22 year old nutters don't agree with them. I'm not saying your way is right or wrong, but it's hard for people like me to understand the advantages - even if I might be a gun enthiusiast at heart.

Better tell that to Mexico. They have very tight gun laws (non military calibres only up to .380 / 38 special, etc)

- - - -

...oh, and by the way, guns are pretty much outlawed in the UK. So, crims don't carry them any more, right? I mean, if guns are illegal and all....

Mexico shows an interesting thing, it is not the legality specificially that controls it, it is legality reducing availability. In the UK guns are restricted legally, so availability is lower. This means that a lot of criminals use fake firearms as they are easier to obtain, or modify them. That answers your 2nd point. The Home Office statistics show this.

In regards to Mexico legal means has reduced availability also. However, unfortunately there is a country next door where guns are available in large amounts due to the legal structure. Guess where the Mexicans get their guns? So the USA in effect bypasses the Mexican legally enforced reduced availability.

Going back to pete's coconut island, I prefer a better question. Considering that if you had a child at school whilst you were at work, would you rather the nearest gun be 10 miles away or 100 yards?

Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Tuesday 11th January 06:41

[Guybrush]

g4ry13 said:

-Pete- said:

This is going well. Anyway, my thoughts go out to the injured, the dead, and their families. Whatever's wrong, I hope some positive changes will come out of this.

That's what everyone hopes when some lunatic runs about shooting people but nothing ever happens. Seems like this time they're more interested in blaming the politicians and Palin for something much deeper rooted.

Yes, the guy is unhinged, even his tutor thought he was dangerous, but the left, as usual, are using it as an opportunity to character-assassinate a polititian whom they are afraid of (Sarah Palin). With the left, no matter what you do, it's not your fault, you can always blame someone else. And as for the easily-manipulated baying lefty peasants and their comments on this incident on MSN, it really is pathetic (and of course predictible).

[FasterFreddy]

zakelwe said:

In the UK guns are restricted legally, so availability is lower. This means that a lot of criminals use fake firearms as they are easier to obtain, or modify them.

The availability of firearms to criminals in the UK has very little to do with legislation.

[elster]

zakelwe said:

Mexico shows an interesting thing, it is not the legality specificially that controls it, it is legality reducing availability. In the UK guns are restricted legally, so availability is lower. This means that a lot of criminals use fake firearms as they are easier to obtain, or modify them. That answers your 2nd point. The Home Office statistics show this.

Can you show me those statistics?

These must be new, as a few years ago only a very small percentage were modified decommissioned firearms. Which is the largest number of "modified" guns on the street.

Last time I looked well over 60% were just firearms brought in illegally.

[mattmurdock]

zakelwe said:

In 8 out of 8 examples it could have been different if nobody had a gun. Conversely, if everybody had been armed then it could have been a lot worse. If everyone has guns how do people know who the real gunman is, how do the police know?

Most of these shootings actually happen by "law abiding" citizens, until they decide not to be law abiding anymore. It would be interesting to know how many people are shot each year in the USA by law abiding citizens compared to none.

Andy

PS Sorry for spamming, it is fascinating topic !

I don't believe these sort of statistics are kept, as by definition anyone who shoots someone when not in self defence or employed in a law enforcement capability is not a law abiding citizen.

However, a quick look at the National Vital Statistics Report issued by the CDC in the US, shows the following for 2007 (the latest year they have final statistics for):

Total deaths were 2,423,712.
All firearm related deaths accounted for 31,224 (which is around 1.3% of all deaths).
However, 17,352 of those were suicide by gun, and 351 were law enforcement or military, both of which were either authorised or imho likely to happen by other means even if guns were not available.

So that leaves the following:
613 accidental shootings
276 shootings where cause could not be established
12,632 homicides

So the total number of deaths that 'potentially' could have been avoided if guns were not available (I say potentially because the homicides could have been executed with other weapons or means if guns were not available) is 13,251, or around 0.5% of all the deaths in the US in that year.

To put that into perspective, there were 3 times as many total suicides that year (although I concede over a third of those were by gun), more deaths from Parkinsons and considerably more deaths from transport accidents (46,250), poisoning (40,059) and from unintentional falls (22,631).

On raw numbers, it would seem banning ladders and access to high places would be a better response than banning guns

Of course, guns did make up the majority (2/3rds) of all homicides, but the age-adjusted statistics by race (assuming this was properly classified on the death certificate) show that black males have 2 and 1/2 times the death rate of white males from firearms related causes, and they in turn have nearly 4 times the death rate of white and black females.

So the deaths are predominately black males, followed by white males, and whilst un-PC this would trend towards gang violence and criminal behaviour being the principal driving cause of the homicides. And this is likely to happen regardless of gun law, as career criminals tend to ignore pretty much any law, and so are more likely to carry firearms even where they are outlawed.

This has become a bit of an essay, so will leave it for now...