Another American shooting incident.

[youngsyr]

Jimbeaux said:

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

I have not decided anything, my post was merely reporting a statistic, which shows that historically people firing a gun in a home have shot a relative something like ten times more often than they have shot an intruder.

From memory the same book stated that historical statistics showed that it was several times safer to let your children play in a house where a gun was kept than it was to let them play in a house with a swimming pool.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 11th January 11:30

[ErnestM]

zakelwe said:

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.

Fully automatic weapons - not available for purchase by civilians in the USA at licensed dealers
Hand grenades - not available for purchase by civilians in the USA at licensed dealers
Machine Guns (post 1986 manufacture) - not available for purchase by civilians in the USA at licensed dealers

I think that you will find that most weapons in Mexico come from (a)The Mexican army selling them to the cartels or (2)Cartels smuggling in full-auto weapons into the country.

Why? Because who would pay $2000 US for a straw purchase semi-auto ar-15 when you can pay $200 for a full auto AK. Check your facts before regurgitating anti-gun talking points.

[Jimbeaux]

Bing o said:

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

The answer would seem to be for one to avoid those areas of town. As to the gun question, one can never get rid of all guns, they are here. Gun control is already in place and generally is effective. To make it even stricter will restrict honest people from ownership and only leave guns in the hands of the dishonest.

[Jimbeaux]

zakelwe said:

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

Then what, bars over my windows? I choose not to. If they rob my house when we are out, then I have insurance. If they rob it while I am at home....well, they are unlucky that I didn't take your steel door idea.

[Jimbeaux]

mattmurdock said:

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...

Well said and boils down to "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

[youngsyr]

mattmurdock said:

...

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.

...

Very interesting post, but I think you're missing an angle here - if you look at most common "serious" crimes (burglary, mugging, car theft, rape, etc.) committed against law-abiding people in the UK, the vast majority of them are committed without guns.

I'd be surprised if the same were true in the US, which would suggest that increased gun control does impact on how some criminals commit their crimes and it may just be that gun control can take guns out of the hands of the criminals that most of us are likely to encounter.

After all, there is still gun crime amongst inner city gangs in the UK.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 11th January 12:43

[mattmurdock]

youngsyr said:

Very interesting post, but I think you're missing an angle here - if you look at most common "serious" crimes (burglary, mugging, car theft, rape, etc.) committed against law-abiding people in the UK, the vast majority of them are committed without guns.

I'd be surprised if the same were true in the US, which would suggest that increased gun control does impact on how some criminals commit their crimes and it may just be that gun control can take guns out of the hands of the criminals that most of us are likely to encounter.

After all, there is still gun crime amongst inner city gangs in the UK.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 11th January 12:43

So the implication is that not having guns makes the criminals in the UK less dangerous? As you yourself point out, there is still gun crime amongst gangs in the UK despite guns being effectively outlawed in the UK. And where the criminals have not been able to secure guns, they simply replace them with knives, which while less lethal in practise are still perfectly capable of killing you.

But the key point is not the relative deaths or cultural differences between the UK and the US - the key point is that it is impossible to prevent someone obtaining a gun if they want one without effectively destroying all guns, and that cannot be done.

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

That is a worthwhile debating point in my opinion, although it is hugely dependent on circumstance and culture and is very difficult to empirically prove either way, as there is contradictory evidence both within and without the US.

But the idea that increasing gun control will reduce gun homicide is pretty clearly not true for the UK - in the UK the rate of gun deaths has remained relatively constant despite the effective ban on handguns in 1997, as aside from extremely rare events the majority of gun deaths are criminals shooting criminals, and they have managed to obtain the guns despite the ban.

[ErnestM]

youngsyr said:

mattmurdock said:

...

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.

...

Very interesting post, but I think you're missing an angle here - if you look at most common "serious" crimes (burglary, mugging, car theft, rape, etc.) committed against law-abiding people in the UK, the vast majority of them are committed without guns.

I'd be surprised if the same were true in the US, which would suggest that increased gun control does impact on how some criminals commit their crimes and it may just be that gun control can take guns out of the hands of the criminals that most of us are likely to encounter.

After all, there is still gun crime amongst inner city gangs in the UK.

According to the FBI and CDC (I can find the links if necessary), the most commonly used weapon in violent encounters is...

...a baseball bat

[youngsyr]

I agree, the genie most definitely is out of the bottle in the US, and I suspect that even banning all guns there now with a national amnesty and moving to the UK guns control laws wouldn't significantly reduce the amount of gun crime there.

However, looking at it from the UK perspective, I certainly wouldn't want to relax the gun laws we have here, and I am someone who shoots (legally) in the UK and who goes out of their way to do so when in the US.

[youngsyr]

ErnestM said:

youngsyr said:

mattmurdock said:

...

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.

...

Very interesting post, but I think you're missing an angle here - if you look at most common "serious" crimes (burglary, mugging, car theft, rape, etc.) committed against law-abiding people in the UK, the vast majority of them are committed without guns.

I'd be surprised if the same were true in the US, which would suggest that increased gun control does impact on how some criminals commit their crimes and it may just be that gun control can take guns out of the hands of the criminals that most of us are likely to encounter.

After all, there is still gun crime amongst inner city gangs in the UK.

According to the FBI and CDC (I can find the links if necessary), the most commonly used weapon in violent encounters is...

...a baseball bat

I would imagine most violent encounters aren't premeditated though, which would preclude obtaining a gun for it even if they are widely available, in many cases.

Unlike say a burglary, mugging, robbery, or car jacking, to give some examples.

[Bill]

mattmurdock said:

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

Of course there's the argument that if the law abiding aren't armed then the crims are less likely to see guns as a necessary tool.

[mattmurdock]

youngsyr said:

I agree, the genie most definitely is out of the bottle in the US, and I suspect that even banning all guns there now with a national amnesty and moving to the UK guns control laws wouldn't significantly reduce the amount of gun crime there.

However, looking at it from the UK perspective, I certainly wouldn't want to relax the gun laws we have here, and I am someone who shoots (legally) in the UK and who goes out of their way to do so when in the US.

We can definitely agree that there should be some control over availability of firearms in order to limit their acquisition by the mental ill or those with prior convictions.

However, I feel that the knee jerk reaction to Dunblane did more to deprive lawful shooters of their hobby than it did to actually prevent such a thing happening again (or prevent criminals from shooting each other) - so I would certainly agree with a return to life before the complete banning of handguns.

[mattmurdock]

Bill said:

mattmurdock said:

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

Of course there's the argument that if the law abiding aren't armed then the crims are less likely to see guns as a necessary tool.

Criminals will do whatever they want to do, which is why they are criminals. If a gun is regarded as a status symbol within their particular circles, they will look to obtain one regardless of whether law abiding citizens also have access to them.

The problem is the argument is a logical fallacy, as it presupposes that restricting access to the law abiding via lawful means in some way restricts access to those who do not abide by the law.

[Bill]

mattmurdock said:

Criminals will do whatever they want to do, which is why they are criminals. If a gun is regarded as a status symbol within their particular circles, they will look to obtain one regardless of whether law abiding citizens also have access to them.

The problem is the argument is a logical fallacy, as it presupposes that restricting access to the law abiding via lawful means in some way restricts access to those who do not abide by the law.

I think you've missed my point which is that if their potential victims are unlikely to be armed the criminals won't feel they need to carry. Obviously this doesn't affect gang related crime as all sides will be carrying, but it may result in fewer law-abiding deaths (IYSWIM).

[ErnestM]

mattmurdock said:

youngsyr said:

I agree, the genie most definitely is out of the bottle in the US, and I suspect that even banning all guns there now with a national amnesty and moving to the UK guns control laws wouldn't significantly reduce the amount of gun crime there.

However, looking at it from the UK perspective, I certainly wouldn't want to relax the gun laws we have here, and I am someone who shoots (legally) in the UK and who goes out of their way to do so when in the US.

We can definitely agree that there should be some control over availability of firearms in order to limit their acquisition by the mental ill or those with prior convictions.

However, I feel that the knee jerk reaction to Dunblane did more to deprive lawful shooters of their hobby than it did to actually prevent such a thing happening again (or prevent criminals from shooting each other) - so I would certainly agree with a return to life before the complete banning of handguns.

Rather than depriving the law-abiding, I prefer Florida's solution. It is called 10-20-Life:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/

Preemptive and confiscatory policies (banning) as well as demonizing an inanimate object are not solutions to any problem (SUV's don't really kill polar bears). The solution is to make the risk of abberant behaviour unappealing and in the case of somebody actually deciding to take that risk, have a policy that removes the individual responsible for the actions from society. Permanently if necessary.

I also agree that loosening gun laws in the UK would not be a good idea at the moment. Years of demonizing firearms (rather than the criminals/abberant individuals that misues them) have taken their toll. The general public are to preconditioned against firearms. They are slowly being preconditioned against knives as well.

Maybe somebody, someday, will actually try to point out that it's people that cause problems and not bits of metal.

I won't hold my breath.

[Bill]

ErnestM said:

I also agree that loosening gun laws in the UK would not be a good idea at the moment. Years of demonizing firearms (rather than the criminals/abberant individuals that misues them) have taken their toll. The general public are to preconditioned against firearms. They are slowly being preconditioned against knives as well.

That's on top of a lack of gun culture to start with. Even growing up in the country and shooting regularly 20 plus years ago (Pre Hungerford and Dunblane) gun ownership was unusual, aside from shotguns.

[youngsyr]

mattmurdock said:

Bill said:

mattmurdock said:

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

Of course there's the argument that if the law abiding aren't armed then the crims are less likely to see guns as a necessary tool.

Criminals will do whatever they want to do, which is why they are criminals. If a gun is regarded as a status symbol within their particular circles, they will look to obtain one regardless of whether law abiding citizens also have access to them.

The problem is the argument is a logical fallacy, as it presupposes that restricting access to the law abiding via lawful means in some way restricts access to those who do not abide by the law.

Restricting access to guns for the law abiding does restrict access to them for criminals though, by two means:

1) With restrictions it's not possible for undetected/future criminals to acquire the gun via a legal method and then for them to go on and commit crimes with the gun; and

2) There are far fewer guns in circulation, so it is more difficult for even an undetected/future criminal to obtain a gun by illegal means.

[youngsyr]

ErnestM said:

Rather than depriving the law-abiding, I prefer Florida's solution. It is called 10-20-Life:

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/...

I have no problem with harsh and lengthy penalties for gun crime, but I'm not in favour of mandatory minimum sentences as they can create some ridiculous results, such as with California's "three strikes" legislation.

Whilst Florida's 10-20-Life rule seems straight-forward and reasonable, it covers not just guns, but using "destructive devices" in certain felonies or attempted felonies.

To my mind this could open up the way for overly lengthy sentences for relatively minor offences, depending on definitions. The problem being that there is no leeway in the definition for circumstances that occur and weren't considered in the original legislation.

These are the exact situations for which we have judges, but with mandatory sentences you tie the judges hands.

[mattmurdock]

youngsyr said:

mattmurdock said:

Bill said:

mattmurdock said:

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

Of course there's the argument that if the law abiding aren't armed then the crims are less likely to see guns as a necessary tool.

Criminals will do whatever they want to do, which is why they are criminals. If a gun is regarded as a status symbol within their particular circles, they will look to obtain one regardless of whether law abiding citizens also have access to them.

The problem is the argument is a logical fallacy, as it presupposes that restricting access to the law abiding via lawful means in some way restricts access to those who do not abide by the law.

Restricting access to guns for the law abiding does restrict access to them for criminals though, by two means:

1) With restrictions it's not possible for undetected/future criminals to acquire the gun via a legal method and then for them to go on and commit crimes with the gun; and

2) There are far fewer guns in circulation, so it is more difficult for even an undetected/future criminal to obtain a gun by illegal means.

Which is of course why since the complete banning of handguns in the UK, the rates of gun death and gun related crime have stayed roughly constant over the last 13 years. Obviously the removal of private handguns has seriously affected the number of guns in circulation amongst criminals

[youngsyr]

mattmurdock said:

youngsyr said:

mattmurdock said:

Bill said:

mattmurdock said:

The genie is out of the bottle, and therefore the only decision that needs to be taken is whether providing guns to lawful citizens increases their and others safety (due to reluctance of criminals to act when others could be armed, or due to people intervening and preventing further loss of life), or decreases their and others safety (due to increasing availability of guns and enabling the law abiding citizen to do damage should they stray from their law abiding path).

Of course there's the argument that if the law abiding aren't armed then the crims are less likely to see guns as a necessary tool.

Criminals will do whatever they want to do, which is why they are criminals. If a gun is regarded as a status symbol within their particular circles, they will look to obtain one regardless of whether law abiding citizens also have access to them.

The problem is the argument is a logical fallacy, as it presupposes that restricting access to the law abiding via lawful means in some way restricts access to those who do not abide by the law.

Restricting access to guns for the law abiding does restrict access to them for criminals though, by two means:

1) With restrictions it's not possible for undetected/future criminals to acquire the gun via a legal method and then for them to go on and commit crimes with the gun; and

2) There are far fewer guns in circulation, so it is more difficult for even an undetected/future criminal to obtain a gun by illegal means.

Which is of course why since the complete banning of handguns in the UK, the rates of gun death and gun related crime have stayed roughly constant over the last 13 years. Obviously the removal of private handguns has seriously affected the number of guns in circulation amongst criminals

Access to all guns in the UK wasn't restricted thirteen years ago though, only access to certain types of gun. It still is possible for a law abiding, sane person in the UK to acquire a shotgun with only minimal checks, so it stands to reason that if a (future or actual) criminal wants to illegally or legally buy/steal/use a gun, they simply buy/steal/use whichever gun is available.

If all guns were outlawed in the UK though I am as certain as I can be that gun crime would be further educed from the already low level.