Another American shooting incident.

[Jimbeaux]

Bing o said:

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

Or you could try and stop people becoming criminals in the first place...(this applies to the UK as well).

That is my point and I agree.

[FasterFreddy]

zakelwe said:

In 2007-2008 that had gone down to 2 legally held and 21 illegally held, so the ratio has gone up so indicating that the claim "vast majority of deaths are caused by illegal weapons" might be true. However these figures do not take into account legally owned guns killing people by accident or an easy suicide. Taken as a whole any scaremongeriing of illegal weapons being a big problem is not the case. More people are killed in the UK each year by legally owned weapons than illegal.

Andy

Eh? What's the number for "legally owned guns killing people by accident" then?

You are trying desperately to prove a point which isn't there. Give it up.

[zakelwe]

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

I'd say most people in the USA killed by guns are killed by previously law abiding citizens. Your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour, your employee you just fired.

So how does targetting criminals counter that?

Tell me how many people in the USA have died per year from gun accidents, never mind homicides?

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

Targetting criminals doesn't cut out accidents.

So I can easily disagree with your statement as it doesn't take into account the major causes of gun deaths on the USA - law abiding citizens, suicides and accidents.

Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Tuesday 11th January 20:29

[g4ry13]

Jimbeaux said:

Bing o said:

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

Or you could try and stop people becoming criminals in the first place...(this applies to the UK as well).

That is my point and I agree.

That's a bit naive as there will always be crime. People aspire to consume more and own more possessions. It's the whole american dream and what keeps society functioning. The only way to prevent people from becoming criminals is if they believed there was 0% chance they could get away with it and that won't happen for a long time (or without giving up some serious civil liberties.)

[g4ry13]

zakelwe said:

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

I'd say most people in the USA killed by guns are killed by previously law abiding citizens. Your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour, your employee you just fired.

So how does targetting criminals counter that?

Tell me how many people in the USA have died per yeart from gun accidents, never mind homicides?

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

Targetting criminals doesn't cut out accidents.

So I can easily disagree with your statement as it doesn't take into account the major causes of gun deaths on the USA - law abiding citizens, suicides and accidents.

Andy

A lot of crime goes unreported. Gang on gang crime is under-reported but neither are these the guys walking into schools/post offices/political rallies and shooting whatever gets in their line of fire.

Edited by g4ry13 on Tuesday 11th January 20:06

[Pesty]

zakelwe said:

I'd say most people in the USA killed by guns are killed by previously law abiding citizens. Your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour, your employee you just fired.

So how does targetting criminals counter that?

I posted in another thread a while ago the crime stats for new york. I think that statement is wrong. Most killings are by people who have grown up in trouble usualy drug and gang related. I'd say they have rap sheets as long as their arms. Or do you think gang members play chess all day then go postal?

do you really think Fred who got his CCW licence so he could protect his wife and family just goes mental one day and offs his next door neighbour?

[zakelwe]

FasterFreddy said:

zakelwe said:

In 2007-2008 that had gone down to 2 legally held and 21 illegally held, so the ratio has gone up so indicating that the claim "vast majority of deaths are caused by illegal weapons" might be true. However these figures do not take into account legally owned guns killing people by accident or an easy suicide. Taken as a whole any scaremongeriing of illegal weapons being a big problem is not the case. More people are killed in the UK each year by legally owned weapons than illegal.

Andy

Eh? What's the number for "legally owned guns killing people by accident" then?

You are trying desperately to prove a point which isn't there. Give it up.

See post above.

The point is that the claim that vastly more people are killed by illegal handguns than legal in the UK is not true. It is a point that IS there I'm afraid, you only have to read it on the Home office statistics web pages. Someone is desperate here, proved by pulled claims out of mid out, but it's not me.

Andy

[tinman0]

zakelwe said:

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

1200 more Darwin candidates.

It really is simple to handle a gun; don't point at your friends or family unless they are coming at your with a knife.

Keep to that simple point and you won't have an accident. And if you shoot yourself by accident, then society just took a step forward.

[g4ry13]

tinman0 said:

zakelwe said:

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

1200 more Darwin candidates.

It really is simple to handle a gun; don't point at your friends or family unless they are coming at your with a knife.

Keep to that simple point and you won't have an accident. And if you shoot yourself by accident, then society just took a step forward.

Picture this scenario:

Middle of the night, a couple is awoken and the husband grabs his trusty magnum. He sees a figure in the dark move and unloads a few rounds into the intruder. He flicks on the light switch to see he just shot his kid who came in late at night.

I bet that scenario happens fairly often with the "protect your home by any means necessary" and the way that americans keep a gun by their bedside and some of the attitudes of some posters in this thread.

[Jimbeaux]

zakelwe said:

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

I'd say most people in the USA killed by guns are killed by previously law abiding citizens. Your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour, your employee you just fired.

So how does targetting criminals counter that?

Tell me how many people in the USA have died per yeart from gun accidents, never mind homicides?

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

Targetting criminals doesn't cut out accidents.

So I can easily disagree with your statement as it doesn't take into account the major causes of gun deaths on the USA - law abiding citizens, suicides and accidents.

Andy

So, with 10 times the people and 200,000,000 guns to your nation with virtually no guns, those numbers seem less of an impact IMO.

[Sway]

Moving at a slight tangent to the firearms debate...

The suprising thing for me is the treatment the Representative has recieved. Removal of a portion of skull to reduce intercranial pressure, to be reattached at a later date.

As some may know, I have unfortunately had experience of the NHSs methods of treating serious head injuries. For just over four weeks I watched my brother in what I have been told is the best neuro intensive care in the country. He had a bolt drilled inti his skull, which sent a pressure reading to a small screen. We were told that if the Reading exceeded a given amount, then he would die, as the pressure on the brain stem would be too great.

During this month, that screen was watched pretty much constantly by myself, family and friends.

Mainly as we witnessed several people for whom fate did not smile, and the pressure rose too high.

It was apparent that the exceptional staff were effectively helpless (and admitted as much), when it came to swelling of the brain, and the intercranial pressures that result.

So to hear that in the US there are methods to handle this, giving patients a far higher chance of recovery (I assume, we were told that intercranial pressure was the life ending danger, everything else ultimately came down to the level of damage and the effect on future lifestyle), comes as, if not a shock, then a significant suprise.

I hope I'm not derailing the thread too far when I ask, why the fk doesn't the 'top' neuro intensive care in this country have the same abilities? It might be a myth, but my old GP always said 'the NHS can do anything private medicine can, it just takes longer'.

(Please note, I will never, never, malign the staff who saved my brothers life, and just wish they had the facilities and potentially training to provide even better care to their charges)

Last thing, more on topic, I wish a full recovery to the injured, wish the bereaved my condolences, and don't personally feel legislation regarding guns will ever prevent such things happening, and lean more towards the concept that i'd rather have a gun than not, I spend a lot of time learning Kung Fu in order to better prepare me for the event that I may need to protect me and mine. It's what I'm here for.

[FasterFreddy]

The problem here is that some people only seem to know about the Sky News/Daily Mail version of what happens in the world.

It's a lot more complex than some posters in this thread are trying to make out and there isn't an easy answer and certainly not one answer to all of this.

Please, can you not understand that it isn't the guns that are the problem here. It's extremely short-sighted, naive and over-simplistic to use statistics to back up a belief that these problems would disappear if you could wave a magic wand and make guns go away.

This thread doesn't seem to be making progress so I'll bid you goodbye and maybe meet you again in another one later.

[zakelwe]

Pesty said:

zakelwe said:

I'd say most people in the USA killed by guns are killed by previously law abiding citizens. Your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour, your employee you just fired.

So how does targetting criminals counter that?

I posted in another thread a while ago the crime stats for new york. I think that statement is wrong. Most killings are by people who have grown up in trouble usualy drug and gang related. I'd say they have rap sheets as long as their arms. Or do you think gang members play chess all day then go postal?

New York would not be representative of the USA as a whole though I'd say. People are more likely to find their husband has had an affair, they got sacked for no reason, their neighbour has just gone one step too far this time after you got home from the bar from a few drinks to find this..... etc etc

It would be interesting to know the actual statistics on this, total number of gun injuries per year from convicted criminals v law abiding citizens. I don't know the actual values but I could make a good guess I think which would be larger mainly because the number of law abiding citizens in the USA is an awful lot larger than the criminals, even if the criminals might use guns more in anger.

This is why the number of gun deaths in the UK has not gone up much since guns were more restricted. Although the percentage number used by criminals has increased the total number of shootings per year has not shot up because to be honest, although they are a frightening bogey man, there are not that many of them not using their guns that much.

What restrictive gun laws in the UK has reduced is abnormal spikes created by serial shooters. Which is a good result. Touch wood.

Andy

[zakelwe]

tinman0 said:

zakelwe said:

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

1200 more Darwin candidates.

It really is simple to handle a gun; don't point at your friends or family unless they are coming at your with a knife.

Keep to that simple point and you won't have an accident. And if you shoot yourself by accident, then society just took a step forward.

Didn't Dick Cheyney shoot someone?
Several times per year trained US police officers shoot innocent people by accident.

Conversely, in the USA some people are even shot by their pets. Mainly dogs.

No, I am not making this up.

I am sure I read a story about someone being shot by their pet parrot, however I can't find the link, so Google is not that good after all

Andy

[tinman0]

g4ry13 said:

Middle of the night, a couple is awoken and the husband grabs his trusty magnum. He sees a figure in the dark move and unloads a few rounds into the intruder. He flicks on the light switch to see he just shot his kid who came in late at night.

I bet that scenario happens fairly often with the "protect your home by any means necessary" and the way that americans keep a gun by their bedside and some of the attitudes of some posters in this thread.

It never occurred to the home owner to ask the person to identify themselves?

Why should everyone else get disarmed because some people handle their guns badly?

[ErnestM]

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Getting back on topic...

A thought has been rattling around in my grey matter (an was touched on way earlier in this discussion, I think by 968)

Where were the deputies/LEO/City cops? I know that Orlando is a little bigger than Tucson, but any political gathering would have some sort of law enforcement presence. Even if it was just the token "two guys near the podium".

I am starting to believe that (a)This Sheriff (who is an elected official by the way) dropped the ball regarding coverage and (b)his remarks blaming Palin/talk radio/Tea Party/et al were an excercise in CYA that took on a life of it's own and got out of his control.

I can't locate a major news service of any type that has asked this question yet.

Thoughts?

She set this corner meeting up via Twitter. How much of a notice was given I wonder?

Enough notice for the Federal Judge to show up. I imagine her travel schedule is distrubuted to all of the appropriate government folk.

[Jimbeaux]

zakelwe said:

tinman0 said:

zakelwe said:

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

1200 more Darwin candidates.

It really is simple to handle a gun; don't point at your friends or family unless they are coming at your with a knife.

Keep to that simple point and you won't have an accident. And if you shoot yourself by accident, then society just took a step forward.

Didn't Dick Cheyney shoot someone?
Several times per year trained US police officers shoot innocent people by accident.

Conversely, in the USA some people are even shot by their pets. Mainly dogs.

No, I am not making this up.

I am sure I read a story about someone being shot by their pet parrot, however I can't find the link, so Google is not that good after all

Andy

Don't underestimate a parrot once he is outfitted with a Stetson and some boots; they can play the role.

[Jimbeaux]

tinman0 said:

g4ry13 said:

Middle of the night, a couple is awoken and the husband grabs his trusty magnum. He sees a figure in the dark move and unloads a few rounds into the intruder. He flicks on the light switch to see he just shot his kid who came in late at night.

I bet that scenario happens fairly often with the "protect your home by any means necessary" and the way that americans keep a gun by their bedside and some of the attitudes of some posters in this thread.

It never occurred to the home owner to ask the person to identify themselves?

Why should everyone else get disarmed because some people handle their guns badly?

g4ry13, you are going to be a real easy mark for someone one of these days.

[zakelwe]

Jimbeaux said:

zakelwe said:

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

I'd say most people in the USA killed by guns are killed by previously law abiding citizens. Your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour, your employee you just fired.

So how does targetting criminals counter that?

Tell me how many people in the USA have died per yeart from gun accidents, never mind homicides?

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

Targetting criminals doesn't cut out accidents.

So I can easily disagree with your statement as it doesn't take into account the major causes of gun deaths on the USA - law abiding citizens, suicides and accidents.

Andy

So, with 10 times the people and 200,000,000 guns to your nation with virtually no guns, those numbers seem less of an impact IMO.

It's only 5 times the people.

If you even out the population you still have 20+ times the number of gun deaths from accidents in the USA than the UK.

Andy

[Jimbeaux]

zakelwe said:

Jimbeaux said:

zakelwe said:

Jimbeaux said:

ErnestM said:

Made sense again

....and basically said that targeting criminals as oppossed to tools is a better approach. How can one disagree with that?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 16:10

I'd say most people in the USA killed by guns are killed by previously law abiding citizens. Your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour, your employee you just fired.

So how does targetting criminals counter that?

Tell me how many people in the USA have died per yeart from gun accidents, never mind homicides?

Accidental gun deaths the UK 2008-2009 was less than 10.
Accidental gun deaths in the USA 2008-2009 was about 1200.

Targetting criminals doesn't cut out accidents.

So I can easily disagree with your statement as it doesn't take into account the major causes of gun deaths on the USA - law abiding citizens, suicides and accidents.

Andy

So, with 10 times the people and 200,000,000 guns to your nation with virtually no guns, those numbers seem less of an impact IMO.

It's only 5 times the people.

If you even out the population you still have 20+ times the number of gun deaths from accidents in the USA than the UK.

Andy

Sorry, I was stuck on 30M for some reason. As to 20X the gun deaths, divide that by the 5X population and one can argue it is only 4x. More to the point, there exists at least 200,000,000 guns here, how many are there in the U.K.?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 11th January 20:47