Another American shooting incident.

[zakelwe]

Jimbeaux said:

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.

Perhaps it was a Paraskeet ?

Sorry that is a terrible pun ! I shall go away now.

Once again sorry for the mass posts in one session, I only get certain periods to reply so tend to be automatic for a short period and then have to reload - to quote Oscar Wilde/ Groucho Marx/ Winston Churchill / Sarah Palin. *

Regards

Andy

• delete where not applicable.

[zakelwe]

Jimbeaux said:

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

I took into account the popluation difference to get 20x , so it stays at that amount. That's a good point about the number of guns though relatively.

Have you seen this Jimbeaux?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-116676...

That's the difference I am talking about, she was not all there in the head, but all she could get was a couple of kitchen knives easily so the result was a lot different to Arizona.

I guess that summarises my position more than anything by example and comparison.

Have a good evening!
Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Tuesday 11th January 21:00

[ErnestM]

g4ry13 said:

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.

Picture this scenario:

Middle of the night, a couple is awoken by a strange noise. The husband gets up and sees a figure in the dark and runs back to the bedroom to call the police, tripping over the dog (it's still dark). He flicks on the light to see a crack addict with a knife who tells him to "put down the phone, or else..." The crack addict, then, decides he rather likes the way the wife looks...

I'll bet this scenario happens as well...

---

As many have stated, there is no easy answer

[g4ry13]

Jimbeaux said:

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.

You have someone break in and ask them to identify themselves? Why? You give them advance warning where you are and lose your advantage as they can react first. Most people will assume it's an intruder.

Don't worry Jim, i'll have some electrified security gates and german shepherds to rip apart any intruders.

[Jimbeaux]

g4ry13 said:

Jimbeaux said:

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.

You have someone break in and ask them to identify themselves? Why? You give them advance warning where you are and lose your advantage as they can react first. Most people will assume it's an intruder.

Don't worry Jim, i'll have some electrified security gates and german shepherds to rip apart any intruders.

Of course one should ask for identity. However, once that is established and he is a "bad guy", what does one do if unarmed?

[g4ry13]

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

Jimbeaux said:

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.

You have someone break in and ask them to identify themselves? Why? You give them advance warning where you are and lose your advantage as they can react first. Most people will assume it's an intruder.

Don't worry Jim, i'll have some electrified security gates and german shepherds to rip apart any intruders.

Of course one should ask for identity. However, once that is established and he is a "bad guy", what does one do if unarmed?

Offer him a cup of tea and a chat?

What if you get out of bed with no gun, say "who's there?" and you find out they're a bad guy. Going to run back to the room to grab your gun? If you take your gun with you then there's nothing stopping you taking something else: Machete, baseball bat, Golf club etc. Just the only problem is chances are high a bad guy will have a gun as guns are legal and the above implements won't be so threatening.

But then again we're getting sidetracked in that a gun is only a solution to an attacker with the gun but the real question (putting aside practicalities for one second) if the US could get rid of all the firearms in the possession of citizens, would the country be a safer place and have less murders/shootings?

[tinman0]

g4ry13 said:

You have someone break in and ask them to identify themselves? Why? You give them advance warning where you are and lose your advantage as they can react first. Most people will assume it's an intruder.

Most burglars don't bother breaking into occupied houses in Florida as they know the house owner can shoot them dead on the spot anyway, so I doubt it'll ever be a problem for us.

Burglars tend to target empty houses in Florida (like ours 3 years ago when we were away). Wouldn't mind but the cat escaped and gave the other 3 cats fleas. Cost us $40 to sort the damn fleas. Broken window was sorted by the insurance company.

[Jimbeaux]

g4ry13 said:

if the US could get rid of all the firearms in the possession of citizens, would the country be a safer place and have less murders/shootings?

All citizens, law abiding and otherwise? Of course it would be safer. However, that is not happening so why discuss it? Besides, the reason we prefer to hold onto our guns is that it helps defer anyone in government from thinking they can actually do that to begin with. Get it?

[g4ry13]

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

if the US could get rid of all the firearms in the possession of citizens, would the country be a safer place and have less murders/shootings?

All citizens, law abiding and otherwise? Of course it would be safer. However, that is not happening so why discuss it? Besides, the reason we prefer to hold onto our guns is that it helps defer anyone in government from thinking they can actually do that to begin with. Get it?

Reason for discussing it was to see if you consider it would be safer if guns weren't as rampant. I'm sure there's a lot of people who see it as their right and struggle to correlate the two together.

If policy makers decided on such a thing then the next step is figuring out a way to remove the weapons which will be tricky but smart enough solutions could be found if people were so willing. It's difficult but it's not impossible.

[ErnestM]

g4ry13 said:

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

if the US could get rid of all the firearms in the possession of citizens, would the country be a safer place and have less murders/shootings?

All citizens, law abiding and otherwise? Of course it would be safer. However, that is not happening so why discuss it? Besides, the reason we prefer to hold onto our guns is that it helps defer anyone in government from thinking they can actually do that to begin with. Get it?

Reason for discussing it was to see if you consider it would be safer if guns weren't as rampant. I'm sure there's a lot of people who see it as their right and struggle to correlate the two together.

If policy makers decided on such a thing then the next step is figuring out a way to remove the weapons which will be tricky but smart enough solutions could be found if people were so willing. It's difficult but it's not impossible.

I think Jefferson said it best "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

The United States Federal Government right now is using the Commerce Clause as a basis for the regulation and control of firearms. They are trying to do this with HealthCare as well (in fact they also use it for controlling drugs)

The problem with this is the 2nd amendment. The US Federal Government, under the Constitution, has no power to just "make policy". Laws, rules and regulations from the Federal Government MUST be constitutional.

This is why when rules change on firearms types in the US, you have such terms as pre-ban and post-ban, etc. If you buy a reclassified firearm or proscribed item, you can keep it if it is subsequently banned. That's the problem with using the "Commerce Clause"

Didn't mean to pontificate, just trying to supply information.

[Jimbeaux]

g4ry13 said:

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

if the US could get rid of all the firearms in the possession of citizens, would the country be a safer place and have less murders/shootings?

All citizens, law abiding and otherwise? Of course it would be safer. However, that is not happening so why discuss it? Besides, the reason we prefer to hold onto our guns is that it helps defer anyone in government from thinking they can actually do that to begin with. Get it?

Reason for discussing it was to see if you consider it would be safer if guns weren't as rampant. I'm sure there's a lot of people who see it as their right and struggle to correlate the two together.

If policy makers decided on such a thing then the next step is figuring out a way to remove the weapons which will be tricky but smart enough solutions could be found if people were so willing. It's difficult but it's not impossible.

About as easy as killing every last cockroach. You underestimate people; they will always find another way to kill one another.

[Bill]

Sway said:

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'.

This is probably better asked in the health forum (and I'm not a neurosurgeon) but it's possible that the bullet has only resulted in localised swelling so removal of a small area of already damaged skull is enough to prevent the swelling causing further damage. In you brother's case it would require the removal of the whole top half of the skull to prevent "coning" where swelling shifts the whole brain down compressing the top of the spinal cord.

[mattmurdock]

zakelwe said:

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

I might look again at those figures - Home Office 'gun crime' statistics include air weapons, which are technically not illegal. Hence their positioning of the majority of 'gun crime' being caused by legal weapons. In cases where actual firearms were used, in an average year the majority of fatalities are caused by illegally held handguns or shotguns.

See this linky for a parliamentary memoranda which makes this clear.

I suggest next time you vet your sources more effectively before making unsubstantiated claims

Edited by mattmurdock on Wednesday 12th January 10:14

[mattmurdock]

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

Jimbeaux said:

g4ry13 said:

if the US could get rid of all the firearms in the possession of citizens, would the country be a safer place and have less murders/shootings?

All citizens, law abiding and otherwise? Of course it would be safer. However, that is not happening so why discuss it? Besides, the reason we prefer to hold onto our guns is that it helps defer anyone in government from thinking they can actually do that to begin with. Get it?

Reason for discussing it was to see if you consider it would be safer if guns weren't as rampant. I'm sure there's a lot of people who see it as their right and struggle to correlate the two together.

If policy makers decided on such a thing then the next step is figuring out a way to remove the weapons which will be tricky but smart enough solutions could be found if people were so willing. It's difficult but it's not impossible.

About as easy as killing every last cockroach. You underestimate people; they will always find another way to kill one another.

And that is the exact point I was trying to make earlier about how people position themselves on this. Of course the US would be a safer place if there were no guns, but it would also be a safer place if there were no knives, no drugs, no motor vehicles, no accessible high places, no bleach or other household chemicals etc etc ad infinitum.

Everyday people decide to rationally take risks with these objects simply because it makes their lives convenient or more enjoyable, and each person has a view as to which of these objects presents too much risk to be readily available to the general public.

The gun debate is polarising - as an object designed to kill efficiently, there are those who believe any access to guns is too much risk, and those that believe that guns are tools which can be used for convenience (hunting), enjoyment (target shooting) or necessity (self defence) and therefore should be accessible.

I don't think anyone is ever going to be convinced of the merits of the other side's opinion, but it makes for a fun debate.

Edited by mattmurdock on Wednesday 12th January 12:56

[youngsyr]

tinman0 said:

g4ry13 said:

You have someone break in and ask them to identify themselves? Why? You give them advance warning where you are and lose your advantage as they can react first. Most people will assume it's an intruder.

Most burglars don't bother breaking into occupied houses in Florida as they know the house owner can shoot them dead on the spot anyway, so I doubt it'll ever be a problem for us.

Burglars tend to target empty houses in Florida (like ours 3 years ago when we were away). Wouldn't mind but the cat escaped and gave the other 3 cats fleas. Cost us $40 to sort the damn fleas. Broken window was sorted by the insurance company.

Burglars tend to target empty houses in the UK too, it has nothing to do with guns and more to do with the lower chance of a confrontation and being caught.

[Bing o]

America one step closer to realising life is not a film

THE United States has taken another small step towards realising they are not all the stars of some badly written melodrama.

Most Americans would like to play Travis Bickle

Faint neural connections were achieved in the country's 300 million brains after it emerged that when the people who run the country talk like a Stephen Seagal character and you give guns to nutters then actual humans get killed in real life.

As the investigation began into the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others, psychiatrists said America may now be starting to recognise that if you are not on a film set then grabbing a massive pistol and saying 'let's dance' in a deep, croaky voice is terrifying and insane.

Dr Julian Cook, head of geo-cultural psychology at Reading University, added: "When we're little children we imagine we're James Bond or the star of a violent war film. We clutch at our chest in fake injury before recovering and killing all the baddies with our high-powered index finger.

"Now imagine a hugely powerful economy where everyone thinks like that every minute of the day and they all have incredibly real guns."

But Todd Logan, from Minnesota, said: "I was one of the stars of 9-11: Freedom's Darkest Hour. I played the character who phoned up the White House and told the President he had to kick some ass.

"Then, a few minutes later, you see him contacting me personally through my television to say 'mission accomplished' before kissing his wife who we all thought was dead. It was a really great scene."

He added: "I only have a very minor part in Arizona Takedown - I play 'Man with Opinion' - but I am up for a big role in How Todd Logan Succeeds in Business Without Really Trying."

Meanwhile Sarah Palin, star of Lock and Load: The Sarah Palin Story, has insisted that gun sights can be used for all kinds of things, such as baking, jam making and homeopathic medicine.

As she came under attack for publishing a map which showed rifle crosshairs over Gabrielle Giffords' congressional district, Palin rejected claims she had promoted violence and said gun sights are rarely used in conjunction with guns.

She said: "I actually bought the sight for my R-15 Bushmaster semi-automatic hunting rifle as an attachment for my bread maker.

"Once you've removed the glass and the bolts you can use it as a funnel for adding chocolate chips or little pieces of marshmallow."

[ErnestM]

Ok...

Back in the world. Journalists finally doing their jobs shocker....

From the where is Julian Assange when you need him department

It's going to be interesting when those documents are ordered released.

[Jimbeaux]

Bing o said:

Some odd disjointed ramblings

What in the hell are you on about?

[NAS]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/a...

[Jimbeaux]

NAS said:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/a...

So thi is where BingO got his diatribe from. Hunting in the bin will likely result in the hunter finding garbage.