America's gun violence

[GeorgeW]

(Yes, cars kill people sometimes - but they are manufactured for a different person. The ONLY reason a gun is manufactured is to kill, period.)

 

Good point.

 

George

[minsocal]

The shooter in Colorado obtained numerous firearms legally and passed background checks. He purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the internet. Beyond this we know very little. I agree with those who feel that assault rifles should not be available to the public, nor should 30 and 100 round ammo magazines. The shooter had an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. As reported by several sources, matters could have been worse but for the fact that the rifle jammed soon after the assault began.

 

Is there any way in which this catastrophe could have been avoided? The culprit in this incident, who made himself a criminal, had no apparent history of violence. We have, as yet, no psychiatric evaluation but I suspect one will be ordered.

 

But back to the victims. Some of those who survived had no health insurance and are facing as much as $ 1 million in hospital costs. In the world we know today, they will be hounded without mercy to pay up even as they struggle to regain a normal life. Somehow, this is not right, but I know of no solution other than universal health care. I know this is a big issue with progressives and wish we had a stronger voice.

[soma]

In Reno the mentally disturbed were sent packing to the streets because the government didn't fund the mental hospital. They became the homeles where they commit crimes against people.

[JosephM]

The latest on the perpetrator.... HERE

[glintofpewter]

There was a local story about a gun range owner who had talked with the shooter and on a gut reaction decided to deny him any access should he return. Too bad language isn't fast enough to serve one of its original evolutionary purposes: gossiping so that wrong-doers can be thwarted.

[rivanna]

Raven, I totally agree, if guns are the problem, more guns are not the solution.

 

I admire Mayor Bloomberg for continuing to speak out on this. "It shows you the power of an irrational single-advocacy group…They've created this aura that if you don't go with them, they'll take you out and destroy your ability to feed your family." It seems that the NRA has a stranglehold on the US government.

 

Bloomberg has called for a federal requirement for background checks at gun shows, so that no one with a criminal record or history of mental illness can purchase firearms; and he advocates better databases on gun ownership so that law enforcement agencies can work together more effectively.

Edited August 4, 2012 by rivanna

[JosephM]

http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=BA75D9EE-C29C-7CA2-F1818D65164A53A5

[NORM]

Perhaps we agree more than you think? Yes, i agree with your statement but the same can be said of driving while texting on your phone.. The same can be said of alcohol or drugs in the hands of incompetents. The same can be said of autos in the hands of incompetents, knives, clubs, etc. Almost everything that exists has the potential for good or harm even in nature. That includes water, wind , fire, etc.

Joseph

 

I think your analogy is not valid in the context of this discussion.

 

Cars, knives, clubs and cell phones were not manufactured with the sole purpose of killing. Firearms are unique in this. Their sole purpose is to put holes in animals and humans. One does not unholster his or her Magnum to get milk from the Moo Mart.

 

A mentally disturbed teenager cannot call forth a tornado to wreak havoc on the bullies in his tenth grade English class.

 

Assault weapons (the primary focus of the gun law GW Bush reversed upon election) are only manufactured to kill lots of people in a short amount of time with relatively little weapons skill.

 

Were the gun laws that were enacted during the Clinton administration in place, I venture to say that there would have been a lot more people walking away from that Colorado theater.

 

NORM

[JosephM]

Norm,

 

Perhaps it is you who might be taking things out of context. My response to George was clearly in the context of his statement "Guns in the hands of incompetents are dangerous". I was agreeing and adding that the same can be said of autos in the hands of the incompetent, knives, clubs etc.

 

The second statement i made, to me, is obvious that it had nothing to do with the incompetent . I was merely stating that all things even in nature have the capacity for good or harm which has nothing to do with suggesting the opposite of "A mentally disturbed teenager cannot call forth a tornado to wreak havoc on the bullies in his tenth grade English class." Of course not. I think you do miss miss the context of what i was saying..

 

Also as you know, the gun has capacity for good. It was designed for killing yes but also good and was instrumental in hunting and providing food for our civilization. It was also used to gain our independence from the British and it is also can be used to protect our family and if need be effectively resist our own government as a last resort. It has the capacity for both good and harm. Now assault weapons as automatic weapons currently have, need stricter control and there are laws that can help (not eliminate) that. The perpatrator in the Colorado case was deranged but not stupid. He knew how to build bombs and if he had no assault weapon he could just have well hurled a few bombs into the crowd and done as much damage. A host of other options to massacre people are also available to deranged people. Latest news shows he was receiving psychiatric treatment.

 

IMO, Laws should be passed when cool heads prevail and it seems to me that this incident has merely brought rhetoric by one of the sides. The NRA officially has not responded until all the details are in. Now is the time in my view for mourning and grieving and not poorly thought out solutions. Both sides need to do what is reasonable and NRA members are not against better control as in the link i submitted above your post.

 

Laws alone will not work as evidenced by our immigration laws and drug laws. Perhaps better enforcement and better judicial practices of existing laws will help some

 

Joseph

[NORM]

Norm,

 

Perhaps it is you who might be taking things out of context. My response to George was clearly in the context of his statement "Guns in the hands of incompetents are dangerous". I was agreeing and adding that the same can be said of autos in the hands of the incompetent, knives, clubs etc.

 

I still think the analogy is flawed. Guns were invented to kill people. They were an improvement over the bow and arrow used by armies. That they are handy for shooting game is an unintended consequence, but not the primary reason for being. Hunters preferred bow and arrow over the earliest rifles because they were far more accurate. Hell, I STILL prefer bow and arrow for hunting. It doesn't scare other game away.

 

 

The second statement i made, to me, is obvious that it had nothing to do with the incompetent . I was merely stating that all things even in nature have the capacity for good or harm which has nothing to do with suggesting the opposite of "A mentally disturbed teenager cannot call forth a tornado to wreak havoc on the bullies in his tenth grade English class." Of course not. I think you do miss miss the context of what i was saying..

 

I don't think that I did. Your argument is that automobiles can kill just like guns due to incompetence. Well, yes; but cars were not invented to kill people. Further, even an incompetent person can kill with a shotgun.

 

It was also used to gain our independence from the British and it is also can be used to protect our family and if need be effectively resist our own government as a last resort.

 

The British were defeated by our professionally trained sharpshooters who killed their generals and commanders, thus leaving the British troops confused and disorganized. Had the Revolution depended on the armed, amateur citizenry, we would be drinking tea at 4PM today.

 

Now assault weapons as automatic weapons currently have, need stricter control and there are laws that can help (not eliminate) that.

 

Precisely my point. Unfortunately, GWB threw out the law that would have saved the lives of many folks in that theater.

 

The perpatrator in the Colorado case was deranged but not stupid. He knew how to build bombs and if he had no assault weapon he could just have well hurled a few bombs into the crowd and done as much damage.

 

You don't know much about bombs! Not only are the types of bombs you would need to do something like assault a crowd in a theater unstable and unreliable, but they are HIGHLY REGULATED.

 

IMO, Laws should be passed when cool heads prevail and it seems to me that this incident has merely brought rhetoric by one of the sides. The NRA officially has not responded until all the details are in.

 

We HAD perfectly good laws in place, but politicians, bowing to pressure from the NRA, took them away.

 

 

Now is the time in my view for mourning and grieving and not poorly thought out solutions. Both sides need to do what is reasonable and NRA members are not against better control as in the link i submitted above your post.

 

As long as the NRA supports the legal possession of assault weapons, they are part of the problem.

 

Laws alone will not work as evidenced by our immigration laws and drug laws. Perhaps better enforcement and better judicial practices of existing laws will help some

 

I don't think it is disputable that, had the Assault Weapons Ban been in place, that mentally disturbed young man would only be able to get off one shot every 8 seconds. Many people would be alive today as a result.

 

Why mourn when we can prevent?

 

NORM

[Neon Genesis]

I don't know if this has been posted yet but here's an interesting study by Harvard University: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.024

Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.

Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. “Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes,” said Miller.

[Neon Genesis]

We do agree that guns in the hands of incompetents can be dangerous. No disagreement there. So lets find a way not to ban phones or autos or guns or knives or alcohol but rather to reduce the accidents caused by carelessness or incompetence with their use.

Do you seriously, truly, and honestly believe that if the Colorado shooter had a knife instead of a gun, that he would have killed just as many people?

[Neon Genesis]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Thomas Jefferson lived in a different time and culture where they were fighting off the British imperialists for American independence. It isn't quite the same to compare fighting for American independence to our modern democratic society where people can buy enough power to murder dozens of people just off of Ebay with zero restrictions.

[Inthedark]

What would Jesus do? Would he carry a weapon used to kill, or would he choose to be an example to those who would use a weapon to kill and not carry a weapon - then allow those who chose to break the law to be dealt with according to the law? Just a thought.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Inthedark

[JosephM]

I don't think it is disputable that, had the Assault Weapons Ban been in place, that mentally disturbed young man would only be able to get off one shot every 8 seconds. Many people would be alive today as a result.

 

NORM

 

Norm,

Where do you get your data? Even a revolver with a bit of practice can be shot in less than one bullet a second into a crowd. and reloaded with a speed loader in less than 5. Secondly even with the assault ban modern semi-auto pistols were still able to carry up to 10 rounds and fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. They can be reloaded in less than 2 seconds. Shotguns which are perfectly legal and i believe the shooter also carried a 12 gauge shotgun which when with double or triple O buckshot could have wounded or killed more. The shooter carried 4 guns in the theater and the assault weapon jammed. He then used the others. The shooter was mentally disturbed but not incompetent with firing a gun.

 

You don't know much about bombs! Not only are the types of bombs you would need to do something like assault a crowd in a theater unstable and unreliable, but they are HIGHLY REGULATED.

 

Perhaps you are confused about homemade bombs which are certainly not highly regulated....

 

Just ask any Londoner around in 2005. ... where a person detonated homemade bombs on the London transport system in July 2005, killing 52 people. . It was homemade from easy to get household items, cheap and dangerous and fit in a backpack.

 

I would also question your american history and hunting comments but it would just prolong the conversation. Each here has there own view of the subject and it is apparent that most that have commented other than myself are in contrast except for the point that we all would all like better gun control and better enforcement of laws that involves guns.

 

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

What doesn't seem to be addressed in this thread so far is why are Americans so obsessed with owning guns anyway to the point where they seem to think if they can't carry them everywhere at all times then it's an assault on "freedomz!"? Are other countries just as obsessed with guns as America is or this just an American thing?

[JosephM]

Neon,

 

You ask the question. "why are Americans so obsessed with owning guns . The question is flawed in my view in that Americans as a whole are not obsessed with owning guns. Many especially here on this forum are not and of all the people i know. only one MAY BE obsessed with owning guns. What makes one obsessed? It is defined in the dictionary as "To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic". I don't think Americans in general are by that definition obsessed with owning guns. I think you are speaking of a sensationalized very small minority of the population. According to recent surveys, only approximately 40% of Americans even own guns and feel it is their right, i don't think that makes it an obsession. Even NRA membership is less than 2% of the population.

 

Joseph

Edited August 5, 2012 by JosephM
changed word....majority to minority

[Neon Genesis]

Likewise the majority of gun control proponents do not want to ban guns yet there was evidence that sales of guns increased significantly after Obama became the president because of right wing paranoia that the scary black man was going to take away everyone's guns. Only about a year or two ago the Tea Party organized a gun march towards Washington to protest Obama even though Obama had actually expanded gun rights and the Republicans keep trying to paint Obama as a radical anti gun nut and insist that having background checks at gun shows is somehow an infringement on our freedoms.

[JosephM]

Neon,

 

Yes, sensationalism does seem to exist on both sides of the road. I believe extremism is a minority but it always seems to sell papers or generate interest with a lot of hype,. Paranoia does seem to work on some. It appears to me that one does need to look deeper than just the surface news to get a more objective perception.

 

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

Who are the gun control extremists in the United States?

[soma]

Approximately 100,000 shootings occur in the United States every year.

[JosephM]

Who are the gun control extremists in the United States?

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and possibly most Others and institutions listed on this site..

[minsocal]

Yep, more dead in an attack on a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin.

[Inthedark]

Yep, more dead in an attack on a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin.

 

A further six killed and several more injured.

 

No good.

[JosephM]

Odds of death by type Chart from insurance site.

 

Also a surprising fact found on Wiki and elsewhere is that over 50% (55% from 2005) of gun related deaths are suicide.