Jump to content

America's gun violence


rivanna

Recommended Posts

Neon,

 

Problems are deeper than guns and just with school shootings... problems are in a myriad of areas of society including mental areas, judicial areas , prison system, economic including distribution of wealth, education, overpopulated areas, corruption , media, negativity and violence, religion, entertainment options, greed, government, and a host of others that society in general is and must address on an ongoing basis..

 

If you feel unsafe here because of gun homicides one can always choose a state in the US with less gun homicides than Australia , Canada , England or much of Europe. One can choose to move to New Hampshire Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, South Dakota, Iowa or Utah. All have less than 1 per 100,000 capita gun homicides. New Hampshire and Vermont are the lowest rates and have no state restrictive gun laws or bans on assault weapons. Neither does Wyoming, Iowa or Utah. All states mentioned are quite liberal in their state gun laws and only Hawaii has their own assault weapon ban. Perhaps someone could tell me why those states have such a low gun homicide rate per capita compared to those with the highest such as Louisiana, Maryland , Mississippi, California , Nevada, South Carolina and Illinois. It certainly doesn't correlate to an assault weapon ban or severe gun restrictions. BTW, California does have quite a few restrictions and an assault weapon ban

 

Joseph

I feel like all of those other examples you point out are merely distractions that the anti-gun control activists point to whenever a tragedy occurs to avoid having to discuss the inevitability of gun control. Putting aside all those other distractions, it is a simple fact that every other first world nation in the world has some form of comprehension gun control regulation and as a result every other first world nation has significantly less gun-related violence. The U.S. is the only first world nation in the world with such an obsession with guns and they remain the only first world nation in the world with the highest amount of gun-related violence. In this era where we have such a poor economy and Americans suffer from a lack of job availability, it is highly unrealistic to demand everyone who feels unsafe to move to a safer location just to appease the gun lobbyists of Washington who have prevented any sort of meaningful dialog over gun control regulations from being made. On the other hand, if anti-gun control activists really feel like their freedoms are being suppressed by the Obama administration, there are plenty of other countries they can move to where they can have even more freedom to use their guns as they wish. I hear Somalia is a pretty friendly place for anti-government libertarians. Edited by Neon Genesis
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you're working out the reasons why some states don't kill with guns as much as other states, let's hope the people of the US don't suffer too many more massacres of little children in the meantime, simply because too many people have improper access to weapons of mass destruction (allbethey not chemical).

 

 

I just don't think it takes a genius to realise that the US's higher than normal rate of firearm possession (compared to the rest of the developed world) simply must have some correlation with the US's higher than normal rate of firearm homicide (compared to the rest of the developed world).

 

 

This from http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ :

 

The firearms homicide rate, and homicide rate overall, is also higher in the U.S. than other advanced countries, such as Canada, Australia and those in Europe, according to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

 

The U.S. gun homicide rate was 3.2 per every 100,000 people in 2010, according to UNODC figures. The UNODC measures “intentional homicide,” which is “an unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.”

 

The international data show that country-to-country comparisons are inherently difficult to make — and, as the NRC said, provide “contradictory evidence.” For instance, Latin American countries with high levels of firearm homicide show low levels of gun ownership. Honduras has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 per 100 people and a gun homicide rate of 68.43 per 100,000 people, and Colombia has a gun rate of 5.9 and firearm homicide rate of 27.09, as shown in this chart produced by the Washington Post using the same data we have cited here.

 

But among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”

 

Says Wintemute: “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”

 

...and this:

 

America would have the same homicide rate as Australia…

 

Posted on 21 December, 2012by Eclipse Now

 

…if we just removed the whole category of ‘gun violence’.

 

Australia’s non-firearm homicide rate is 1.26 per 100,000 people.

Our firearm homicide rate is 0.31 per 100,000 people, bringing Australia’s total overall gun and non-gun homicide rate to 1.57 people per 100,000 people.

 

America’s non-firearm homicide rate is 1.58 per 100,000 people.

America’s firearm homicide rate is 2.97 people per 100,000 people, bringing their total overall homicide rate to 4.55 per 100,000 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

 

This means that America’s murder rate would be about the same as Australia’s if only they would lock away their guns! But with their guns, they are 4 times more likely to be murdered than us Australians.

 

With Americans having, on average, 88 guns per 100 people, it seems like when the going gets tough, the tough head out to solve problems the American way. ”Solved by Second Amendment!” Gun murders in America are not something to spiritualise away with a little clucking of the tongue and lamenting ‘the evil in the human heart’. This is statistics. It’s social policy and law and common sense. Conflict and tension and murder will always be with us because of the human heart, but when you add guns to the problem of human evil, the laws of physics take those evil urges and magnify the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think it takes a genius to realise that the US's higher than normal rate of firearm possession (compared to the rest of the developed world) simply must have some correlation with the US's higher than normal rate of firearm homicide (compared to the rest of the developed world).

 

To suggest that the high rate of gun deaths in the U.S. has nothing to do with the presence of so many guns is simply counter intuitive (never mind all the data).

 

Merry Christmas,

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

I think there are more responsible gun owners than irresponsible one and neither side of the gun issue is moving from the country..Both sides have their extreme positions and i hope the problems will be solved by level headed leaders. I am certainly not against required safety training , thorough and continued periodic background checks and of course addressing the root causes of violence which won't go away by simply banning assault weapons or guns. I don't feel like this administration has done anything to suppress gun rights.

 

Paul,

 

Your conclusion would seem to be so but countries are different and the answer is not so easy. If it was than one would not see such a difference even between states here in the US. The ones i quoted with rates less than Austrila and Canada, etc in general have very little gun restrictions yet the gun homicide rate is lower. Perhaps you can find the correlation or reason why those states are so low and others are so high? If it was so simple i would think we would already have done what is best for the people, i think we would already have banned most guns.and their availability.

 

George,

I don't think anyone including gun activists are saying that banning guns will not decrease gun homicides. As it stands, the people are not willing to give up the right just because our gun homicide rate is higher. There are other solutions and they have been reducing gun homicides to approximately 1/2 of 1992 levels through 2011.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

Your conclusion would seem to be so but countries are different and the answer is not so easy. If it was than one would not see such a difference even between states here in the US. The ones i quoted with rates less than Austrila and Canada, etc in general have very little gun restrictions yet the gun homicide rate is lower. Perhaps you can find the correlation or reason why those states are so low and others are so high? If it was so simple i would think we would already have done what is best for the people, i think we would already have banned most guns.and their availability.

 

 

Joseph

 

I certainly agree. There are probably a wide variety of causes - economic status, upbringing, religion, culture (even state by state), unemployment, TV & movies, hunting culture, self-defence culture, etc etc etc.

 

The exact correlation between gun laws and some of those states you mention is probably beyond my ability and currently my preparedness.

 

But what I do know is that whilst people spend time and money researching these answers, more people will die at the hands of others who have access to guns of ridiculous firepower and killing ability. The Australian example showed a marked decrease in homicide rates once many guns were removed from the scene. Now I don't know all the ins and out as to why that happened or other methods of changing mindset that may have had the same impact, but I can guarantee you that less guns will mean less deaths. Like the article I quoted above says - "“The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”

 

I think the US should take action now. No citizen needs to possess semi-automatic assault weapons. Nobody even needs repeating rifles and shotguns for that matter. I would encourage those people to make the personal sacrifice of giving up their guns, and perhaps their inalienable right to bear arms, so as to contribute toward making your society a safer and happier place to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

I think there are more responsible gun owners than irresponsible one and neither side of the gun issue is moving from the country..Both sides have their extreme positions and i hope the problems will be solved by level headed leaders. I am certainly not against required safety training , thorough and continued periodic background checks and of course addressing the root causes of violence which won't go away by simply banning assault weapons or guns. I don't feel like this administration has done anything to suppress gun rights.

 

 

How can you so confidently determine that an assault weapons ban would not have any positive effect on gun violence when all research into gun-related violence has been banned by the NRA?
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

Yes, i'll give you ...... your difference,..... the absence or availability of fire arms changes the difference with violent crime. Yet doing so limits the right of the individual to protect himself and family from violent crime which is more pervasive and at a higher rate than the US in countries such as UK, Germany, France, Austria, Sweden Belgium, Canada, Finland and Netherlands.

 

It would be interesting to know the percentage in the US of gun homicides that are not innocent victims but rather gangs, drug war participants,crimmals shot by police, turf wars etc. I have no data but there may be a correlation to our higher gun homicide rate.just like in areas of South America

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you so confidently determine that an assault weapons ban would not have any positive effect on gun violence when all research into gun-related violence has been banned by the NRA?

Neon,

 

I can't and haven't determined that. Although i must admit It has already been tried and didn't seem to have much effect improving things especially in states like California which still has an assault ban in effect. I have merely made other points that to me point to problems deeper than gun presence and possibly finding other more effective ways to solve violent crime without giving up our right to posses such. UK and others may be a good example of showing that the absence of guns , while reducing deaths by such, does not deter violent crimes.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, i'll give you ...... your difference,..... the absence or availability of fire arms changes the difference with violent crime. Yet doing so limits the right of the individual to protect himself and family from violent crime which is more pervasive and at a higher rate than the US in countries such as UK, Germany, France, Austria, Sweden Belgium, Canada, Finland and Netherlands.

 

In my opinion, the right to protect oneslf by arming up, just in case, should be sensibly overridden by the right for society to suffer less mass killings.

 

Incidentally, concerning the violent crime rate, this from Wikipedia:

 

Violent crime

The reported US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[34][35] A government study concluded that direct comparison of the 2 countries' violent crime totals or rates was "inappropriate".[46]

 

It would be interesting to know the percentage in the US of gun homicides that are not innocent victims but rather gangs, drug war participants,crimmals shot by police, turf wars etc. I have no data but there may be a correlation to our higher gun homicide rate.just like in areas of South America

 

Just a side note - I don't think criminals shot and killed by police in the execution of their duty would be regarded as homicide.

 

In a sense though, all people killed are victims, innocent or less so. Less firearms, which have stricter controls, will result in less access by gangs, drug war participants, those engaged in turf wars (gangs again?), etc. I know the point you are trying to make, however to me they're all victims who's deaths could be prevented when firearms are less available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK and others may be a good example of showing that the absence of guns , while reducing deaths by such, does not deter violent crimes.

 

Does the absence of guns absolutely eliminate all violent crime? Of course not, but one is 3.5 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the U.K.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think giving up guns as a self sacrifice for a safer society is a good way to look at it.

 

it has been suggested that one reason for the disinterest in private gun ownership in Europe was two world wars within 25 years.

 

Looking at a map of gun ownership by state suggests that in America the

civil war is not over and a fear of the tyranny of the Federal government is alive and well.

 

These are not sufficient causes but I think it is worthwhile to consider them as contributing causes.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't and haven't determined that. Although i must admit It has already been tried and didn't seem to have much effect improving things especially in states like California which still has an assault ban in effect.

 

Joseph

The fact remains that after the gun massacre in Australia in 1996, they immediately passed stricter gun regulations and the nation of Australia saw a significant decrease in gun related violence. Why is the nation of Australia able to reduce gun related violence through regulation yet the U.S is unable to?

 

UK and others may be a good example of showing that the absence of guns , while reducing deaths by such, does not deter violent crimes.
I fail to see the point of pointing out that the gun control laws were unable to reduce violence in the UK for crimes they were not intended to reduce and I further fail to see why every single anti-gun control activist I've met always uses this exact same talking point when the UK is brought up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think giving up guns as a self sacrifice for a safer society is a good way to look at it.

 

And, for one's own safety. A gun owner is 22 times more likely to harm themself or a family member than to prevent harm.

 

As an example, I have a friend of a friend who is a military veteran, an ex-cop and a life-long gun nut. He recently shot himself through the hip requiring surgery and a lengthy rehab. He has also laughed about an incident at his hunting cabin in which a shot-gun accidentally went off, destroying some stuff in a cabinet. Fortunately, no one was down range when this happened. He has never cited an instance where he protected himself or his family, although he will claim that his guns help protect his family.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the nation of Australia able to reduce gun related violence through regulation yet the U.S is unable to?

------------------------------

 

Probably should wait for PaulS but it is my understanding that they bought back guns and took them off the streets and out of homes. The swiss cheese assault rifle ban in the US in the 1990s did not touch the 1 million in possession and circulation. Neither will any ban we pass this year. As long as possession is not illegal the ban will have little effect I think.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will apologize at the beginning for preaching to the choir. There is an ancient adage that reads thus: AGING IS MANDATORY, MATURATION IS OPTIONAL.

 

Let’s face it. We live in a society, a culture, that is adolescent in nature. That is right, most of us do not mature emotionally, intellectually, or culturally beyond our adolescent years. This whole nation is mired in adolescence and, one of these days, we are all going to pay the price for this. What are some of the indications? Here are a few:

 

v We have allowed the national and state legislatures to be controlled, and corrupted, by the lobbyists. We are presently suffering another potential fiduciary disaster because these lobbyists will not let the Representatives and Senators do their needed chores. In addition, the southern members of Congress are still angry (not only angry, but enraged) over the fact that the country elected an African-American President, not once, but twice.

 

v Wanting to carry a loaded gun is very adolescent in nature. Supporting the NRA in its rampant and narrow viewpoints is not only immature, but unreasonable, and definitely contributes to the violence that takes place every day in our country. But the NRA has money and it controls lobbyists, who, in turn, control the members of Congress.

 

v Tithing, that is contributing ten per cent, or more, of income to charity, is a sign of maturity. I do not know what percentage of our population tithe, but I suspect it is not a majority. Granted, when a disaster occurs, or a severe need arises, people contribute, but it does not seem to be a normal, week by week, action.

 

v Christmas (and other Holidays) materialism is definitely an adolescent activity. Need I say more?

 

v Smoking marijuana, whether for medicinal or recreational reasons, is a very adolescent activity. Mature adults put addictions behind them. Chronic pain can be an excuse for addiction, but an excuse is an excuse, not a valid reason.

 

v Paying professional athletes, and Hollywood actors, out-of-proportion salaries is unreasonable, particularly when we compare it with what is paid elementary and high school teachers.

 

v Providing college athletes with scholarships, cars, entertainment, lodging, and whatever is more than unreasonable. Particularly when a normal college student has to put up any where from $25,000 to $100,000 just to get a Bachelors Degree.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the nation of Australia able to reduce gun related violence through regulation yet the U.S is unable to?

------------------------------

 

Probably should wait for PaulS but it is my understanding that they bought back guns and took them off the streets and out of homes. The swiss cheese assault rifle ban in the US in the 1990s did not touch the 1 million in possession and circulation. Neither will any ban we pass this year. As long as possession is not illegal the ban will have little effect I think.

 

Dutch

 

Dutch,

 

I believe you will find that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Still they remain one of the highest gun homicide rates. Assaut weapons ban has remained in effect for California and other states according to the wishes of the people there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains that after the gun massacre in Australia in 1996, they immediately passed stricter gun regulations and the nation of Australia saw a significant decrease in gun related violence. Why is the nation of Australia able to reduce gun related violence through regulation yet the U.S is unable to?

 

Different culture, different country makeup. As i pointed out in a previous post, even some of the states here in the US without restrictive gun laws have a lower gun homicide rate than Austrailia. Why? is a good question to ask. Perhaps the answer will give us some insight.

 

I fail to see the point of pointing out that the gun control laws were unable to reduce violence in the UK for crimes they were not intended to reduce and I further fail to see why every single anti-gun control activist I've met always uses this exact same talking point when the UK is brought up.

 

I think because if we focus on reducing violent crimes in general then it stands to reason that gun homicides will reduce also. And if so, there is no need to remove a liberty that is valued by so many people as their right to keep and bear arms to protect and defend their self and families. Those who wish to forgo that right and depend on police or the government for protection may do so if they wish as far as i am concerned but i will not vote to take away that right from others even if i am willing to surrender it for myself. Is there a cost for that right? Yes, of course. There is a cost for every freedom or right.

 

People have a right to drink alcoholic beverages and that right is often abused and can and does lead to a significant number of deaths in automobiles and by other means. We neither ban drinking or automobiles.because some people are irresponsible with their drinking or are reckless with their automobiles. Your changes of dying as you may already know are greater in the US by automobile than guns. Perhaps we would be safer using mass transit instead of autos? I don't hear anyone seeking to disallow autos or a particularly larger and heavier auto that will do more damage. Necessity could of course be argued but so can it be with guns. However all will not agree.

 

I am finished here but have appreciated the opportunity to express my views and study some unfamiliar data for myself. Regardless of whether anyone has altered their view either way, i appreciate the civility of such a hot topic and am thankful to all who participated

 

Joseph

 

======================================================

This thread seems to me to have pretty well run its useful course for this forum. To avoid continued repetition please make any final civil comments as i will be closing this thread topic in a few days. (JosephM as Moderator)

======================================================

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the nation of Australia able to reduce gun related violence through regulation yet the U.S is unable to?

------------------------------

 

Probably should wait for PaulS but it is my understanding that they bought back guns and took them off the streets and out of homes. The swiss cheese assault rifle ban in the US in the 1990s did not touch the 1 million in possession and circulation. Neither will any ban we pass this year. As long as possession is not illegal the ban will have little effect I think.

 

Dutch

 

It is indisputable, Dutch - our gun buyback was responsible for the collection of over 600,000 firearms which was about 20% of our country's privately-owned firearms. More importantly, it halved the number of gun-owning households. And the data I presented earlier shows a history-breaking decline in our overall homicide rate. Whilst we do have a different culture and mindset toward firearms, cultural change doesn't happen quickly and it wasn't the reason for the severe decline in murder rates right at the time a fifth of the country's guns were removed.

 

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch,

 

I believe you will find that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Still they remain one of the highest gun homicide rates. Assaut weapons ban has remained in effect for California and other states according to the wishes of the people there.

Contrary to popular belief, it isn't true that California has the highest amount of gun violence. That honor belongs to Alaska, Montana, and Louisiana: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Tough-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-deaths-4145605.php

At the other end of the scale, the report found that Alaska, Louisiana and Montana - all graded F for gun control - had the highest rates of deaths caused by gunfire, more than double California's rate. The law center graded all 50 states and gave an F, for weak regulation, to 24 of them.

In 2010, the report said, quoting the federal Centers for Disease Control, California had 7.88 gun deaths for each 100,000 residents, compared with rates of 3.31 in Hawaii and 20.28 in Alaska.

More research is needed on the links between specific weapons regulations and fatalities, but "the data supports the common-sense conclusion that gun laws are a significant factor in a state's rate of gun deaths," said the report.

Since the report's release last month, The Chronicle has forwarded it for comment to four pro-gun organizations: the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and its state affiliate, Gun Owners of California. None replied to calls or e-mails.

 

I think because if we focus on reducing violent crimes in general then it stands to reason that gun homicides will reduce also. And if so, there is no need to remove a liberty that is valued by so many people as their right to keep and bear arms to protect and defend their self and families. Those who wish to forgo that right and depend on police or the government for protection may do so if they wish as far as i am concerned but i will not vote to take away that right from others even if i am willing to surrender it for myself. Is there a cost for that right? Yes, of course. There is a cost for every freedom or right.
The fact remains that you yourself admitted gun control laws in the UK were successful in reducing gun related violence so it is a non sequiter to criticize the gun control laws for something they were never intended to address. Furthermore, I think it's unrealistic to expect to find a one size shoe fits all solution that would magically erase all crime at once. The government has different laws for handling theft crimes than what they use to handle murder crimes so I don't know why you should expect us to have a one size shoe fits all law for all weapons-related crime.

 

People have a right to drink alcoholic beverages and that right is often abused and can and does lead to a significant number of deaths in automobiles and by other means. We neither ban drinking or automobiles.because some people are irresponsible with their drinking or are reckless with their automobiles. Your changes of dying as you may already know are greater in the US by automobile than guns. Perhaps we would be safer using mass transit instead of autos? I don't hear anyone seeking to disallow autos or a particularly larger and heavier auto that will do more damage. Necessity could of course be argued but so can it be with guns. However all will not agree.
This is a straw man fallacy. The vast majority of gun control advocates are not calling for a total ban on all guns. The vast majority of gun control advocates support the second amendment and a citizen's right to bear arms. What we are calling for is reasonable gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible and dangerous users which you yourself claimed earlier in the thread to also support. Your analogy to cars and alcohol actually supports the gun control side more than it supports the anti-gun control side. We have extensive laws and regulations to prevent automobile deaths and we have rules and regulations to stop drunk driving and yet nobody complains about how these laws are suppressing our freedoms and everybody from all religious and political persuasions supports them as necessary to keep our streets safe. Why can't we apply the same amount of regulations and restrictions that we apply to road rules and drunk driving to gun safety?
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to add a brief response to Paul’s post 144--

 

I never meant to imply that Joseph was “not moral, intelligent or Christian” and wasn’t trying to “block him out of the discussion.” What troubled me was that as I see it, the spirit of progressive Christianity means siding with the victims, not the gun owners--supporting non-violence when we can.

 

On the other hand, I don’t see how it’s justified to close this topic thread.

 

Joseph has been a friend to me many times during my years on this board, I’ve often admired his dedication and patience. It makes me feel bad that we’re on opposite sides on this issue. Maybe it’s time for me to leave.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rivanna, I hope you stay around. I like your posts.

 

However, if Joseph sees fit to close this thread, as Moderator; this is his prerogative. In light of this, I have some final thoughts on this subject.

 

I have noticed that in the evangelical community, rather than apply political pressure to control dangerous weapons, they are making single-parent homes and lack of parenting skills and morality in the home as the culprit.

 

Here are some interesting statistics regarding the mass shootings since 1999:

 

1999, April - Columbine High School: 13 killed & 24 injured

Both shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were raised in two-parent, middle-class families

1999, July - Atlanta, GA; 12 killed

Shooter Mark O. Barton raised in a two-parent military family

1999, September - Ft. Worth prayer meeting: 7 killed

Shooter Larry Gene Ashbrook raised in a two-parent family

2007, April - Virginia Tech: 32 killed & 15 injured

Shooter Seung-Hoi Cho raised by wealthy parents who owned a dry cleaners. Bullying by fellow students and church members was mentioned in this case.

2005, February - Northern Illinois University: 5 killed & 16 others injured

Shooter Steven Kazmierzcak, 27, his good grades made parents Gail and Robert very proud

2011, January - Tucson, AZ: 6 killed & 13 injured (incl. Congresswoman Gabby Gifford)

Shooter Jerad Loughner, 22, lived with his parents

2012, July - movie theater in Aurora, CO: 12 killed & 59 injured

James Holmes raised by his parents, Robert and Arlene in California.

2012, December - Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct.: 26 people, including 20 children killed.

Gunman Adam Lanza lived alone with his mother, a devoted church volunteer and gun enthusiast. Parents divorced.

 

- source: I compiled these from local newspaper reports on each incident.

 

Other than the most recent shooting (which I think has more to do with mental illness and easy access to semi-automatic weapons), all of the gunmen were from two-parent homes.

 

NORM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph,

 

I'm guessing there's some sort of technical reason, but I notice there's other threads here that are years old but one can still contribute a new post to them and reinvigorate the discussion. So I'm just wondering why and what it means to 'close' this thread?

 

Cheers

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service