US: 30 shot at school, China: 22 knifed at school

[The Marquis]

Marquis, is a omni-directional spray of ad hominems at fellow posters really constructive towards rational dialogue? So you imply there is culture of gun violence in the U.S. How is this separate from the well-nigh manic fetish so many Americans exhibit for owning guns?

You again;
Ad-hominem is not an alternative term for general abuse.
So... you're using the term "trolling" incorrectly, and you're using the term "ad-hominem" incorrectly.

Why should I listen to anything you say?
I mean you're obviously not as literate as you'd like to believe, therefore your arguments are probably not worth listening to.

See what I did there?

 

[The Marquis]

Got to love the blinkers people put on, I posted 3 lists before showing world wide the incidence mass killings in schools and work places and by solders...

Asguard, people avoiding reading your posts most of the time because it's far too painful in most instances to try deciphering them.
That aside, yes, we're all aware that you made the deep and meaningful observation that guns make it easier to kill people. What is it you want, a gold star and hugs for pointing out the bleeding obvious?

I did actually reply, and should you have taken the time to actually read responses rather than going off screaming for attention like a two year old, you might have noticed.
I said that gun control in the case of the USA is like trying to cure gangrene with a band aid. Now, I know that might have been a little beyond you comprehensive powers, but I don't believe in catering to the lowest common denominator and I'm not going to dumb anything down just so you can keep up.

And as for me being Australian as well as you and Bells... no, I don't find it "ironic" at all. Bloody embarrassing, in your case, but not ironic.

 

[The Marquis]

I think you will find that the licensing and background checks required for gun ownership in canada are much more intricate than the states ... and last I checked, number of guns owned per 100 people placed the states as the clear winner (89) above the 2nd best Switzerland (46) and around three times higher than Canada (31)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Rate_of_homicides_by_firearm

A table showing the number of guns owned per 100 people does not tell you how many people own guns, LG. One man might own a hundred guns, and your numbers are going to be skewed.

Still, seeing as you posted it, and assuming it's reasonably accurate for what it does show, let's take a look, shall we?

So this table states that there are 89 civilian firearms owned per hundred people in the USA. Their closest competitors are Sweden and Switzerland, France and Canada, all falling into the 30-50 category.
Americans own twice as many guns, give or take, as the Swiss, Swedes, French and Canadians.

The number of homicides by firearm in the USA approaches 10 thousand per annum.
In Switzerland, 51. Sweden, 92. France, 682 and Canada, 554.

So. Here we have America owning twice as many guns as Switzerland, yet having a gun murder rate approximately 200 times that of the Swiss. 20 times higher than the Canadians. That doesn't sound just a little disproportionate to you?

Like I said, gun control in the USA is like putting a band aid on gangrene.
It won't cure the problem, but it might help cover the stink.

 

[siledre]

I don't agree with that at all. Having a gun gives one a sense of power over other people. In the heat of the moment, during road rage or an argument with your neighbor, an available gun pushes you to take action that you wouldn't normally take. That's why I'll never own a gun. I don't want that sort of power over people.

I don't disagree with you on this, my statement has to do with society, not the individual.

 

[joepistole]

I am a 5th generation American. My ancestors came to this land from Sweden and settled in the Great Plains and lived with the Indians and gunfighters of the Wild West. They were homesteaders. They had guns, my father had guns, I have guns, my brothers have guns, my cousins have guns and my son has guns. In the case of my brothers, they have assault rifles too. And not one of them has killed anyone or threatened anyone with those guns.

Every time we have a mass shooting, the talk of gun control is never far behind. If it were clear that gun control laws would eliminate this problem, I would be all ears. But it is not clear. In fact none of the gun proposals currently being discussed would have prevented the recent mass murder or the ones that preceded it. Based on what I know, the mass shooting problem appears to be more of a mental health issue than a gun control problem. Mentally healthy folks don’t go around blowing away scores of innocent people.

Decades ago when I worked as a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy, I was assigned to work with some mentally ill patients. And one patient in particular, this patient was violent and quite capable of murder. Everyone agreed that when the man was released he would become a danger to society. But they couldn’t keep him in the hospital forever. So they released him. And I am sure to this day, that he eventually killed someone.

After the Navy I worked for the Emergency Medical Services in a major metropolitan area. I remember taking violent individuals up to the psychiatric emergency room on police psychiatric holds (e.g. 5150) only to have them released in short order because the staff didn’t want to deal with them.

Healthcare in America has been a problem, especially for those with mental illnesses. If we had provided effective healthcare to these mass murders, we would have many more individuals alive today. One cannot say the same for the proposed gun control laws. We should learn from our mistakes. Fortunately, Obamacare will make healthcare, including mental healthcare, available to all Americans. This is ultimately a healthcare problem, not a gun control problem.

 

[wynn]

They're not. Nor are they life-denying, warmongering, violent, pessimistic messages of hate, war and poverty for all. In fact, they have nothing to do with morality. Evolution is just science.

Really? One is supposed to cherry pick life lessons and morals from a scientific theory that has nothing to do with those ideologies. So I guess that I should replace the works of Plato or Aristotle for copies of The Origin of Species or The Descent of Man for my philosophical and moral outlooks on life simply because I’m in a biology class that teaches the theory of evolution. Really?

Tell that to young, immature, impressionable people.

 

[lightgigantic]

A table showing the number of guns owned per 100 people does not tell you how many people own guns, LG. One man might own a hundred guns, and your numbers are going to be skewed.

Still, seeing as you posted it, and assuming it's reasonably accurate for what it does show, let's take a look, shall we?

So this table states that there are 89 civilian firearms owned per hundred people in the USA. Their closest competitors are Sweden and Switzerland, France and Canada, all falling into the 30-50 category.
Americans own twice as many guns, give or take, as the Swiss, Swedes, French and Canadians.

The number of homicides by firearm in the USA approaches 10 thousand per annum.
In Switzerland, 51. Sweden, 92. France, 682 and Canada, 554.

So. Here we have America owning twice as many guns as Switzerland, yet having a gun murder rate approximately 200 times that of the Swiss. 20 times higher than the Canadians. That doesn't sound just a little disproportionate to you?

Like I said, gun control in the USA is like putting a band aid on gangrene.
It won't cure the problem, but it might help cover the stink.

Not sure why you are so antsy about the wiki link. I mean you just pulled a statement out of thin air ("more gun owners in canada") that appears straight out false. At least reference your claims.


That aside, seems you missed this ...

I think you will find that the licensing and background checks required for gun ownership in canada are much more intricate than the states ...

IOW high numbers of incidents and high numbers of incidents occurring to a class of person with inflated probability issues are both consequences of a poorly orchestrated/legislated safety hazard.

For instance if investigating accidents involving vehicles you will find that weak/unregulated legislation grants an inflated number of incidents that grow exponentially when the numbers start to get denser (hence a place like india that has numerous vehicles and a relatively chaotic system of regulating them has an unprecedented incident rate ... even when contrasted with similarly dense and transport savvy places like china.
In general, increased regulation of risk management sees diminished number of "high risk" issues, whether it be in lowering the numbers or lowering the risk factors

I understand that you are trying to highlight mental health issues that result in out of control gun behaviour but I don't understand why you can't acknowledge increased regulation of firearms is integral to such discussions.

 

[wynn]

Not sure why you are so antsy about the wiki link. I mean you just pulled a statement out of thin air ("more gun owners in canada") that appears straight out false. At least reference your claims.

It seems to be an urban myth. If I were asked which country has the highest rate of guns per capita, I, too, would intuitively say it's Canada. I don't know where this claim has come from, but it's not uncommon.

 

[Michael]

And your logic leads you to blame one victim, because you determined that he may have been a victim of child abuse at the hands of his mother, without any proof whatsoever.

I listened to a 30 minute review of the details. In this review it was stated that, among other details, that (1) the older brother had not spoken to his younger brother in a few years and (2) their mother was an extremely stick disciplinarian (whatever that means) who expressed a great disappointment with her son (3) her son was on anti-psychotics medications to treat a mental illness (all medicines have side effects and IMO these are some of the worse).

Is any of this true? Well, it'd be pretty hard to find out about the parenting. You'll find plenty of people who think a good spanking is good parenting. That hitting children, yelling at children, etc... is perfectly good parenting as children 'need to be disciplined'.

As for the medicine - that should be easy enough to look up.

then blaming public schools that supposedly make children "socialise", what you determine should be happening at home (do you think children should be home schooled?)..

Yes Bells that's right. 99% of public schooling is crap. Which is why you'll find most people, who can afford to do so, send their children to private schools or if wealthy enough have an at home tutor as well. You'll find the best "Public Schools" are located right next to the government buildings, next to the Universities, or next to the posh wealthy neighborhood.

Even worse, in the other post you made about this in the other thread, you also appear to blame parents for sending their children to school instead of doing what you believe they should be doing, which is to educate their children..

*GAAAAASP*
Educating their own children?!?! Who'd of ever think THAT could be a good thing :bugeye:

I have to admit, this is a new low for you, Michael.

Oh yes, educating your children at home, yes, definitely the lowest of the low.



It must be nice to think these "Monsters" just pop right up and out of the blue. Rather than to confront the mess that is society. And by mess I mean complete and utter mess.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am a 5th generation American. My ancestors came to this land from Sweden and settled in the Great Plains and lived with the Indians and gunfighters of the Wild West. They were homesteaders. They had guns, my father had guns, I have guns, my brothers have guns, my cousins have guns and my son has guns. In the case of my brothers, they have assault rifles too. And not one of them has killed anyone or threatened anyone with those guns.

Every time we have a mass shooting, the talk of gun control is never far behind. If it were clear that gun control laws would eliminate this problem, I would be all ears. But it is not clear. In fact none of the gun proposals currently being discussed would have prevented the recent mass murder or the ones that preceded it. Based on what I know, the mass shooting problem appears to be more of a mental health issue than a gun control problem. Mentally healthy folks don’t go around blowing away scores of innocent people.

Decades ago when I worked as a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy, I was assigned to work with some mentally ill patients. And one patient in particular, this patient was violent and quite capable of murder. Everyone agreed that when the man was released he would become a danger to society. But they couldn’t keep him in the hospital forever. So they released him. And I am sure to this day, that he eventually killed someone.

After the Navy I worked for the Emergency Medical Services in a major metropolitan area. I remember taking violent individuals up to the psychiatric emergency room on police psychiatric holds (e.g. 5150) only to have them released in short order because the staff didn’t want to deal with them.

Healthcare in America has been a problem, especially for those with mental illnesses. If we had provided effective healthcare to these mass murders, we would have many more individuals alive today. One cannot say the same for the proposed gun control laws. We should learn from our mistakes. Fortunately, Obamacare will make healthcare, including mental healthcare, available to all Americans. This is ultimately a healthcare problem, not a gun control problem.

If you look at mental health you will see that it is a complex issue that distinguishes itself from applications for more straight forward health issues like cancer, heart disease or whatever. One of the reasons for this is that it is infamous for its absence of criteria for assessing the success of its applications (so its often deemed sufficient if someone is seeing a professional x times per month/taking medication/ locked up/etc ). So talk of improving mental health is often just about increasing the applications and not so much on the effectiveness of the applications. This is not to say that mental health applications are ineffective or unnecessary - its simply saying that due to the complex nature of the problem, the necessary reforms and analysis's that would help streamline the effectiveness of the applications make progress necessarily slow and cumbersome.

So in short, the problem of mentally unstable people being violent will not be solved by throwing money at it... what to speak of identifying mentally unstable people before they jump out infamously in the public limelight

If however you have a situation where high risk issues (like say easy access to top end fire arms) combine with violence derived from being mentally unstable then the situation becomes volatile. The argument has never been tighter gun control laws would solve the problem. The argument is that it decreases the probability. The social/technology/economical/law and order/safety regulation issues of colonial america are so radically different from contemporary america that you can not really cite them as valid to draw a comparison. Neither can your anecdotal stories of your immediate family owning guns and not hurting anyone be accepted as a valid means to diffusing the obvious high issues that surround guns in a contemporary society that poorly regulates them (I mean you could also say that none of your immediate family have served long prison terms for serious offences ... but I'm sure you wouldn't cite that example as sufficient for disbanding legislation that seeks to implement such consequences on individuals)

 

[Stoniphi]

..you cant outrun a bullet

No, but most of us cannot hit a barn wall with a gun from 30 feet.

Yes, many soldiers can shoot quite well as can gun hobbyists and hunters, but they are generally not the ones that do these things.

If the shooter is 30 feet away, run like the getout and zigzag as you go. You may not outrun the bullet, but you will very likely dodge the bullet.

IMHO repealing the US second amendment is not the solution either.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Tell that to young, immature, impressionable people.

The theory of evolution is being taught in BIOLOGY, not "Life Lessons and Morals 101"

 

[Magical Realist]

What the 2nd amendment actually says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


How many gun owners today are part of a well-regulated state militia?

 

[billvon]

Tell that to young, immature, impressionable people.

You don't need to. They're not as twisted, or as stupid, as you think they are. They actually understand quite a bit.

 

[ElectricFetus]

that you feel the most important parts are the ones that allow you to push your ideology says something about you micheal. you need some class and realize not every topic needs to have you pushing your libertarian agenda.

Actually I think this event is the antithesis to libertarianism: there is no libertarian solution in this that would not result in more psychos getting guns or more gun violence, the only solutions is more statism: more psychological services, more regulations on guns, more security in schools.

 

[Bells]

I am a 5th generation American. My ancestors came to this land from Sweden and settled in the Great Plains and lived with the Indians and gunfighters of the Wild West. They were homesteaders. They had guns, my father had guns, I have guns, my brothers have guns, my cousins have guns and my son has guns. In the case of my brothers, they have assault rifles too. And not one of them has killed anyone or threatened anyone with those guns.

Every time we have a mass shooting, the talk of gun control is never far behind. If it were clear that gun control laws would eliminate this problem, I would be all ears. But it is not clear. In fact none of the gun proposals currently being discussed would have prevented the recent mass murder or the ones that preceded it. Based on what I know, the mass shooting problem appears to be more of a mental health issue than a gun control problem. Mentally healthy folks don’t go around blowing away scores of innocent people.

Let me ask you a question Joe.

Do you think if mentally ill people could not get such easy access to firearms, that it would go some way in reducing these particular types of crimes?

For example, Lanza's mother was apparently an avid gun collector. If she had not had the ability to amass so many weapons, do you think it would have made it harder for her mentally ill son to do what he did? Do you think background checks on not just the person purchasing the firearms, but also anyone who lives in their house or may have access to such firearms could potentially lessen the chance of such crimes from happening? Do you think restricting what type of firearms people can buy could potentially reduce the risk?

Many years ago, in Australia, we had a very mentally ill man go on a rampage and massacred dozens of people. His firearms were legally purchased and with ease. Firearms laws in Australia at that point in time were lackluster. We were coming off another mass shooting, one my own cousin managed to survive by hiding under a desk as the shooter roamed the floor he was on.. Once Port Arthur occurred, the overwhelming majority of the population said enough was enough and tighter gun control laws had to be put in place. To date, we have not had another mass shooting. The same in Scotland and the UK.

To get a gun in Australia, one has to go through numerous police checks and evaluations, and one cannot purchase certain types of firearms. In short, you need to have a very good reason for purchasing a firearm here.

And I have to wonder why the people in the US are so reticent in having to undergo such checks to obtain firearms. I understand it is in the Constitution, but that does not mean it should be an automatic right. Some levels of public safety needs to also be considered. I mean look at Lanza's mother. She had a son who was mentally ill living in her house. One who was so ill that she apparently ended up homeschooling him. She did everything right. And yet, even with a mentally ill person in her house, she was legally allowed to purchase and keep a range of firearms. In your opinion, do you think a person should face background checks and that family members should also be checked, especially if they live in the same house as where the guns would be stored?

 

[Repo Man]

What the 2nd amendment actually says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


How many gun owners today are part of a well-regulated state militia?

The SCOTUS settled that with Columbia v. Heller.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

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

 

[Magical Realist]

The SCOTUS settled that with Columbia v. Heller.

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

Oh the powers of a conservative SCOTUS..

 

[Repo Man]

Oh the powers of a conservative SCOTUS..

 

[joepistole]

I am a 5th generation American. My ancestors came to this land from Sweden and settled in the Great Plains and lived with the Indians and gunfighters of the Wild West. They were homesteaders. They had guns, my father had guns, I have guns, my brothers have guns, my cousins have guns and my son has guns. In the case of my brothers, they have assault rifles too. And not one of them has killed anyone or threatened anyone with those guns.

Every time we have a mass shooting, the talk of gun control is never far behind. If it were clear that gun control laws would eliminate this problem, I would be all ears. But it is not clear. In fact none of the gun proposals currently being discussed would have prevented the recent mass murder or the ones that preceded it. Based on what I know, the mass shooting problem appears to be more of a mental health issue than a gun control problem. Mentally healthy folks don’t go around blowing away scores of innocent people.

Let me ask you a question Joe.

Do you think if mentally ill people could not get such easy access to firearms, that it would go some way in reducing these particular types of crimes?

For example, Lanza's mother was apparently an avid gun collector. If she had not had the ability to amass so many weapons, do you think it would have made it harder for her mentally ill son to do what he did? Do you think background checks on not just the person purchasing the firearms, but also anyone who lives in their house or may have access to such firearms could potentially lessen the chance of such crimes from happening? Do you think restricting what type of firearms people can buy could potentially reduce the risk?

Many years ago, in Australia, we had a very mentally ill man go on a rampage and massacred dozens of people. His firearms were legally purchased and with ease. Firearms laws in Australia at that point in time were lackluster. We were coming off another mass shooting, one my own cousin managed to survive by hiding under a desk as the shooter roamed the floor he was on.. Once Port Arthur occurred, the overwhelming majority of the population said enough was enough and tighter gun control laws had to be put in place. To date, we have not had another mass shooting. The same in Scotland and the UK.

To get a gun in Australia, one has to go through numerous police checks and evaluations, and one cannot purchase certain types of firearms. In short, you need to have a very good reason for purchasing a firearm here.

And I have to wonder why the people in the US are so reticent in having to undergo such checks to obtain firearms. I understand it is in the Constitution, but that does not mean it should be an automatic right. Some levels of public safety needs to also be considered. I mean look at Lanza's mother. She had a son who was mentally ill living in her house. One who was so ill that she apparently ended up homeschooling him. She did everything right. And yet, even with a mentally ill person in her house, she was legally allowed to purchase and keep a range of firearms. In your opinion, do you think a person should face background checks and that family members should also be checked, especially if they live in the same house as where the guns would be stored?

Yes, but that is not what is under discussion in the US. In addition to criminal checks, we need to include mental health in our background checks. Simply banning weapons is not going to fix this problem. We can see how effective banning drugs have been and alcohol prohibition certainly was not a success in this country. Gun control is a complicated problem and will require a complicated solution. Not every mental health problem should result in the banning of gun ownership either. There are a number of obstacles to effective gun control in the US including the very powerful gun lobby.

Prior to Obamacare there was no mechanism to collect mental health information. Most US healthcare providers were still using paper records to record and store all medical information. So how can one include mental health information it in a background check? The information just wasn’t available. Practical interagency sharing of medical information prior to Obamacare was a physically impossibility in the US. The rest of the industrial world is light years ahead of the US in this regard.

In the Newtown shooting, Ms. Lanza should not have mixed guns with mental illness. It’s like having children in a home with dangerous pets (e.g. poisonous snakes, pythons, etc.). So while she did everything legally, she didn’t do everything correctly.

Additionally, in Australia gun ownership is not a right. In the US and as you know, gun ownership is regarded as a constitutionally protected right, so making laws restraining gun ownership is difficult. Gun ownership is an automatic right in the US. It is a birthright that can only be removed by becoming a convicted felon. We have strong cultural attachments to our guns and you cannot ignore that attachment and hope to solve this problem. So instead of passing more meaningless laws after every mass murder, we need to get serious and fix the problem with real reforms that really fix the problem. Passing more feel good laws with a simple ban is not going to cure the ill. Adequate mental healthcare, early detection and treatment, needs to be part of the cure. Killing and incarcerating the mentally ill perpetrators should no longer be an acceptable alternative to effective mental healthcare in this country.