School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[LTC8K6]

Since CT has an "assault weapons" ban that is the same as the earlier federal one, are we even sure that an "assault weapon", under any definition, was used in this case?

I have heard that the weapons were legally purchased in CT. Unless the Bushmaster was purchased prior to 1993, it seems unlikely that it is a CT banned "assault weapon".

 

[DavidJames]

What is ironic, is that people (maybe not you specifically) want to ban guns like they do in France, or the UK, or wherever, because it's too violent, or because guns cause death, or similar moral objections. But yet, they will have no problem calling the police, whom have guns, to come and possibly use their guns to defend that person's life.

It's the IRONY of the fact that many people who are against guns for moral or ethical reasons, will call someone else, who has a gun, to possibly use that weapon to take another persons life, which they object to for moral or ethical reasons to begin with.

Sure there's a comparison: the number of preventable deaths of children by firearms is a small fraction of the number of preventable deaths by swimming pool.

I mean, see?

Ok, that does it for me. This has taken a surreal turn.
Continued comparing accidental swimming deaths with mass murder, now these comments about people calling the police? You are welcome to carry on, I would just feel guilty continuing.

Please don't lump us in with RP. Please?

At this point I think you need to up your game quite a bit to reach Robert's level of discourse.

 

[orpheus]

Sure there's a comparison: the number of preventable deaths of children by firearms is a small fraction of the number of preventable deaths by swimming pool.

I mean, see?

And you know what? If your kid drowns in a neighbor's pool, you can sue the owner of the pool for negligence resulting in a child's death.

How about that for a start? Any gun used in a crime - the owner is legally liable.

 

[jimbob]

The link I'd posted earlier showed a far greater non-gun homicide rate for the US than for the UK. His numbers come from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

It doesn't really. If anything that source reflects comparable non-firearm homicide rates. Of course, "homicide" rates aren't really the issue in any event; intentionl homicide rates are the issue. And on that point the non-firearm rate in the US is fairly close to the UK, at around 1.3 versus 1.2 per 100,000.

Indeed

Here is my graphing of the USDOJ figures.

"gun" is other firearm excluding handgun.

 

[Noztradamus]

Since CT has an "assault weapons" ban that is the same as the earlier federal one, are we even sure that an "assault weapon", under any definition, was used in this case?

I have heard that the weapons were legally purchased in CT. Unless the Bushmaster was purchased prior to 1993, it seems unlikely that it is a CT banned "assault weapon".

It was 2010, so it's not in fact an assault weapon at all.

 

[LTC8K6]

And you know what? If your kid drowns in a neighbor's pool, you can sue the owner of the pool for negligence resulting in a child's death.

How about that for a start? Any gun used in a crime - the owner is legally liable.

That's already the case if the owner was responsible for the criminal having the gun, or if the owner was negligent.

If the gun was stolen, then the owner would be very unlikely to be held liable.

Just like when your car is stolen and used for illegal activities.

 

[Kestrel]

What's wrong with that point? It's true.

It's just a gun lobby talking point, and not really relavent to the discussion here. We were talking about school shooting, not drownings of kids who are not even old enough for school.

 

[DavidJames]

It's just a gun lobby talking point...

If that's true, it would clear a lot up for me. I thought it was interesting that a bunch of people coming up with the same ludicrous analogies was a bit odd. So you're saying they're just mindlessly parroting the NRA?

 

[Multivac]

I think Fox has created a captive market that feeds on fear it broadcasts to them. The more fearful they get, the more they have to watch. The more they watch, the better the ratings. The better the ratings, the fear Fox wants them to feel. It's a degenerate positive feedback loop.

I'm sure you're right, but how does anyone watch it long enough to get hooked? I guess you have to be frightened to start with.

 

[Multivac]

Can you explain why you feel that way? Other than your irrational fear of people who are statistically the least likely to shoot up a school.

Ok, I'll try.

1) I do not have an irrational fear of teachers, or anyone else.
2) I do not want my kids to be taught by someone wearing a gun as it sends the message that guns are necessary to be safe, and an ordinary everyday item.
3) If the best way to protect kids from being shot at school is to arm the teachers, then society has failed
4) Everyone gets angry, and it is much easier to hurt someone when angry with a gun than if you are unarmed.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

According to the FBI, violent crime involves any crime where there is force or the threat of force, so their categorisation is fairly broad too.

I suppose my point is that US gun violence can't be explained by being a dramatically more violent society, as the UK is very violent, but has virtually no gun crime.

Fair enough, so would a bag snatch for example be considered 'force'?

I'd be interested to see equivalent numbers for the US though as reporting and classification rates would also be significant.That the UK's 'violent' crime is insufficiently violent to require even basic medical attention 89% of the time suggests that there's a lot more 'threat' than use of force, outside of criminal reporting I think most people would consider people being hurt more indicative of a violent society than the specific classification that both are using, I think the top line figure makes a pretty blunt tool for understanding the reality of the situation in this case.

 

[Dcdrac]

Iirespective of the figures a society with the prevalence of guns as the US has does not seem "normal" nor healthy, it appears from the outside that there is a massive paranoia stalking the land of the free.

On Skype alst night via the good offices of my cousin I was talking with his fellow members of the NRA I was jsut asking thm to talk thats all to gauge their views and it all came down to I msut protect myself against "something" and always a nebulous "something", fascinating but also inicative to me anyway of a deep rooted fear of "something"

 

[Darat]

Canada had been doing this and has only just recently stopped (long guns, not handguns) because it was determined to be a useless, ineffective waste of resources (see posts discussing the "Ending the Long Gun Registry Act").

Criminals apparently are still able to acquire handguns illegally despite the requirement to register all legal handgun transfers.
A Canadian firearm license is required to purchase ammunition, however the Canadians have discovered that the criminals seem to be have no difficultly obtaining their bullets illegally.

Your recommendations are valid if there is reason to believe that a particular gun control measure that has failed in Canada would be effective in the United States...

Your argument seems to be of the kind that brings to mind the phrase "Perfect is the enemy of good".

 

[gumboot]

Fair enough, so would a bag snatch for example be considered 'force'?

That depends. Bag snatching would be considered "robbery" in both the US and UK (and therefore a violent crime) if there was a real or perceived threat or actual use of force. Bag snatching would generally fall under robbery because usually the victim is holding the bag at the time, and thus the criminal has to physically remove it from their possession, or force the victim to surrender it through threat or intimidation. However if, say, the victim was merely sitting with the bag on their lap and the criminal seized it as they ran past, that probably wouldn't be considered robbery.

I'd be interested to see equivalent numbers for the US though as reporting and classification rates would also be significant.That the UK's 'violent' crime is insufficiently violent to require even basic medical attention 89% of the time suggests that there's a lot more 'threat' than use of force, outside of criminal reporting I think most people would consider people being hurt more indicative of a violent society than the specific classification that both are using, I think the top line figure makes a pretty blunt tool for understanding the reality of the situation in this case.

I am not so sure of this. Most victims of violent crime in the US don't require medical treatment either.

Aside from that, it is pretty roundly rejected in psychology and criminology circles that violence must be physical, and indeed psychological violence (such as the threat of injury) can be just as damaging to society.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, I think we've established that the 'anti' crowd, for one thing, are keen on restricting firearms based only on the gun's cosmetic appearance. There have been links posted that underscore this agenda.

There are more layers to the anti crowd then you might think. So your hyperbole is noted. I am not anti in the least, I personally think guns are neat tools.

Things I think we should consider:

-FOID cards to purchase ammunition and firearms
-registration of all firearms and all sales and transfers.

I have have fired an AK-47, it was cool. I liked firing the bolt action 10mm Mauser from WWII as well but preferred the M1 Garand/Springfield. If I owned a handgun, a simple 45 would do.

I find that there is stupid hyperbole on both sides of the debate. Having worked with children who were shot walking in their neighborhoods, I do wonder at the unrestricted access to firearms our current system allows. I find it ironic that while the gun owning advocates decry the hyperbole of people who want to control guns, they do not address the overwhelming hyperbole of the NRA.

 

[varwoche]

Sure there's a comparison: the number of preventable deaths of children by firearms is a small fraction of the number of preventable deaths by swimming pool.

I mean, see?

What I see is an argument that is utterly devoid of intellectual integrity, and so idiotic, that it's pathetic.

 

[Dancing David]

Criminals apparently are still able to acquire handguns illegally despite the requirement to register all legal handgun transfers.

I wonder where those guns came from and why I think this should happen in the US?

I said all firearms in the US and I mean all firearms, legally acquired guns become illegal sales too easily here.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm beginning to feel rather silly repeatedly repeating myself.

Maybe because that is not discussion but repetition.

 

[Dcdrac]

i will be carring on discussions with NRA members at the weekend got another 5 shchesuled, once again like the last three nights all I am going to do is listen to them just ask a simple question why do you own a gun and let them talk.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Since his and my opinion is the same, let me explain.

It has nothing to do with you, or anyone else being French. Nothing.

What is ironic, is that people (maybe not you specifically) want to ban guns like they do in France, or the UK, or wherever, because it's too violent, or because guns cause death, or similar moral objections. But yet, they will have no problem calling the police, whom have guns, to come and possibly use their guns to defend that person's life.


Cheers!

"Guns" are not banned in the UK.