Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Old 15th May 2015, 07:53
  #2381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
A few miscellaneous quotes for you Hempy.

Note how many US firearm deaths are due to suicide. Unfortunate numbers but suicide is a matter of making a choice to die and the firearm can hardly be blamed for being the convenient instrument. Removing suicides lowers your daily number of firearm deaths from 88 to 34. Since about 60% of the remaining firearms deaths are inter-criminal and gang related I would say that about 21 of the remaining 34 "deserved to die" or more exactly, they made choices that led to their death and very few will miss them.

Basic to the debates on gun control is the fact that most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders. Dealing with recidivism is key to solving violence.

71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
64% had been convicted of a crime.
Each had an average of 11 prior arrests. 1, 2
63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories). 3
74% of homicides during the commission of a felony involve guns. 4

Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.
Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the U.S. were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[17][21] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the U.S. is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.[28][29][30]
People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[17] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[38] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[17][39] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[40]
Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.
BOING is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 07:59
  #2382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by BOING
I would say that about 21 of the remaining 34 "deserved to die"
I'm take it that by your post that you mean that you are ok that 13 people a day, or 4,745 innocent people a year, are just 'collateral damage'..
Hempy is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 13:03
  #2383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
Originally Posted by Hempy View Post
So of the 88 Americans who get killed by a gun every day, how many do you estimate 'deserve it'?
Since the stats show that about 3 in 5 are doing it to themselves, suicide, then at least 53, if one is using averages.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 15:26
  #2384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
As stated above, I'm just glad that I won't be one of the 4.5 thousand (and change) each year who are just 'along for the ride', so that everyone else can defend their constitutional rights..
Hempy is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 17:01
  #2385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
It is the "glass of water" concept again Hempy.

You stated that 88 Americans are killed by a gun every day.
So of the 88 Americans who get killed by a gun every day, how many do you estimate 'deserve it'?
As rationalised only 13 events out of the 88 are actually cases of non-inter-criminal related homicide, definitely not good a statistic but it is far from the misleading 88 persons per day implied by the gross figure you provided. This distortion of the facts (gun deaths all equal homicides of innocents) is a staple of the anti-gun movement and it is one you are clearly happy to promote.

It is important to note that the number of 13 includes other causes as well as homicide including police shootings, accidents and unknown causes. Perhaps the actual number of homicides should actually be around 11. Now, unfortunate as this situation is, 11 homicides per day in a population of 350,000,000 people may represent a sort of base figure that is not going to reduce by very much regardless of the weapon chosen to carry out the crime.

Now, I am going to use the word "homicide" to refer to killings which are considered as "killer on innocent victim" as opposed to "criminal on criminal" related homicides. If we allocate one of those homicides to each the 11 biggest cities in the US in descending order of size the last one is allocated to Austin, Texas - still a pretty big city. Which means that the REST of the US is homicide free. Now do you see why it is difficult for the US population in general to get excited about the homicide rate - the vast majority of the country rarely sees a homicide and if it was not for the media and sensational reporting most people would never know the homicides are taking place.

In actual fact the situation is even more benign for the average American. On average New York, Los Angeles and Chicago (by the way, all cities with extreme gun control) account for an average of about 4.5 of the 11 remaining daily homicides.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 17:18
  #2386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
We had a murder recently in our neighborhood.
It was first reported as a "home invasion."

As it turns out, this gent in a middle class neighborhood was dealing dope, and was working with some seriously shady characters. It appears that he owed them money, or something like that.

One night, three guys show up around 1AM, get through the front door and put three bullets into him. His wife and kids were untouched. Assailants left. (As far as I know, have not been found yet. Will check with my friends in the local constabulary).

Crook on crook. Happened about a quarter mile from my front door. I have a hard time getting excited over that. Did he deserve it? I'd say "yes" but I am also not pleased that we have hit squads, crooks, running about. With the drug trade come a lot of rough customers.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 18:29
  #2387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
LoneWolf gives a good example.

I feel badly for the wife and children of this fellow, especially the children. However I do find it difficult to believe that the wife did not know that her husband was involved in criminal activities.

There is however another aspect to this type of situation. We know that people are killed because of their direct involvement in criminal activities such as in this case but how many of the completely innocent people killed die because of collateral damage caused by criminal activity? How many of the 11 people from the original 88 die because of violence caused by others supporting their drug habits or as a result of their killer becoming mentally disturbed after drug use? These deaths are a direct result of the criminal activity not simply the availability of firearms. The killers in the above case would certainly have killed the husband with knives or by beating if a gun had not been available because they needed to make a point to their other dealers - pay up or else.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 18:38
  #2388 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,395
The IRA (No, not the Individual Retirement Account and yes some American experts here did get that wrong.) didn't seem to have any trouble in offing folks.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 20:59
  #2389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
If you want to further expand the debate the question to be asked is why the bad guys feel the need to carry guns?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 23:30
  #2390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Let's see

I know, to protect themselves from the good guys who are walking around simply minding their own business.
BOING is offline  
Old 15th May 2015, 23:43
  #2391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by BOING View Post




Let's see

I know, to protect themselves from the good guys who are walking around simply minding their own business.

What a bizarre notion, tough questions often prompt that sort of thing
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 00:23
  #2392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Well, we could try to imagine that unless all of your victims are 94 year old, five foot tall, great-grandmothers a predominance in force helps to make robbery more profitable.

Got any more tough questions?

.
BOING is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 08:40
  #2393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by BOING View Post
Well, we could try to imagine that unless all of your victims are 94 year old, five foot tall, great-grandmothers a predominance in force helps to make robbery more profitable.

Got any more tough questions?


The one I posed seems to be sufficiently difficult for you all though you are starting to get it, so we can just stick with that one for now.


Just a thought but we have bad people here in the UK who commit all sorts of dastardly deeds but virtually none of them carry guns, any thoughts on why that might be?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 08:43
  #2394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Hempy
As stated above, I'm just glad that I won't be one of the 4.5 thousand (and change) each year who are just 'along for the ride', so that everyone else can defend their constitutional rights..
It's a good thing you'll steer clear, because if 4,500 undeserved gun deaths causes you to soil your panties and has bcgallacher wringing his hands, here's some recent death numbers that'll surely petrify you and render him inconsolable. Approximately;

34,000 vehicle deaths
38,000 unintentional poisoning deaths
30,000 unintentional fall deaths
4,000 drownings
5,000 suffocation/choking deaths

The list goes on, but to sum up, in the U.S. last year there were approximately 130,000 accidental injury deaths. Incidentally, if you're wondering how many of those accidental deaths out of 130,000 were due to firearms, the answer is 600.

600 unintentional firearms deaths is of course 600 too many, but at least it's not 2,500 unintentional firearms deaths. I say 2,500 because 40 years ago in 1975 when the US population was 100,000,000 (that's 100 million) less than it is now, that's how many there were. In fact, 65 years ago 1950, with appx half the current population, the number of these accidental deaths due to firearms was over 2,000.

I do realize that no matter how small those numbers get, and they have been getting smaller for decades, they may still look like "carnage" to you and therefore remain fodder for your fear and griping even though you aren't affected by these deaths in the slightest. But remember, they didn't occur in little Australia or in wee Scotland or itty bitty NZ. They occurred in a country of 320 million people, the 3rd largest populace on the planet. To put the US population in terms you, him, and other moaners might be able to understand;

1 USA = 10 Australias + 10 Scotlands + 6 New Zealands. Or, if you'd all to prefer to stand alone,

1 USA = 14 Australias or 60 Scotlands or 74 New Zealands.

You see, because the US is such populated place, numbers for any calamity, disaster, or societal ill can quickly add-up to being scary-sized to an inhabitant of a little, wee, or itty-bitty place since your mental tools aren't calibrated to deal with large numbers and your notion of what constitutes a "society" is geared-to that small pool of people. On the other hand, having 320 million people in a society means having mental calibrations commensurate to that size, and why to our eyes your society isn't really a pool of people so much as it is a petri dish, or perhaps a puddle. You have to re-calibrate and think bigger, because even smaller slices of US population are comparable (or larger) than the total populations of little or wee places. For instance, Immigrants; the U.S. currently has over 40 million of them. That US segment by itself is more people than the total populations of Australia, Scotland, and NZ put together. 40 million is also how many people have been added to the U.S. population only since the World Trade Center attacks. It's like all your countries moving into America since 2001. Hell, the US has almost 12 million ILLEGAL aliens. If we deported them all to Australia, OZ's population would jump 50% overnight. If we shipped them to Scotland or NZ, their populations would triple (and I support any of those options). I could go on and on, slicing and dicing segments of our population to demonstrate to you how small you are.

Or if it's easier, you could think of it this way. Population-wise, Australia in 2015 is what the US was 165 years ago in 1850. bcgallacher? For you, we have to go way back 215 years to 1800 in order to find the US population equivalent to current-day, 2015 Scotland's.

So while you can fool yourself into thinking that because you speak a similar language, share historical ties with England, and fought a couple wars on the same side that we have similar societies, in reality you're taking the self-deluded position that says a giraffe and platypus are the same organism because they're both mammals with 4 feet and a neck. There are minor points we as societies share, but when it comes to size, make-up, and issues the US and Oz/Scotland/NZ deal with or on the scale they present themselves, we share virtually nothing. There's no comparison, the illusion of some shared cultural traits aside. More perspective; The 3 of you, Oz, Scotland, NZ, together aren't as large or as diverse as the 1 State of California. If Oz were one of the 50 States, you'd fall behind Texas at #3 and Florida would probably bump you down another notch soon. The State of Scotland would share spot #22 with Colorado, and the State of NZ would approximate Kentucky, not quite making it into the top 25.

Your Prime Ministers and National governments govern people and manage economies on the scale not of the US, but rather what individual US State Governors and State legislatures deal with. Large US city Mayors and governments do the same. New York City, at over 8 million, is larger than Scotland or NZ by millions of people. The NYC metro area has over 20 million, approaching the size of Australia. There are 9 US cities that have a larger population in their metro area than all of Scotland (NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, DC, Miami, Atlanta) and 13 larger than New Zealand (those listed + Boston, San Fran, Phoenix).

So when you begin giving advice on how our society should be run or what is or isn't important because YOURS does this or that and runs this way, remember this; Raw numbers-wise, expansion-wise, absorbing 20% of all the word's migrants and refugees while government adjusts and attempts to deal the complications, frictions, and downsides to those things...mate, these are issues and developments that your country has only had the faintest whiff of. With regards to depth of experience dealing with them, you're barely a blip on the big boy radar and Scotland/NZ don't even register. In this respect, you aren't like us, not one bit. You're infants trying to pull yourself up onto the first rung of a ladder on which we've already climbed.

That's why the smug delusions you hold, that if you slapped a template of your system that sort of works for your small, mostly homogenous (and British) domains onto one that's 14, 50, or 74 times the size, are merely amusing and bear little serious consideration. They have nothing to point to as evidence that it would improve a thing. It's pure speculation and at the heart of it, nothing more than a self-aggrandizing fantasy that makes you feel like your irrelevant chirping counts as real-world experience. So here's the deal for those full of moany advice. If you want' to be taken seriously;

Australian panty-soilers; throw open your borders and allow Oz to grow at the same numbers and influx of immigrants that the U.S. did since 1850. 165 years from now in the year 2180 when you finally reach the equivalent of today's US population of 320 million and have grown up, if you're not speaking Indonesian because they needed more elbow room we'll have a conversation about how wonderfully your system has worked up until that day. Comparing the U.S. "now" vs Oz "now" is a pointless exercise because if countries were aircraft, these back-and-forths are like 787 pilots listening to a couple guys flying old Chipmunks blab-on about how the Boeing is a hunk of junk compared to their ride because theirs never had a battery problem and burns less fuel.

Scottish and NZ worrywarts and moaners; If countries are aircraft, you don't have a Chipmunk. You're still building model airplanes, and since Flight of the Phoenix wasn't a documentary and you aren't protractor-wielding, German model aircraft designers, merely extrapolating what you have and thinking it will fly you out of the desert or well-govern the present day US is a speculative fantasy, nothing more. So for you, starting today if you begin a population growth spurt of the size and rate of what the US actually has managed from 1800, you will reach the US's current population 215 years from now. That means if you want your criticizing and advice taken seriously, do that, and then come see us in the year 2230.

Last edited by PukinDog; 16th May 2015 at 08:57.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 09:08
  #2395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Just a thought but we have bad people here in the UK who commit all sorts of dastardly deeds but virtually none of them carry guns, any thoughts on why that might be?
Well, that's not true. Considering how hard it should be to get hold of firearms in the UK, there are still thousands of crimes involving guns every year.

I don't think that counts as virtually none.
Mr Chips is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 09:11
  #2396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 76
Posts: 452
PD - you still have not explained why you shoot each other in such large numbers. Quoting figures for auto accidents etc has no relevance to gun crime - other developed countries seem to be able to get by without millions of firearms in the hands of citizens of varied intellect. Only today I read about a 3 year old shooting a year old sibling in the face - fortunately not fatally. If children were dying from malaria or typhoid at the same rate as they are being shot dead it would be regarded as an epidemic.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 10:20
  #2397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
You mean you read it? Got the Cliff Notes?

Hempy is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 13:19
  #2398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by Mr Chips View Post
Well, that's not true. Considering how hard it should be to get hold of firearms in the UK, there are still thousands of crimes involving guns every year.

I don't think that counts as virtually none.

In the context of this thread and the current subject matter my assertion stands firm.


Within the thread the suggested daily death total from gun crime in the US may well exceed what we here in the UK will see in the whole of the current decade.



Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 14:17
  #2399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
SFFP,
A lot of different numbers are bandied about. What is the rate of gun deaths per day in the US you are actually claiming?

In my post of the 15th I took BCG's claim of 88 "gun deaths" per day (which is actually approximately correct) removed the count for suicides and reduced it to reflect the number of true homicides in a day. I consider a true homicide as an event wherein one person intentionally kills another but excluding certain circumstances. These circumstances are when the death is directly due to some criminal relationship between those involved such as drug dealing, control of gang territory and similar circumstances. In establishing the crime related reductions I used a percentage value published by the FBI and other government organisations that reported that 60% of gun deaths were related to criminal activity. Frankly, if only criminal elements are involved I would wish the number of gun deaths in the US to be higher!

So, I arrive at approximately 11 gun deaths per day in the US that should be considered as the true homicides which we should be concerned about, do you dispute that figure? Please answer the question directly instead of veering off on one of your normal obfuscations.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 16th May 2015, 14:43
  #2400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
So with a bit of creative accounting we are down to only 11 x 365 = 4015 innocent people a year.

Still 'impressive' by anyones standards.

I've said it before;

Hempy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.