PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

bcgallacher 16th May 2015 09:11

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.

Hempy 16th May 2015 10:20

You mean you read it? Got the Cliff Notes?

http://rs68.pbsrc.com/albums/i4/Soft...-1.jpg~320x480

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th May 2015 13:19


Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8978581)
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.




BOING 16th May 2015 14:17

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.

.

Hempy 16th May 2015 14:43

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;


Seldomfitforpurpose 16th May 2015 14:47

Boing,


I will happily answer your question.


Without wishing to sound rude its all a bit moot trying to bend the stats to suit, the figures are what they are and it would seem from data being used on here that somewhere in the region of 80 US folk die each day from a or several gunshots.


I get your logic in trying to water the numbers down as, and without trying to be deliberately provocative they don't make particularly good reading.


Your thought process to arrive at 11 makes some sense but how many of the other 70 ish would you class as preventable? How many family members accidentally shoot other family members each day? How many hunters or other gun enthusiasts accidentally shoot themselves or each other every day?


Now factor in the number of gun accidents that happen each day to legal gun owners, google it as the figures quoted are simply astounding?


From an outsiders perspective the problem that the US needs to address is not the 'bad guys with guns', the blindingly obvious problem is with the 'good guys with guns'.


Trouble is its way to easy to 'muddy the waters' by citing criminal action as the cause than it is to face up to the real problem!

PukinDog 16th May 2015 15:56


Seldomfitforpurpose
How many family members accidentally shoot other family members each day? How many hunters or other gun enthusiasts accidentally shoot themselves or each other every day? dNow factor in the number of gun accidents that happen each day to legal gun owners, google it as the figures quoted are simply astounding?
The number of accidental deaths caused by firearms per year in the US is appx 600. So that's 1.65 people accidentally killed with a firearm per day, with no distinction made as to whether the firearm involved was possessed legally or not. It's assured that a percentage of accidents involving firearms are those where the firearm was illegally held, so therefore the number of accidental deaths due to legally-held firearms would be a good number below 600 per year. By the way, you can look these figures up.

In a country of 320 million people and 300 million guns, I don't find less than 600 accidental deaths caused by legally-held firearms to be astounding at all. It's a lot fewer accidental gun deaths than it was 20,40, or 50 years ago when the numbers hovered around 2,000 to 2,500 and there were tens of millions of fewer people and guns.


From an outsiders perspective the problem that the US needs to address is not the 'bad guys with guns', the blindingly obvious problem is with the 'good guys with guns'.
If you don't think that the problem is the "bad guys" with the guns, but rather the "good guys" with guns, then you are obviously, astoundingly, blind. Or, you're watching too much sensationalist bunk instead of looking things up.

Have you ever looked up numbers regarding successful and justifiable use of legally-held firearms by "good guy/girl" citizens? Any at all? Do you think there is only one side of the ledger? Those figures can be looked up too since law enforcement agencies etc also collect that sort of data. Real life in the US isn't like the movies. In the movies people are pointing guns at each other all the time and nothing ever comes of it. In real life, in most states if not all, it's a crime to merely point a loaded or unloaded weapon at someone. It's a form of assault or you're breaking a specific law against doing so. If you brandish or fire a weapon at someone for self-defence, more than likely it will be documented if you're a legal gun owner because as real-life intended-victim calls the cops and reports are made, something else not like the movies. Documentation and police reports mean data on these occurrences is compiled. As an outsider, before you form an opinion I suggest you seek a fuller set of facts before you start talking nonsense about what the "real" problem is.

Fox3WheresMyBanana 16th May 2015 17:06

Canada (one tenth population of USA)
Accidental gun deaths (2004): 15
Deaths by Avalanche (2004): 11, (2014): 15

and for comparison, Vehicular deaths (2013): 1,923

I would expect the USA would also have a number of dangerous activities that nobody thinks of banning, e.g. (2004) 71 deaths by skydiving. Considering a lot less people throw themselves out of aeroplanes than own guns, I do not see accidental deaths as grounds for banning, or even restricting, use of firearms.
I took a party of UK schoolgirls skydiving in the USA in 2003. No problem getting insurance, and nobody demanded skydiving be banned.

The UK had 9 horseriding deaths in 2011, and the Medical Equestrian Association estimated 7 or 8 VSI for every death, often involving permanent paralysis (not a major issue with firearms). I would politely suggest you sort horseriding out before telling Americans they have to ban guns for accidental death reasons.
Except, from my experience of riders in the UK, it's already about as safe as it can be reasonably made whilst still having significant participation. Question is: what level of safety can be put on any voluntary activity? Guns are relatively safe. Cave divers are the real nutters, if you ask me.

PukinDog 16th May 2015 17:42


bcgallacher
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.
First, as it's been stated, most gun deaths aren't people shooting each other, they're due to people shooting themselves. Second, I'm not sure why I should have to explain to a 71 year old all the different, wide-ranging reasons why people kill each other or what causes accidents. Scotland can't be that insulated from the realities of life, and accidents are usually attributable to carelessness, recklessness, negligence, ignorance, or complacency.

Must I detail every act of criminality, stupidity, and insanity for you? I think not.

You talk about children being shot dead as an "epidemic". Do you know how many children under 10 are accidentally shot dead? I bet not. I bet you haven't even bothered to check the numbers even though the CDC publishes them by age group along with other causes of child deaths because that would force a reasoned perspective. Far more children under 10 die due to other types of accidents or forms of parental stupidity, negligence, or homicide. Accidental gun deaths don't even appear in the Top 10 causes. People with agendas don't want a reasoned perspective, they want emotive drama and nonsensical questions answered. Idiots driving cars, people who let their kids play around water unattended, people who are careless with fire, murdering adults, suffocation, choking...these are all far more "epidemic" in terms of killing kids than guns. So why aren't you squawking about those things?

By the way, what other countries "get by without" is the height of irrelevancy. Will you ever understand that nobody cares? You may obsess over us, whinge to us, but never mistake all that obsessing and whinging for actually being part of our process or think that point persuades anyone from hillbilly to Supreme Court Justice of anything.

obgraham 16th May 2015 18:14

Puker, I believe that you have written a world class rant!

Well done!!

Not that it will make any difference on these recurrent threads of irrelevancy.

haughtney1 24th May 2015 06:22

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zONMBOFNKXI

BOING 24th May 2015 07:23

Sometimes the Good Guy is in the right place at the right time.


Police: Man who shot suspect during carjacking did “right thing” by coming to aid of vehicle’s owner
Police: Man who shot suspect during carjacking did ?right thing? by coming to aid of vehicle?s owner | FOX6Now.com


.

Seldomfitforpurpose 24th May 2015 22:07


Originally Posted by Fox3WheresMyBanana (Post 8979022)
Guns are relatively safe.

Perhaps that notion would be questioned by the families of the Adam Lanza victims, as clear a case as it gets of how the 2nd needs a bit of tweaking
:ok:

BOING 25th May 2015 04:48

SFFP,

I've asked you this before but I do not remember you providing an relevant answer.

Precisely what tweaking would you suggest? A straight, workable suggestion please, not another deviation.

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th May 2015 06:50


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8988510)
SFFP,

I've asked you this before but I do not remember you providing an relevant answer.

Precisely what tweaking would you suggest? A straight, workable suggestion please, not another deviation.

.

Unless you are a reinvention then I don't think you have ever asked me that question before.

A women with a collection of weapons stores them at home, a home she shares with a mentally disturbed child. She takes the mentally disturbed child to the gun club and teaches him to competently operate her collection of weapons.

Do you see a problem so far? There is no guarantee the mentally ill child is going to go on and do something bad but is what the women doing really such a smart thing?

Solutions seem to be she is ordered either to remove the guns from her home and store them at the gun club or remove the mentally ill child from the home.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but what exactly would you suggest to stop the next Lanza?

westhawk 25th May 2015 08:08


as clear a case as it gets of how the 2nd needs a bit of tweaking
The second amendment to the US constitution is just fine as is. And any "tweaking" by offshore critics is certainly not requested or welcomed. (except by those among us who agree with your viewpoint already!) It's the law of this land. Wouldn't your efforts be better spent attempting to convince your fellow countrymen of the necessity for "tweaking" the laws of your land to better suit your ideology rather than worrying about some other country's laws? Having the privilege of free speech on this forum and using it constructively are not necessarily the same thing!

westhawk

flydive1 25th May 2015 09:40


Originally Posted by westhawk (Post 8988633)
The second amendment to the US constitution is just fine as is. And any "tweaking" by offshore critics is certainly not requested or welcomed. (except by those among us who agree with your viewpoint already!) It's the law of this land. Wouldn't your efforts be better spent attempting to convince your fellow countrymen of the necessity for "tweaking" the laws of your land to better suit your ideology rather than worrying about some other country's laws? Having the privilege of free speech on this forum and using it constructively are not necessarily the same thing!

westhawk

Off course on this forum we never read US citizens commenting on other countries laws, ways of living, politics, etc.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th May 2015 16:17


Originally Posted by westhawk (Post 8988633)
The second amendment to the US constitution is just fine as is. And any "tweaking" by offshore critics is certainly not requested or welcomed. (except by those among us who agree with your viewpoint already!) It's the law of this land. Wouldn't your efforts be better spent attempting to convince your fellow countrymen of the necessity for "tweaking" the laws of your land to better suit your ideology rather than worrying about some other country's laws? Having the privilege of free speech on this forum and using it constructively are not necessarily the same thing!

westhawk

It would appear you find the Lanza Conundrum a bit of an intellectual challenge, or would you like to share your thoughts on how the failings in that case might be addressed?

obgraham 25th May 2015 16:17

FlyDive, while we might criticize and even mock things we think wrong with "other" countries, it is very rare to hear US commenters state that what you all need to do is change your laws to fit more with our views.

Hempy 25th May 2015 16:33


Originally Posted by obgraham
it is very rare to hear US commenters state that what you all need to do is change your laws to fit more with our views.

Well, up until about 3 months before they invade.

Mr Chips 25th May 2015 18:13


Solutions seem to be she is ordered either to remove the guns from her home and store them at the gun club or remove the mentally ill child from the home.
I'm almost certain I've addressed this one several times.

The solution would have been for Mrs Lanza to make the sensible choice to not have guns at home.

No law required

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th May 2015 19:35


Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8989244)
I'm almost certain I've addressed this one several times.

The solution would have been for Mrs Lanza to make the sensible choice to not have guns at home.

No law required

Do you think that there is any chance there maybe other families out there who are not making the 'sensible' choice? It's not like Adam was the first teenager to use a gun and do bad things, or was he?

flydive1 25th May 2015 19:51


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8989323)
It's not like Adam was the first teenager to use a gun and do bad things, or was he?

Well, actually, according to the Bible, Adam was the first to use his "gun" improperly ;)

Mr Chips 25th May 2015 20:52

how would you word the new law? No guns if your kid is mad? How mad is mad? It is down to individuals, not everything can or should be legislated.
But I've said that before too.

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th May 2015 21:06


Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8989404)
how would you word the new law? No guns if your kid is mad? How mad is mad? It is down to individuals, not everything can or should be legislated.
But I've said that before too.

So your answer is to simply let everyone do as they please and fingers crossed it will be all right on the night, that approach didn't work to well in the Lanza case.

Someone recently posted that a large part of Chicago is gun free by law, sounds like legislation to me, wonder how they got that through without the well disciplined militia putting down the tyrannical government?

Mr Chips 25th May 2015 21:25

For the fourth or fifth time, how would you legislate against stupid?

And we know gun bans don't work.

westhawk 25th May 2015 21:49


It would appear you find the Lanza Conundrum a bit of an intellectual challenge
Hardly. The challenge is in resisting to the urge to respond to that lazy jab.


or would you like to share your thoughts on how the failings in that case might be addressed?
Not especially. Too many people today seem to believe they are imbued with the wisdom to decide which freedoms and liberties should be withdrawn from their fellow citizens based upon some nebulous undefined outcome they desire. Whatever it is, I guess they "feel" that the world will be a better place. (in their view at least) I consider that to be pure and unadulterated intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. Why one might believe they are blessed with that level of wisdom is between them and their favored shrink.

So no, I wouldn't care to be the one to decide how that baby is to be divided. I don't fancy myself as being some version of a King Solomon-like repository of infinite wisdom. However, were it my duty to decide, I'd intend to err on the side of liberty and personal responsibility. Along with that goes proportional consequences for poor decisions, negligence and ill-intent. Not a perfect solution by any means. However I think it's a superior choice when compared to the results of ceding these responsibilities to self-appointed arbiters of the communal good who will decide what is "best" for us.

That's the problem with representative government. But it's been noted before by someone that the US system is the worst system in history... Except for all the others! In any case, it is what it is. Now how about solving some of your own country's problems? Surely you have all the answers. Don't you?

westhawk

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th May 2015 22:00


Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8989430)
For the fourth or fifth time, how would you legislate against stupid?

And we know gun bans don't work.

Using your logic why do we have a drink drive law, surely as a society we can all be trusted to make sensible decision and not drink and drive?

As regards gun bans not working over there in the UK it seems to be working fine, it's no longer possible to be killed with a legally held handgun, excluding the one or two varieties not banned post Dunblane.

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th May 2015 22:01

Westhawk,

If I read your post correctly you have not a single idea as to how to stop the next Sandy Hook?

PukinDog 26th May 2015 02:16


Seldomfitforpurpose
If I read your post correctly you have not a single idea as to how to stop the next Sandy Hook?
One night 25 years ago Julio Gonzalez murdered 87 people in the Bronx using $1 worth of gasoline he purchased at a nearby gas station because he couldn't find a gun. He killed more people than the Sandy Hook (26), Columbine (13), Aurora theater (12), and Virginia Tech (32) shootings combined (85). Undoubtedly, those of you so concerned about gun deaths in the U.S. were equally overcome with anguish as to the method and ease of this mass murder and therefore have formed many opinions on how to change U.S. law so that nobody can purchase highly-volatile petrol so anonymously and conveniently.

And I do mean conveniently. In the U.S. there are approximately 165,000 locations that sell incredibly super-dangerous gasoline to the public! Furthermore, when doing so there are absolutely no forms to be filed with either the Feds or the State, no waiting period, no ID required, no background checks, and no proof of "need" i.e. vehicle, lawnmower, boat, or chainsaw ownership necessary. There is a loose age-limit in some States that a person must be at least driver's permit age (around 16) to pump gas by themselves, but woe to any that don't check that same person's ID if they want to buy tobacco (must prove 18 or 19) or alcohol (21). Practically anyone who looks old enough to have a part time job after school cutting grass can rock-up to a gas station on foot carrying a gasoline container (which can be purchased anonymously practically anywhere, even at the service station itself!) and for an insanely small amount money relative to the amount of destruction it can cause, buy themselves a gallon or two of this Liquid Death.

I'd like to hear your ideas on how to prevent the next Happy Land please.

BOING 26th May 2015 02:31

Spend a day doing a little bit of gardening and the topic has moved on two pages!

SFFP,
Your comment about tweaking the Constitution to cater for your following suggestions is totally ridiculous.


Solutions seem to be she is ordered either to remove the guns from her home and store them at the gun club or remove the mentally ill child from the home.
The solutions you offer are certainly not of Constitutional magnitude and, as others have pointed out, are totally impractical in any case because they would be attached with other serious constitutional considerations.

The Constitution, of course, can be amended, the change we refer to as the "Second Amendment" is a result of this process. This should encourage you to wonder why not even the most anti-gun politicians or groups do not try to follow this route. The answer is that there is no support for such an amendment in the population so no politician or group is going to push the idea only to look stupid when their attempt fails. The overall reality is that you are "peeing against the wind" - now having got wet most people would accept logic and face in a different direction but I doubt you will do this.

.

westhawk 26th May 2015 03:58


If I read your post correctly you have not a single idea as to how to stop the next Sandy Hook?
More vigilance and a greater societal emphasis on personal responsibility for one's own actions. But hey, that's not a new law and doesn't remove any liberties from responsible people. Therefore, to the self-appointed intelligentsia, it's no solution at all.

If the laws already on the books were followed and supported by society, we wouldn't be discussing this. Neither new laws nor more Dobermans to enforce them will prevent the insane or ill-intentioned from doing mayhem. More focused vigilance and a generally heightened sense of responsibility across society might help. Sure, we have laws on our books restricting the scope of some of our liberties already. Adding more is not the answer. Give 'em an inch and they'll see it as license to take a mile.

Anyway, that's the only point I have to make.

westhawk

What is needed is a new emphasis on personal responsibility.

Krystal n chips 26th May 2015 04:53

One night 25 years ago Julio Gonzalez murdered 87 people in the Bronx using $1 worth of gasoline he purchased at a nearby gas station because he couldn't find a gun

That was a wonderful polemical post.

Sadly, in your haste to remind the rest of the world as to why we should not dare to criticise the American way of life and culture, notably the prevalence of weapons, you seem to have missed one rather inconvenient little point.

Could you therefore, please show further evidence as to how many other deaths have subsequently been caused in the same manner as you chose to exemplify in contrast to, say, the annual death toll caused by weapons.

Seldomfitforpurpose 26th May 2015 07:42


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8989552)
Spend a day doing a little bit of gardening and the topic has moved on two pages!

SFFP,
Your comment about tweaking the Constitution to cater for your following suggestions is totally ridiculous.



The solutions you offer are certainly not of Constitutional magnitude and, as others have pointed out, are totally impractical in any case because they would be attached with other serious constitutional considerations.

The Constitution, of course, can be amended, the change we refer to as the "Second Amendment" is a result of this process. This should encourage you to wonder why not even the most anti-gun politicians or groups do not try to follow this route. The answer is that there is no support for such an amendment in the population so no politician or group is going to push the idea only to look stupid when their attempt fails. The overall reality is that you are "peeing against the wind" - now having got wet most people would accept logic and face in a different direction but I doubt you will do this.

.

A recent U.S. Poster in here suggested it was illegal to own a gun in certain parts of Chicago, how does that work if it's unconstitutional?

bcgallacher 26th May 2015 07:43

Pukin Dog off at a tangent as usual - the relevance of arson to gun crime is beyond me. Arson does not seem to be responsible for 30,000 deaths a year including about 12000 homicides. Just as an aside 2015 is the year that gunshot deaths will overtake automobile accident deaths. That is really something for an a developed country to take pride in.

Octopussy2 26th May 2015 10:35

Hempy thank you for the Jim Jefferies link - just brilliant. He has a new fan :D

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 26th May 2015 13:06

The rationale for the 2nd Amendment, that being protection against a tyrannical government, is so out of date and paranoid now as to be farcical. Americans have guns because other Americans have guns. The thing they are afraid of is not their government, but each other. If they chose to live in a society where their children have to enter school via a metal detector, where you feel you have to be armed to walk safely down the street or sleep in your bed at night, then that's their choice. Just because I and pretty much the other almost 7 billion people in the world think it's absurd isn't going to change anything. I'm just glad I don't live in such a society.

Lonewolf_50 26th May 2015 13:14


Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was (Post 8990050)
. The thing they are afraid of is not their government, but each other.

The most dangerous beast in the forest is the one that walks upright.

Seldomfitforpurpose 26th May 2015 13:25


Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 (Post 8990056)
The most dangerous beast in the forest is the one that walks upright.

Not much sense in allowing the beast to own a gun then, seems to me to it makes the danger even more so.........

Lonewolf_50 26th May 2015 13:34


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8990070)
Not much sense in giving the beast a gun then, seems to me to it makes the danger even more so.........

Where do you get "giving" from?
I am surprised at how people spin things into their own fantasies, but maybe I shouldn't be.


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:53.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.