Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 55537 times)

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #100 on: December 17, 2012, 05:49:15 pm »

Totally agree.  Amend the constitution and stop the insanity.

We don't need all these guns in private hands.

Your opinion.  But not the majority.  Even today, just days after a terrible shooting, only 54% (some gallup I just read) would consider tighter measures.  Well within the margin of error.  And for sure not the super majority required.

But let's pretend such a law gets passed.   How many DECADES will it take before all the guns not voluntarily turned in..  somehow get turned in?  How man decades, centuries, etc.. will we have women, the elderly, the infirm, without a viable method of self defense both in their homes, and outside their homes.   A period in which brawn and lower IQ's rule our streets, schools, homes..

The violence does not go away with the guns.  And in our case, over 300 million guns.. the guns won't go away with the guns for possibly hundreds of years.

And now we'll have a "War on guns" as we fund border checkpoints, and whatever we do for drugs now.. criminals importing guns for profit.  Of course this will happen.

And here's a fun bit of information and please don't shoot the messenger.  Are you familiar with CNC machining?  Computer numerically controlled machines that can make just about anything you've a plan for.  3D printing?  Yep, within a decade or so I wouldn't be surprised if we can shoot out polymers like we use for Glocks and Springfield XD's and the like.. and build a gun during our lunchtime on the company printer..

Guns will never not be available to the average guy in one form or the other, the same way other tools used for killing won't be available.

So instead of backing a losing proposition.. how about a winning one?   Let's address the violence.. let's get to the acknowledged root of the problem..  Violence.   If we could do this we wouldn't have dangerous by products like when we try to get rid of guns.. instead we'll have surprising and refreshing positive by products.. Maybe we'll even learn what front porches are for and start using them instead of televisions..

Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #101 on: December 17, 2012, 06:00:14 pm »

I'm in favour of stricter gun control....

Then what exactly are we arguing about!? Isn't that what I openly stated I am for earlier in this thread? I never said I am for a total ban. First, it is very unrealistic, given the culture and the Constitution. And second, I, as a pragmatic person, can see the need for guns for self protection under certain circumstances.

Also, I am not the faint of heart when it comes to guns and weapons. I shot from rifles and AK-47s during my military service (target practice) and was good at it. I would even entertain the idea of going to a shooting range and shooting from a gun. But I have no intention of actually owning a gun.

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #102 on: December 17, 2012, 06:02:24 pm »

How about a simple ban on private ownership of all gas-operated and recoil-reloading weapons?  Everyone gets to have what we think of traditional firearms, that are perfectly adequate for their traditional purposes. 

You're assuming revolvers, pump, lever fed type firearms are inherently slower than semi-automatic weapons?  It's a good thought but watch some IPSC and IDPA competitions sometimes.. or even the old fashioned cowboy shooing comps where they exclusively use dated and period correct weapons.  It's stunning to see how fast they can be deployed.  Anyone remember the Rifleman?  Stunning rate of fire from his 1870 lever action.  Pumps are just as fast.  Even single shot mechanisms have devices sold which speeds them up quite a bit.

Guns by their very nature have the potential to be deadly.  Guns in one form or the other will always be available either in stores for sale legally, illegally, make your own, whatever.  So will other items which can be used as weapons.

So why not address the violence, the shooting video games, and the very core of what makes someone pick up a deadly whatever.. or even using their bare hands.. and do someone harm?

Here's a thought..  I think to some extent we're all guilty of not having enough skill with our keyboards to not somehow piss off our neighbour.  Really, I'm trying my very best to not do that.. yet judging by some of the responses I've failed.  Why don't we teach this sort of skills, skills that help us get along, so we'll rarely if ever get to the point of violence.

We're missing basic skills in how not to piss people off.. 50 years ago the frequency such things happened was way less.   We had much more dangerous weapons for sale, but no one felt the need to buy them.  Heck, the most dangerous thing the average guy used to think of owning was a 55 Chevy.

Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

dmerger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #103 on: December 17, 2012, 06:03:00 pm »

Here is a timely article about the effect on crime rates due to fewer gun restrictions.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html

The gist of the article is that allowing more guns, much as Steve Weldon has proposed, didn't result in more crime, may have contributed somewhat to less crime, but most likely didn't have much effect at all.  This is just my quick summary.  Read the article for the full story if you're interested.
Logged
Dean Erger

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #104 on: December 17, 2012, 06:09:12 pm »

... So instead of backing a losing proposition.. how about a winning one?   Let's address the violence...

Good luck with that. And how many decades or even centuries it might take to change a nation's culture of violence?

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #105 on: December 17, 2012, 07:01:40 pm »

Steve,
In Australia, when we see the need to change the constitution, we hold a referendum which requires every person on the electoral roll to vote 'yes' or 'no' to the proposed amendment.


Yes, our countries are different.  Whether one way is better than the other would be hard to say..  When not on the military or the short time (4 years) I was a cop, I spent a lot of time overseas and I've seen it done many ways.  Usually what's being used in the way of policies fits..   I had friends from many countries, but more than a few from the UK, Oz, and even kiwis.. I find the people of Oz to be the most "American like", but that's only my opinion.  But yet, I'm very familiar with guns laws and policies in other countries because they interest me, I contrast and compare..  More than a few of my Aussie friends don't agree with what happened with gun control there.. and they have personal stories about how it's impacted them.  


The problem with America is that you have a 'gun culture', and cultural influences tend to be deeply embedded at an early age. I recall as a very young kid being rather impressed by the typical American Western movies of the times when two adults, with guns strapped around their waist, would stand facing each other at a distance. The first to draw would kill the other, provided his shot was accurate. How exciting! I also recall re-enacting such scenes with my playmates, at the age of 5 or 6.

As much as I've learned about other countries, I know America better.. and sometimes it's surprising how little one knows about their own country.  

We do have a gun culture though I find the term misused, typically to make political points.  We've had western movies, played with toy guns and all of that type of thing far before we've had serious issues with guns.  The cowboy movies of the past were far from realistic and the topical part not really something you could relate to popular culture.. or in other words we knew "it was just a movie.."   So despite the grand era of spaghetti westerns we never had gun problems.

But not we do.  We also have tons of ultra realistic shooting games that take place in modern scenarios and they're so real you can even think the spurting blood with get your fingers wet.  We also have gang culture, a drug culture, and other forms of violent behaviours we should be dealing with.  

So I really don't think the likes of Bonanza and Gun smoke are responsible.. but I do think a lot of the music culture (gansta rap and other violent rap), movies, video games.. these are real problems.



What I find difficult to understand, Steve, is your general line of reasoning that guns are okay and we shouldn't ban them, but rather we should address the social issues that cause people to go bonkers.

Surely we should be doing both.


Maybe I can help you understand where I'm coming from here.

First, it should be obvious to everyone that addressing the core issues of violence is something we should do regardless of anything else.  Violence is bad.  Violence gets men, women, and children hurt.. it ruins families.   It's just bad.  And as a society (and from what I've read observed from UK tourists, the UK is even worse in this regard) we stand only to benefit from addressing these issues.  

A violent individual determined to cause harm will find a means to kill.  Evil will find a way.  Whether its a gun, a hammer, or a battery operated nail gun as mentioned earlier..   and as mentioned earlier the average person can kill and individual or a group using just what they find in an ordinary hardware store.  If they need help google will help you kill.  For some reason we're discussing gun control when bomb and choline gas instructions abound with a few simple keyboard strokes.  

Guns have many legit uses other than for killing.  Many of us grew up using guns as tools and still do.  They're used to hunt, to protect livestock from dangerous wildlife (does the UK still have grizzlies, brown bears, cougars, mountain lions, alligators, and other dangerous wildlife?  People that live in certain areas actually need firearms to be safe from the such), rodent eradication, and so much more.  There are also scores of competitions I've been competing in since I was a child.  To think that someone would take these things away from me because we've been negligent with our society is confounding.

But perhaps the biggest reason is self-defense.. and it's also the reason I'm really big on training.  You need to reach a certain level of competency when using/carrying firearms to not be a danger to others. With even more training you benefit others.  As our society (and yours) grows more violent the need for the average person to defend themselves becomes greater.

Also, with CCW (carry concealed weapon) permits MOST states show a marked decrease in violent crime.  Criminals tend to be bullies and do not want to invade a home or attack someone unless they're sure they're not armed (schools, malls, bars, temples, churches are other easy targets for the violent)  States that don't, given time I think will.

So in our violent times I think guns are the lesser of the two evils assuming proper training.

Can I ask you something?  Don't you feel a responsibility to protect yourself?  How about your family and home?    Wouldn't you just feel plain negligent (and terrible) if a member of your family was hurt/killed/raped when you had it within your power to have protected them?  

And no, that really isn't what the police are for.  Ask them.  They are incapable of protecting you.  Do you know the response time for police in your area?  You should.  In my area it's 8-11 minutes but "could be significantly longer depending on circumstances."  Not terribly encouraging.   I need to be able to ward of ahome invasion, a home intruder, etc,, for 8-11 minutes. And if we leave our home.. then too.

Great discussion so far!  Thanks  :)
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #106 on: December 17, 2012, 07:14:00 pm »

Then what exactly are we arguing about!? Isn't that what I openly stated I am for earlier in this thread? I never said I am for a total ban. First, it is very unrealistic, given the culture and the Constitution. And second, I, as a pragmatic person, can see the need for guns for self protection under certain circumstances.

Also, I am not the faint of heart when it comes to guns and weapons. I shot from rifles and AK-47s during my military service (target practice) and was good at it. I would even entertain the idea of going to a shooting range and shooting from a gun. But I have no intention of actually owning a gun.
I thought we were discussing.  But do note, I'm in favour of greatly tightening the mental health rules for access to include physical health (certain types of drugs), I support mandatory training in a huge way, laws mandating storage requirements, and as part of our current crisis training qualified teachers to carry CCW in the same way we now have air marshals.  Other stuff too.  I'm also a big supporter of physical storage and laws that hold those who allow others their weapons both civil (take everything they've got) and criminal (serve jail time)..     

But I see no sense in banning anything physical.. I know as sure as I'm sitting here there would be zero difference in a shooting outcome if the shooter was restricted to 10 round magazines vs. 30 round. Or a AR classified as a hunting rifle vs. one as an assault weapon.

I'm greatly in favour of CCW's.. but to be honest the average CCW holder scares me to death knowing he's got a loaded weapon in public or around my children.  So I would make mandatory training like we've never had.. if you want a CCW you'll go through near level police training and you'll requalify as police do, every quarter.  Now, we end up with an asset I want sitting next to me when some out of control mentally deranged rambo becomes an issue.

We could do this smart and set a standard never before seen.. and at the same time address our issues of violence.  Or we could continue to be stupid..
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #107 on: December 17, 2012, 07:22:28 pm »

Here is a quote from the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”  In that case the District required that all guns be unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.  A gun safe or other similar storage requirement wasn’t before the court, but it appears that such a requirement would also violate the Second Amendment to the same extent as trigger locks.   

This is going to be a bit tricky and will have to be spelled out in the laws.  Storage is for when you're not there.  If you're home and want to put your gun under your pillow or practice your draw in front of the tv then fine.. you're keeping it out of the hands of others.  But when you leave, take it out from under the pillow and lock it up.

I came home from patrol each day and placed my loaded weapon in a combination safe.  Now I have installed "GunVaults" in my vehicle bolted in.. so if there's a place my CCW doesn't cover I can lock it safely. 

There's also a host of biometric models though I like the hand shaped finger combo method GunVault uses..Fingerprint readers haven't progressed enough to make be feel good using one.  Yet.

I think with a few simple guidelines the responsible gun owner can work out storage okay.. sure hope so.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #108 on: December 17, 2012, 07:30:38 pm »

Well, I quoted you directly and even put in bold what I consider patronizing: you treat those disagree with you and "who don't see the advantages of having a gun" as simply ignorant (ok, "not fully educated").
 
Sorry, but when exactly I resorted to calling anyone on this thread names? Yes, I used the term "gun nuts" in its generic meaning, not directed at anyone here in particular.

All I'm really trying to say is we should try and keep a volatile subject under our best behaviour.  I'm sorry if I came off as patronizing and I'd appreciate if if those attaching labels would cease doing so.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #109 on: December 17, 2012, 07:34:24 pm »

Good luck with that. And how many decades or even centuries it might take to change a nation's culture of violence?

I think a lot quicker than we can actually be free of guns.. As I see it, we've seen drastic changes in violence in the last 40 years, but especially in the last 20.  I never even allowed my kids to have toy guns or pretend they were shooting someone.. so those, violent shooting games, movies.. we have a lot of room to change.   Formal instruction for the sake of awareness in our schools would be great.  It's a long road for sure.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

marvpelkey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #110 on: December 17, 2012, 09:20:26 pm »

Some of my thoughts on the matter (I'm a Canadian and a recently retired 30 year cop, so am looking at this thing from the outside in, although have a bit more association to the matters than the average citizen):

The vast majority of Canadian cops do not advocate putting guns into the hands of citizens. The vast majority of American cops I have spoken to, do not advocate guns for citizens (as long as they get to keep theirs).

Gun control in the US is one of the most contentious issues and will likely never be resolved.

Stats can be used to support anything. And often ignore many other things that contribute to certain results.

Both opponents and proponents often resort to fear-mongering to sell their point (similar to some of Steve Weldon's points - "brawn and lower IQ's rule our streets, schools, homes"  and having a family member hurt, killed or raped while, because you didn't have gun, you were incapable of doing anything - really, really?).

I just can't comprehend a society which relies so heavily on the proliferation of guns to ensure a peaceful existence.

As part of a solution, having (even well trained) teachers carrying a concealed weapon while on duty, with the expectation that they will stand up to someone intent in causing death to others is so foreign to me and scares the heck out of me.

Although many citizens would/do take gun security seriously, a great many would/do not (in this case, it appeared it was not). To expect the answer to be more/better training and gun security is naive and unrealistic. If it takes time and commitment and a whole bunch of money, it is either not going to get done or get done but not very well.

I think the US is too far down the path it has chosen and see no real change in sight, certainly not in my life or the lives of my children or grandchildren. However, incidents such as this cause a whole bunch of people to do a whole bunch of talking and soul searching, then after awhile everyone goes on as before (except those directly affected). Until the next time.

My 2 cents.

Marv
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #111 on: December 18, 2012, 04:08:21 am »


Maybe I can help you understand where I'm coming from here.

First, it should be obvious to everyone that addressing the core issues of violence is something we should do regardless of anything else.  Violence is bad.  Violence gets men, women, and children hurt.. it ruins families.   It's just bad.  And as a society (and from what I've read observed from UK tourists, the UK is even worse in this regard) we stand only to benefit from addressing these issues.  

A violent individual determined to cause harm will find a means to kill.  Evil will find a way.  Whether its a gun, a hammer, or a battery operated nail gun as mentioned earlier..   and as mentioned earlier the average person can kill and individual or a group using just what they find in an ordinary hardware store.  If they need help google will help you kill.  For some reason we're discussing gun control when bomb and choline gas instructions abound with a few simple keyboard strokes.  

Guns have many legit uses other than for killing.  Many of us grew up using guns as tools and still do.  They're used to hunt, to protect livestock from dangerous wildlife (does the UK still have grizzlies, brown bears, cougars, mountain lions, alligators, and other dangerous wildlife?  People that live in certain areas actually need firearms to be safe from the such), rodent eradication, and so much more.  There are also scores of competitions I've been competing in since I was a child.  To think that someone would take these things away from me because we've been negligent with our society is confounding.

But perhaps the biggest reason is self-defense.. and it's also the reason I'm really big on training.  You need to reach a certain level of competency when using/carrying firearms to not be a danger to others. With even more training you benefit others.  As our society (and yours) grows more violent the need for the average person to defend themselves becomes greater.

Also, with CCW (carry concealed weapon) permits MOST states show a marked decrease in violent crime.  Criminals tend to be bullies and do not want to invade a home or attack someone unless they're sure they're not armed (schools, malls, bars, temples, churches are other easy targets for the violent)  States that don't, given time I think will.

So in our violent times I think guns are the lesser of the two evils assuming proper training.

Can I ask you something?  Don't you feel a responsibility to protect yourself?  How about your family and home?    Wouldn't you just feel plain negligent (and terrible) if a member of your family was hurt/killed/raped when you had it within your power to have protected them?  

And no, that really isn't what the police are for.  Ask them.  They are incapable of protecting you.  Do you know the response time for police in your area?  You should.  In my area it's 8-11 minutes but "could be significantly longer depending on circumstances."  Not terribly encouraging.   I need to be able to ward of ahome invasion, a home intruder, etc,, for 8-11 minutes. And if we leave our home.. then too.

Great discussion so far!  Thanks  :)

Steve, with respect, I think you are missing the point here.  Those of us from outside the US can mostly see the pragmatic side of your argument - that in reality very little will change because of the 300 million guns in circulation, and because of your constitution.  But can you honestly not realise that the solution is so simple in concept, if not in execution, that to get rid of guns in your society will reduce the numbers of violent deaths in general and mass killings in particular by a huge percentage.  All the training in the world will not alter the fact that a disillusioned man who does not own a gun, can just walk into his mother's room and pick up no less than FOUR legally held guns and ammunition, and go on a killing spree.
Unfortunately even well trained and well balanced ex policemen can flip mentally and suddenly decide to become killers.  Just don't give them access to guns. And the logical progression of the self defence concept is that every citizen would need to be armed, trained, and carry a weapon at all times - just in case.....

I am sure most US citizens are good people, so no reason why what works in other countries cannot work there too.

Jim
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #112 on: December 18, 2012, 05:28:18 am »

All the training in the world will not alter the fact that a disillusioned man who does not own a gun, can just walk into his mother's room and pick up no less than FOUR legally held guns and ammunition, and go on a killing spree.

- Get rid of guns, and the number of gun-related incidents in general will decrease.
- Get rid of guns, and the number of psycho-attacks in general will NOT decrease.

Period. Don't confuse the two.

You can subsequently argue whether the number of victims per psycho-attack will reduce if guns aren't readily available, but that is a statistically moot point. At least I hope we agree on that.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #113 on: December 18, 2012, 05:32:35 am »

The gun was, in some book that I read as a chld in the 40s, referred to as the ‘equalizer’. That stuck in my mind because of the problems associated with being thin – still am – and not particularly given to sport or to horseplay by nature. Groups of small children inevitably sense out those less capable of hitting them flat, and for absolutely no reason other than that they can will, therefore, go ahead and knock them flat. It’s how the male human, in a group, feels safe to operate, and anyone who denies this is lying or hiding his own character and experiences from himself. I have seen this characteristic displayed over and over again in many different situations and ways, both physically as well as mentally. What did you imagine office bullying was if not the very same violence with a civilized smile on its face?

In the adult world, or at least that where the adult can think and speak and express himself other than by grunt, even if not immediately visible, violence is still only under the surface. If you doubt that, just how long does it take to get you riled up in traffic? And just how sane do you imagine all those faceless guys driving around in those vehicles might be? I can remember an experience on the motorway near Manchester (England) one year when my wife and I were driving our Spanish-plated car there en route north up to Scotland. Out of nowhere came this white van (yes, it was white!) that proceeded to tailgate us, cut out and then begin to force us towards the edge of the motorway. I thought of accelerating away then decided to give way instead, in the hope that I was mistaken and was just the victim of someone with poor driving sense or eyesight. It made no difference. The damned thing continued to harass us for several miles. A cellphone would have been nice, but I don’t remember having one in those days, nor if they even existed in Europe. Had I a gun, would that have helped the situation? Not in the car, but at least I would have known that if we had been forced to stop, the thing wouldn’t have become any worse – for the two of us. And yes, I would certainly have used it if required. Similar things were happening in France at the time: drivers were being bumped from behind, and when they stopped, thinking it was an accident, the people were robbed. Barcelona, just outside its ferry terminal, also has a reputation for crime against car owners. The trick is for motorbikes to come up beside you at the inevitable lights and jams and puncture your tyre. A few minutes later they drive up beside you again, indicating you have a flat. When you stop, you get mugged. I have neighbours here who faced this very thing there, and other people have reported the same experince in various local newspapers here as well. I know persons who have driven up the mountain route along the northern coast of Mallorca, stopped at ‘Kodak’ points (not signed as such, of course) and found themselves at knife-point. You don’t need guns to get violated. But guns can save you from violation. I’d have absolutely no compunction at the thought of ending such violations with a shot. People who do those things to people do so because they don’t give a shit about others; why care about them?

Maybe in Europe we just pretend that we are safe; at least in the States they play it upfront. On my first trip to Miami we picked up the car from the Avis lot at the airport and I shall never forget the advice from the guy letting us through the barrier: whatever you see on the motorway, an accident or whatever, don’t stop: it might well be a trick.

Welcome to the real world.

Yes, I do see that it’s obvious that a gun allows the sort of school tragedy we grieve to happen, that otherwise it would probably be on a far smaller scale; but tragedies like that will always happen, one way or the other, and I believe that the balance between the visible bodycount of such incidents and the potential bodycounts through robberies and assaults that do not happen because the perps know they will be met with the same violence that they would deliver, should not be dismissed or discounted for no better reason than that it isn’t quantifiable.

Really, it’s the microcosmic version of the military arms race: if we don’t have the weapons, the opposite side will certainly use the ones that they do have either practically or as intimidation; that this is so is already plain to see in the localized skirmishes that exist on pracically every continent. I’m afraid that it’s part of Man’s makeup, as I indicated when I came in.

There are no effective legal remedies, nor fresh laws created because it isn’t about law but about humanity.

Rob C

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 539
    • My Flickr page
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #114 on: December 18, 2012, 05:51:46 am »

One thing that tends to get overlooked as a factor in mass murders is the media coverage. We all know who is getting the most of it in cases like this. Their names and mugshots are everywhere, what they wrote, what they said, their life stories, etc. There is no doubt who is the "hero" of the day. And being famous, including infamous, is at the top of the social values in our society.

Now imagine if the media would somehow, miraculously, agree to the one and the same treatment of events like this: no mentioning of the perp's name, no photos, no stories about. Instead, the media would be plastered with stories about those who lost their lives, their most beautiful photographs, etc. So that any idiot out there planning to become famous by copying or outdoing the last one would know that the only fame he would create is for his victims and a total anonymity for himself.


I 100% agree with you on this one Slobodan.  I would not be surprised if the real underlying motive for this horrible deed was simply "I bet everyone will know who I am after I do this!"
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #115 on: December 18, 2012, 08:16:07 am »

- Get rid of guns, and the number of gun-related incidents in general will decrease.
- Get rid of guns, and the number of psycho-attacks in general will NOT decrease.

Period. Don't confuse the two.

You can subsequently argue whether the number of victims per psycho-attack will reduce if guns aren't readily available, but that is a statistically moot point. At least I hope we agree on that.

I thinks it's totally reasonable to argue that the number of victims per psycho-attack will reduce if that very efficient killing tool, the gun, is not readily available.

I simply can't understand why you would think otherwise.

However, I don't think we should exaggerate the situation. By world standards, if we include all the undeveloped and underdeveloped countries, and the basket-case countries and the trouble spots, including Africa, the US doesn't fare too badly on the homicide scale. It's got a significantly lower rate than the Russian Federation, for example, so maybe that's something to be proud of.

I've just done an internet search to see if I could find any fully developed, established democracy with strict gun-ownership controls that has a homicide rate approaching that of the USA. I couldn't find any.

I'll just quote a few homicide figures, per 100,000 of population, gleaned from the linked websites below, to give you an idea of the differences.

The figures vary from year to year, but the following figures seem to be fairly typical.

United States...4.2
United Kingdom....1.2
France.................1.1
Netherlands ........1.1
Australia ............1.0
Italy...................0.9
New Zealand .......0.9
Germany ............0.8
Spain .................0.8
Switzerland..........0.7
Austria ...............0.6
Japan .............0.3

Is it really a coincidence that the country with by far the most guns in circulation has by far the highest homicide rate, and the country where it's most difficult to own a gun of any sort has by far the lowest homicide rate, despite the notoriety of the Yakuza?


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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #116 on: December 18, 2012, 08:42:01 am »

Some of my thoughts on the matter (I'm a Canadian and a recently retired 30 year cop, so am looking at this thing from the outside in, although have a bit more association to the matters than the average citizen):

The vast majority of Canadian cops do not advocate putting guns into the hands of citizens. The vast majority of American cops I have spoken to, do not advocate guns for citizens (as long as they get to keep theirs).

Gun control in the US is one of the most contentious issues and will likely never be resolved.

Stats can be used to support anything. And often ignore many other things that contribute to certain results.

Both opponents and proponents often resort to fear-mongering to sell their point (similar to some of Steve Weldon's points - "brawn and lower IQ's rule our streets, schools, homes"  and having a family member hurt, killed or raped while, because you didn't have gun, you were incapable of doing anything - really, really?).

I just can't comprehend a society which relies so heavily on the proliferation of guns to ensure a peaceful existence.

As part of a solution, having (even well trained) teachers carrying a concealed weapon while on duty, with the expectation that they will stand up to someone intent in causing death to others is so foreign to me and scares the heck out of me.

Although many citizens would/do take gun security seriously, a great many would/do not (in this case, it appeared it was not). To expect the answer to be more/better training and gun security is naive and unrealistic. If it takes time and commitment and a whole bunch of money, it is either not going to get done or get done but not very well.

I think the US is too far down the path it has chosen and see no real change in sight, certainly not in my life or the lives of my children or grandchildren. However, incidents such as this cause a whole bunch of people to do a whole bunch of talking and soul searching, then after awhile everyone goes on as before (except those directly affected). Until the next time.

My 2 cents.

Marv


+1

I also wonder about this idea that the presence of so many firearms in the U.S. contributes to safety. It sure doesn't look like it from here (Ottawa). If so many people feel that their safety is threatened so much that vast numbers of citizens feel the need to arm themselves, well, that doesn't sound like a safe place to me.

I don't get the whole "right" to bear arms idea, I admit. I don't understand the fetish of adhering to a 200 year-old idea. I know it's difficult to make constitutional amendments, but using that technicality to promote paralysis seems a little too lawyerly to me. Laws should serve society.

Do people really think it's a good idea to put multi-round firing weapons in the hands of everyday citizens who aren't hunters? Why is that a good idea?

Logged
--
Robert

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #117 on: December 18, 2012, 09:02:52 am »

Rob, I don't think your points would in any way validate arming a nation to protect themselves against White Van Man, muggers on motorbikes or at picture stops.  The fact is that in all these case at worst the assailant is likely to be armed with a knife and only going to threaten you for money.  Give them your money and they will be off.  Nobody needs to get killed.  Now if like in the US the chances are Joe public could be armed, then of course the robbers are likely to have guns too.  If you pull a gun on them you will probably get shot because they might well have more practise in using the gun and will certainly value life lower than you would.  You can run from a knife, you can run from a stick, but try outrunning a bullet.
In the UK it is mainly gangs involved in drugs who use guns, and they usually use them on each other.  They don't need them for other crime because they know they're highly unlikely to meet anyone else with a gun and so just the threat of physical violence is enough to get what they want.

Jim
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #118 on: December 18, 2012, 09:23:59 am »

Rob, I don't think your points would in any way validate arming a nation to protect themselves against White Van Man, muggers on motorbikes or at picture stops.  The fact is that in all these case at worst the assailant is likely to be armed with a knife and only going to threaten you for money.  Give them your money and they will be off.  Nobody needs to get killed.  Now if like in the US the chances are Joe public could be armed, then of course the robbers are likely to have guns too.  If you pull a gun on them you will probably get shot because they might well have more practise in using the gun and will certainly value life lower than you would.  You can run from a knife, you can run from a stick, but try outrunning a bullet.
In the UK it is mainly gangs involved in drugs who use guns, and they usually use them on each other.  They don't need them for other crime because they know they're highly unlikely to meet anyone else with a gun and so just the threat of physical violence is enough to get what they want.Jim



I see, so that's all right then.

Rob C

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #119 on: December 18, 2012, 09:44:00 am »

... At least I hope we agree on that.

No.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 15   Go Up