Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Connecticut Tragedy  (Read 55534 times)

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #140 on: December 18, 2012, 05:00:10 pm »

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown."... dr Goebbels 'd be proud.
Logged

dmerger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #141 on: December 18, 2012, 05:03:17 pm »

Ya, dealing with statistics and peoples interpretation of them is a giant bag of worms. ...

Every "journalist" who writes a piece has statistics available to support whatever bent he/she wants to take..and they write it up as such, convince some, and their job is done.  They've filled up today's column space.  And of course someone who wants to believe that same way.. they google those peoples and there you go again.. 

Very true.  It's always necessary to be wary.  By the way, I did not intend to endorse the article I linked.  I just thought it was timely and at least worth reading.  If nothing else, it would be useful as a springboard for further research if anyone was so inclined.
Logged
Dean Erger

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #142 on: December 18, 2012, 05:04:38 pm »

... The guns used in almost all those shootings were illegal guns...

The source of those illegal guns were... legal guns. Reduce access to legal guns and you'll reduce the number of illegal ones (in due time).

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #143 on: December 18, 2012, 05:05:24 pm »

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

Jim -

The overwhelming majority of gun crimes listed in that loose list of statistics you just posted ARE GANG RELATED.  Remove the the gang related numbers from the statistics and magically, by the numbers, we go from the top of that list to somewhere in the middle.

Gangs are part of my wish to address violence.. to address what in society makes people so violent and in many cases join gangs..

Do spoons make people fat?

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

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #144 on: December 18, 2012, 05:06:24 pm »

I've been reluctant to get into this one, but since Slobodan's made it clear he hasn't a clue what an "assault weapon" is, even though he's sure that banning them will bring about at least a partial cure for this thing everyone seems to agree "we need to do something about," here are a few points that might be considered:

(1) Even though Slobodan's Chicago has had the strictest anti-gun laws in the US, it's become the murder capital of the world. It's followed closely by New York, with nearly equivalent gun laws. Detroit is trying hard to compete.

it just because you still have lax laws elsewhere.

(2) Though the number of random shootings like the one in Newtown has been increasing over recent years, the overall number of gun deaths has been decreasing.

and in countries w/ stricter laws properly shielded from influx of guns from outside the overall number of gun deaths is way lower than here

Don't ask me to make sense out of those data. There isn't any. But it does demonstrate that restrictive gun laws don't necessarily correlate with less shootings.

they do

Had he been armed, the shooting would have stopped right there.

then you probably can give us an example of armed NRA card carrying civilian who ever stopped a mass shooting ?
Logged

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #145 on: December 18, 2012, 05:07:55 pm »

The overwhelming majority of gun crimes listed in that loose list of statistics you just posted ARE GANG RELATED.  Remove the the gang related numbers from the statistics and magically, by the numbers, we go from the top of that list to somewhere in the middle.

and if we remove gang crimes from others we will be back on top...
Logged

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #146 on: December 18, 2012, 05:08:47 pm »

The source of those illegal guns were... legal guns. Reduce access to legal guns and you'll reduce the number of illegal ones (in due time).
and tax those that are not reduced into a very expensive luxury.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #147 on: December 18, 2012, 05:09:09 pm »

... Do spoons make people fat?...

The purpose of spoons is neutral, to feed people. The purpose of guns is single-minded, to kill.

dmerger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #148 on: December 18, 2012, 05:12:07 pm »

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. 

Your proposed solution may indeed work, but the problem is that your solution is impossible to implement in the U.S. now or anytime in the foreseeable future.
Logged
Dean Erger

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #149 on: December 18, 2012, 05:16:55 pm »

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

1.  You're speaking of your own country in the first 5-6 sentences?  

2.   No.  If you go by the stats they will rape, kill, car jack, and much more.  Consider signing up for a ride-along with your local PD..

3.   Your entire post centers around "robbers."  I've never worried about robbers.  Never.    I worry about killers, rapists, gang members, etc..   We have very few "robbers" going around trying to get a few bucks.  There are far more profitable low risk ways to make money.  Like selling drugs for the gangs.   Does your country have a problem rounding up robbers?

4.  What makes you think a criminal will have more skill with a gun than a private citizen?  Private citizens can take their legal guns and go to legal gun ranges and/or gun clubs and practice all the time.  And many do.  Criminals RARELY practice with a gun that will bring attention to them.

5.  Oh my.. your country again?
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #150 on: December 18, 2012, 05:30:10 pm »


The AR 15 isn't an assault weapon. Even though it has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, it's still a semi-automatic weapon, identical in firepower to about half of the less aggressive-looking hunting rifles out there. And if you've practiced enough with a pump or lever-action rifle you can come close to the rate of fire of a semi-automatic. If you ever fire a full-automatic weapon like the M-16 or the AK-47 you'll know the difference.

What constitutes an assault weapon depends on content. In most political discussions an assault weapon is one which was defined for the purposes of the assault weapon ban which was recognized (even by those who voted for it, it was purely symbolic in nature) as an abject failure.   And now that the country is talking about about another assault weapon ban.. at the risk of Slob feeling patronized.. I'll go over it once more.

An assault weapon is an weapon that has three of more of the following:

1.  Pistol grip

2.  Collapsible stock

3.  Threaded barrel

4.  Can accept a magazine

5.  Bayonet lug


If a weapon has three of more of those things.. it's an assault weapon.  Or any weapon with a magazine greater than 10 rounds.

What the gun industry did, was take an AR-15 assault weapon, cut off the bayonet lug, replace the collapsible stock with a fixed stock, and welded the flash hider to the barrel threads.. thereby eliminating useful barrel threads.

That's it.  Same black gun, same semi-auto action, same mean looking accessories can be mounted on it, fires the same .223 cartridge..  Same same.. 

Anyone ever used a bayonet lug outside of Marine Corp Boot camp? 


This is why the assault weapon bad was ineffective.  And will be again.

One more thing.  ALL the existing guns were grandfathered.  And they will be again.  It will be legal to own and sell them.. All that changes is the new supply.

So we'll be safe from bayonets some day in the future.. something to look forward to that will solve all our problems and prevent more school shootings.

When will we address the violence? 
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #151 on: December 18, 2012, 05:32:40 pm »

The "legit uses" in this example actually are examples of guns being used, as designed, for killing -- killing game animals and killing dangerous wildlife.

You are quite right sir.   And all this time I thought you were concerned with killing people..
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #152 on: December 18, 2012, 05:43:50 pm »

Hmmm... I must be lying then. Or deluding myself. Or maybe I am not a man enough.

I would not say I am thin, but I am certainly of an average, i.e., non-impressive or threatening physique. And yet, in my whole life, I have never, ever (knock the wood), been bullied, mugged, attacked or engaged in any kind of physical or even verbal altercation. And I lived in some rather dangerous environments (Moscow, post-communism, eight years), Barcelona (four years), and (gasp) the "murder capital of the world" - Chicago - according to Russ (the last eight years).

My wife was a victim of a petty crime twice in Barcelona, though. Once pick-pocketing, done so skillfully (i.e., non-violently) that she did not even notice. And the second time her purse was snatched off her shoulder (again, no other harm to her). I do not see how a gun would have helped. In the second case, it would have been inside the purse, and thus gone as well.

So, what's my "secret," how on Earth I've been able to protect myself and my family from "murder and rape" without a gun, to paraphrase Steve Weldon's question in another post? At least so far (knock the wood again).

- I simply try to avoid situations or environments where I would need a gun
- I choose to live in safe neighborhoods (I do realize that not everybody can afford that)
- I try to stay away from seedy parts of town, bars, events
- I try not to provoke a situation or confrontation
- I will try to remove myself from a situation before it escalates (not to run away mind you, just anticipate well in advance so that I can avoid it)
- If inevitable, I'd try to defuse it

Now, if I had a gun, I would probably be in the position that economists and risk analysts call "moral hazard," i.e., engaging in riskier behavior knowing that I am "protected." Which then becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy: by owning the gun you actually attract the situations where owning and using it is justifiable. Or you can call it a vicious circle.

Also, by owning the gun I might be tempted to use it. I generally consider myself a calm and composed individual. Yet, everyone has his breaking point. Sometimes the trigger (pardon the pun) might be a sense of injustice, wounded pride, moral outrage, or simply hurt feelings (like when Oscar insulted my daughter ;)). If (or when) it happens to me, if I ever reach my breaking point, I certainly don't wish to have a gun in my hands.

But lets now assume i do have a gun and I ended up in a situation where it might be needed. If I brandish it as a deterrence, and the assailant runs away screaming in horror, that would be a Hollywood happy ending, wouldn't it? In reality, I am more likely to face another individual with a gun. And here is the catch: that individual will be more accustomed to the situation, more experienced, quicker, more determined and with far less moral scruples to use it than I would. Although I am not afraid to use it in self-defense, I would probably deliberate for a SPLIT-SECOND longer, whether the situation warrants killing, than the other guy.

Interesting post.

1.  It would have been inappropriate to use a gun in this circumstance.

2.  Every time I see someone joking like this I worry for them.  So I worry for you as well.  Even if you don't choose to carry a weapon you should take your safety and the safety of your family seriously.

3.  All good points..  Not everyone can stay away from seedy areas or live in better areas.. but it's a good thing to aspire to.  And you're right, taking precautions and thinking things out in advance is much better than just depending on a gun.  Though, it doesn't negate the need for a gun should one present itself.

4.  This is case by case but I don't think you've be "more" likely.  Most depend on their size, numbers, etc.. and even so, you having a gun should work to your advantage through surprise.  And if you practiced more than once or twice, you'd be more skilled with a gun than the average bad guy.  I've arrested a fair number of bad guns and this bears out repeatedly.

5.  If owning a gun would make you feel more apt to use a gun.. then please go through training.  And pick your instructors very carefully so your beliefs are well aligned.   What I teach is a gun is your absolute last tool.. you never "brandish", you'll use it only as a last resort.  And I teach to recogize the last resort.     No matter what you believe the legal aspects of a shooting are something you want to avoid at all costs.. not getting in a shooting is the best way to do that.   
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #153 on: December 18, 2012, 05:47:58 pm »

... at the risk of Slob feeling patronized...

I do not feel patronized when you provide useful facts. I do when you consider those who disagree with you (thus a matter of opinion, not facts) ignorant. I do not appreciate when you mock my name, though (slob = a lazy and slovenly person)

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #154 on: December 18, 2012, 05:52:26 pm »

Gangs

More than 500 children die each year in the US because they accidentally fired a gun they found in their homes.

Guess they could have all accidentally done something else to themselves ... like accidentally spooning themselves.
Logged

marvpelkey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #155 on: December 18, 2012, 05:55:12 pm »

Steve,

I can't say any more about the conversations with US cops, other than, when firearms entered the subject, the vast majority of those US officers were not in favour of guns in the hands of anyone - criminals, lawful citizens etc. I can only describe what I have heard and am not expecting I will convince you that I am relating this correctly. We'll have to let that aspect stand as it is.

When you suggest that, if US citizens were not allowed to carry guns, that brawn and lower IQs would rule the streets, homes, schools etc is, in my opinion, fear  mongering. The majority of your posts have been well set out and reasonable, however, this (and the other quote) are way out there and serve no purpose other than to scare people.

Yes, 30 years on the job and I just can't see this. I presumed we were talking about civilian guns, not military, as your response perhaps suggests.

Well trained teachers do not scare me. The idea that a solution that uses armed teachers scares me. As you know, marshals and cops are chosen through serious scrutiny of their abilities and thought processes, and are trained to make the best out of those attributes. A teacher is hired because they can teach.

Marv

Logged

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #156 on: December 18, 2012, 05:59:08 pm »

"Our finding that the magnitude of association between household firearm ownership and suicide is particularly high for children is consistent with previous empirical work, and with the hypothesis that suicide acts by youth are more likely to be impulsive and therefore more likely to be affected by the means at hand."


This isn't borne out by my experience.  Sorry, it just isn't.  Children cry out and ideate much more than adults do.  You only have to be listening.

Be charitable, allow that both parties would be capable of movement, and someone would run away and call the cops on their cell phone -- or try to run away and be shot in the back.

I can't think of a single case of someone being shot in the back in such a circumstance.. sure it happens sometimes but I think it works much better for effect in your sentence above.

If you assume both parties are capable of movement, then you can assume killing with bare hands is an option well considered.
 
In the context of this discussion, when there's so much else that you could choose to disagree about, this seems to be quarrelling for its own sake.

Of course.  But you felt it important enough to bring up.. and again at the end of this post.  So I assume it's an important point to you and deserves a response.  NOT ALL GUNS ARE DESIGNED FOR KILLING..  There is a very large industry out there catering to hobbyists, hunters, competitors of all types, pest control, and so forth.

You choose to focus on a fraction of a fraction of a percent of firearms, when you understand the overwhelming majority of guns are designed to kill and that is the primary purpose.

Just because you have no experience with the HUGE competition industry, hunting industry, and so forth.. doesn't make them "a tiny fraction" of the number of firearms.  IN fact, I think if you asked the owners of firearms they would say their PRIMARY purpose is competition, recreational, hunting, etc..   Even a shovel has a secondary purpose..


It seems that you very much do not wish to accept that what actually happened is that guns were used as designed -- to kill.

Please don't insult me sir.  As mentioned already I was a first responder to a massacre of equal size and it I ended up throwing my uniform and boots away because I couldn't scrub away the smell.   I spent four years as a police officer picking up the pieces of the bad decisions of others including the pie in the sky theory (you're more likely to get shot by your dog if you own a firearm) and others.. and I've served and become disabled in countries OUR country sent me to in our behalf.  So please don't tell me I don't recognize that guns kill just because I'm not accepting your arguments.

To be very honest your questions come from a position that shows you know very little about the subject.  But that's okay.  I think it helps us all if you gain more knowledge.  So I'll answer your questions and listen to your slights.. but please don't insult me.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #157 on: December 18, 2012, 06:04:29 pm »

The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%).


I strongly believe in a persons right to suicide.  I don't care if they're sick and have a disease, or if they're just chronically depressed..  I think they have the right to make that decision.  And yes, I know this hurts a great many people, but it's still their right and I support it.

So your numbers are encouraging.. if 60% of 'gun deaths' are suicides.. then we should ignore that number.  They'll find a way sooner or later.  And it's messy.  Better to have a doctor help.

So right away I'm not worried about 60% of those numbers.  So.. see if you can find some numbers about how many of them are gang violence and we can subtract those too.  I support their right to kill each other.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #158 on: December 18, 2012, 06:10:31 pm »

To protect your life, not your stereo.

In similar scenarios, there were several cases here recently, where parents killed their teenage children, mistaking their late-night sneaking in for burglary.
This is tragic..   

When the laser shootemup games first came out we had a cop on my shift shoot a teenager with a laser gun who jumped out from behind a tree and aimed what looked like a sub machine gun at  him with red light pulses coming out of it..  Killing him.  I'm not sure what was worse.. watching him bawl his head off like a baby and start talking about killing himself.. or the ordeal the civilian shooting board put him through.

In the case of firearms.. a decent training class would have prevented the parents shooting their kids.  It's well known that kids sneak in/out all the time.. and just shooting a guy because he enters your house is wrong headed imo.. We teach to try and retreat to a safe room gathering the kids as you go.. and only shoot when they try and enter that.  Some floor plans make that impossible so it isn't fool proof.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: Connecticut Tragedy
« Reply #159 on: December 18, 2012, 06:15:01 pm »

The source of those illegal guns were... legal guns. Reduce access to legal guns and you'll reduce the number of illegal ones (in due time).
What's your estimate?  Say.. we outlaw ALL guns today..  When can we get down to a reasonably safe number since we can't get them all.. say we get 90%   That leaves 300,000+ firearms in the hands of criminals.  Feel safer?    Somehow I don't.

So lets say 1%..  How many years?  I've thought about this a lot.  And if it's even possible.  At least a hundred years?
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 15   Go Up