Bruxel said: horrible news. Heart goes out to the family's and friends.
as far as the gun problem. Most gun owners are not violent people at all and guns shouldnt be banned (well maybe automatic rifles/high powered rifles).
the problem is how easy it is for someone who is mentally ill to get there hands on a weapon and ammo when there is guns every where for purchase for anyone of anykind of gun.
There should be more harder restrictions involved in owning a fire arm. Make it harder to get a hold of one in all means for a better cause such as proper interviews,back ground check stronger tests and so forth.
its a very tough subject to debate. But somthing needs to be done. Mental illness is a on a huge rise and the easy acsess of weapons doesnt help.
In this case, mental checks would have done nothing. He killed his mother and took her weapons.
The background checks already prevent people from owning guns if they have mental issues. In the case of Jared Loughner, the Sheriffs failed to flag him (which they should have), which allowed him to own a gun.
The restrictions are there. The issue is that they aren't enfroced. Additionally, do we know how the weapons were stored? For all we know, they were in a gun case.
he broke over 40 laws in his dispicable rampage. yet people think another one would have prevented this?! lest not forget too that CT has the 5th strictist gun laws in the US according to the right wing propaganda orginization... the Brady Campaign... wait what
In this case, mental checks would have done nothing. He killed his mother and took her weapons.
The background checks already prevent people from owning guns if they have mental issues. In the case of Jared Loughner, the Sheriffs failed to flag him (which they should have), which allowed him to own a gun.
The restrictions are there. The issue is that they aren't enfroced. Additionally, do we know how the weapons were stored? For all we know, they were in a gun case.
Not to mention he actually tried to buy a gun and was denied. If people want guns they will steal them or get them through other less desirable ways.
Whenever these kind of things happen it goes the same route in public discussion. Knee jerk reaction is to ban all guns, then advocates show up explaining why it won't help (and to extent they're right), eventually it comes to ridiculously if happens to catch attention of some politician and typical sentiment being: "are you aganist consitution?", -- given all this constitutional mythos surrounding 2nd amedment, the self-obvious answer is "of course not, god forbid" -- though nobody probably remembers why actually the amdment was ratified and how it's relevant today. And the issue becomes dormant... until next time.
While the issue is amount of guns that people have relatevily easy access to (legally or not as in this case), it's probably in hundreds of millions range now. Well, how could you even possibly ban smth as massive? The idea is to lower access to the guns getting them out of people's hands, which is not possible without national wide gun confiscation program of sorts. Who got balls for this? And it'll probaly cause more turmoil than problem it solves. Despite how horrible it may sounds but those victims are statistically negligible, smth in the range of ten thousands killed yearly if I'm not mistaken. Well, car accidents are in the same range I believe.
Whenever these kind of things happen it goes the same route in public discussion. Knee jerk reaction is to ban all guns, then advocates show up explaining why it won't help (and to extent they're right), eventually it comes to ridiculously if happens to catch attention of some politician and typical sentiment being: "are you aganist consitution?", -- given all this constitutional mythos surrounding 2nd amedment, the self-obvious answer is "of course not, god forbid" -- though nobody probably remembers why actually the amdment was ratified and how it's relevant today. And the issue becomes dormant... until next time.
While the issue is amount of guns that people have relatevily easy access to (legally or not as in this case), it's probably in hundreds of millions range now. Well, how could you even possibly ban smth as massive? The idea is to lower access to the guns getting them out of people's hands, which is not possible without national wide gun confiscation program of sorts. Who got balls for this? And it'll probaly cause more turmoil than problem it solves. Despite how horrible it may sounds but those victims are statistically negligible, smth in the range of ten thousands killed yearly if I'm not mistaken. Well, car accidents are in the same range I believe.
So you should probably get used to this.
...Or we could go after the root causes of crime and murder in America.
I think that'd be far more effective. But that's just my opinion.
There's a reason that crime rates in America vary between sub-European levels and as bad as the worst nation(s) on Earth.
...Or we could go after the root causes of crime and murder in America.
I think that'd be far more effective. But that's just my opinion.
There's a reason that crime rates in America vary between sub-European levels and as bad as the worst nation(s) on Earth.
From recent UNODC report:
Not all homicides involve a weapon. But while killers can prove to be particularly ingenious regarding the manner in which they dispose of other people, 42 per cent of global homicides are actually committed by firearm. Homicides in the Americas are more than three and a half times as likely to be perpetrated with a firearm than in Europe (74 per cent vs. 21 per cent), whereas sharp objects are more than twice as likely to be murder weapons in Europe, where they predominate, than in the Americas (36 per cent vs. 16 per cent).
The role played by firearms in homicide is fundamental and, while the specific relationship between firearm availability and homicide is complex, it appears that a vicious circle connects firearm availability and higher homicide levels. Firearms undoubtedly drive homicide increases in certain regions and where they do members of organized criminal groups are often those who pull the trigger.
Though it should be noted that UN expert acknowledged the fact that the role of firearms remains mostly indecisive and data is skewed, there're arguments that could support contradicitory opinions on the matter. And a hell of a lot of other reasons within the society for homicide rates to be high or low besides firearms availability.
But I was mostly referring to the incidents of mass murder like this one, that are very well addressed by sane gun contol program, though statistically they are just little bumps on the big graph, and not necessarily will lead by itself to lower homicide rates. And since I don't see there're good chances for that to happen, get used to this.
...Or we could go after the root causes of crime and murder in America.
I think that'd be far more effective. But that's just my opinion.
There's a reason that crime rates in America vary between sub-European levels and as bad as the worst nation(s) on Earth.
From recent UNODC report:
Not all homicides involve a weapon. But while killers can prove to be particularly ingenious regarding the manner in which they dispose of other people, 42 per cent of global homicides are actually committed by firearm. Homicides in the Americas are more than three and a half times as likely to be perpetrated with a firearm than in Europe (74 per cent vs. 21 per cent), whereas sharp objects are more than twice as likely to be murder weapons in Europe, where they predominate, than in the Americas (36 per cent vs. 16 per cent).
The role played by firearms in homicide is fundamental and, while the specific relationship between firearm availability and homicide is complex, it appears that a vicious circle connects firearm availability and higher homicide levels. Firearms undoubtedly drive homicide increases in certain regions and where they do members of organized criminal groups are often those who pull the trigger.
Though it should be noted that UN expert acknowledged the fact that the role of firearms remains mostly indecisive and data is skewed, there're arguments that could support contradicitory opinions on the matter. And a hell of a lot of other reasons within the society for homicide rates to be high or low besides firearms availability.
But I was mostly referring to the incidents of mass murder like this one, that are very well addressed by sane gun contol program, though statistically they are just little bumps on the big graph, and not necessarily will lead by itself to lower homicide rates. And since I don't see there're good chances for that to happen, get used to this.
Mai, you're from Russia, right?
Tell me: Why does your government restrict firearm ownership far greater than my country, yet your homicide rate is much higher than my country?
Tell me: Why does your government restrict firearm ownership far greater than my country, yet your homicide rate is much higher than my country?
Much higher is x1.5 higher as per last report with trend being down and you're being up, though even that undecisisve given how it's reported over here (including unsuccessful attempts at murder, dead body with undecesive cause of death = one homocide unless proven otherewise etc., hence the skewed data complain from UN expert). It certainly was way higher decade ago, but given the turmoil of the 90s it certainly went down by a huge margin, so I'm surprised how low the rate as of now. Why? The social causes of course. I though I've addressed that in my posts, that there're a lot of other reasons for rates be high or low. And restricts is overestimation, 10% have guns. Hell, I'm a gun owner :D though not an avid one, had it enough in the army.
As I said there're arguments to support contradictory opinions, Sweden and Uruguay -- comparable gun ownership (and it's high), but the latter is way higher in homicide rate, Japan and Malaysia -- comparable gun ownership (very low), the latter is way higher in homicide rates etc.
//Still trying to attack me geographically, aren't you? ;)
Tell me: Why does your government restrict firearm ownership far greater than my country, yet your homicide rate is much higher than my country?
Much higher is x1.5 higher as per last report with trend being down and you're being up, though even that undecisisve given how it's reported over here (including unsuccessful attempts at murder, dead body with undecesive cause of death = one homocide unless proven otherewise etc., hence the skewed data complain from UN expert). It certainly was way higher decade ago, but given the turmoil of the 90s it certainly went down by a huge margin, so I'm surprised how low the rate as of now. Why? The social causes of course. I though I've addressed that in my posts, that there're a lot of other reasons for rates be high or low. And restricts is overestimation, 10% have guns. Hell, I'm a gun owner :D though not an avid one, had it enough in the army.
As I said there're arguments to support contradictory opinions, Sweden and Uruguay -- comparable gun ownership (and it's high), but the latter is way higher in homicide rate, Japan and Malaysia -- comparable gun ownership (very low), the latter is way higher in homicide rates etc.
//Still trying to attack me geographically, aren't you? ;)
Homicides are at a 50 year low in the US:
I'm not trying to attack you geographically. I'm trying to get you to understand that guns have no correlation with crime. The report you cited didn't even say they did, either. Just that homicides were performed more often with firearms in America than they were in Europe - but failing to mention if homicides were higher or lower, overall.
And isn't that the whole point of wanting to restrict firearms? That it somehow reduces murders and death? If there is no data that correlates with fewer guns yielding fewer murders, then why restrict the weaponry in the first place?
Please look at my chart a few times. That is the US murder rate. Do you see when it started going down in the mid 2000s after staying steady for a few years? Do you know what happened in the mid-2000s? America allowed assault weapons to be purchased again - yet crime rates have dropped.
Guns do not cause crime. You said yourself that social issues caused Russia's crime rate, and I agree. America has social issues too. They're the root cause of violence in the country, not guns. Guns are just a tool. If an evil person wants to do evil, they will do it, regardless. That is why we must change the person, not the tool.
1) I'm trying to get you to understand that guns have no correlation with crime. The report you cited didn't even say they did, either. Just that homicides were performed more often with firearms in America than they were in Europe - but failing to mention if homicides were higher or lower, overall.
2) And isn't that the whole point of wanting to restrict firearms? That it somehow reduces murders and death? If there is no data that correlates with fewer guns yielding fewer murders, then why restrict the weaponry in the first place?
1) You posted nothing I'm disagreeing with. Your point? Though I won't probabaly go as far as say "no correlation", but there's certainly not enough proof to say it otherwise.
2) My point is there's correlation between firearms availability and mass murder cases like this (note: not the homicide rate). You said "go after root causes the crime", given most cases of handgun kills in America are: victim shot during the robbery, offender shot by victim or police officer, banal domestic violence -- these could be addressed as they due to social causes most of the time, but how exactly you'd address the situation when some crazy fuck decided his life worth nothing and apparently yours too? Put all crazy fucks into detention and treat them? What about shooter before this one, and even before the one that was before this one? They were medically ok. Since there're no other options -- you either control guns or people, you stuck with "control guns" option, which is unlikely and probably not worth it. Hence my "get used to it" comment, this is what you gonna pay for >80% gun ownership per capita unfortuantely. Not a social problem of big magnitude, but a very vocal and painfull incidents.
Speeding kills 13,000-14,000 people annually...so should cars that go over the speed limit be banned? I mean damn they're four wheeled death machines!
Stupid idea right? But you get the point, there are good drivers and there are bad drivers. Just like there are safe, responsible, well trained gun owners and there are crazy assholes like this guy. Don't blame the car or the gun, blame the person behind the wheel/trigger.
Plus if we get rid of every gun in the world, do you suddenly think there would be world peace? Hmm well I don't remember world peace in the 1500's...I think they killed each other with swords and arrows...
Come on dude, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Are you seriously comparing unintentional, accidental deaths to planned, intentional murder? Also, no one here is claiming that we get rid of "all guns" in the world. Simply having a greater restriction on who can own a firearm and how many firearms said person can own should be a sufficient start.
Would you really feel good knowing only the government and criminals have guns? Hey let's even pretend criminals don't have guns. Would you feel good about only the government having guns? You know that disarming citizens is always the first step towards a genocide. Seriously, look at any genocide in history, it happened where citizens have no right to own guns. Do you think the holocaust would have happened if the citizens of Germany were as well armed as America? Hell the Japanese even made the smart decision not to invade the American mainland in WWII because "there would be a rifle behind ever blade of grass" as quoted by a Japanese naval commander.
Guns are a needed. Unless every single gun in the world is destroyed, then I want a gun. I don't want to be left defenseless when I know other people out there have them and I don't.
