Primary Response [Archive] - Renovate Forums

jimbur

18th December 2012, 02:06 PM

I'm still stunned at this comment made by a USA congressman, Louie Gohmert reported on the ABC website:

"I wish to God she [slain school principal Dawn Hochsprung] had had an M-4 [assault rifle] in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out ... and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,"

rrich

18th December 2012, 04:05 PM

Emotion, that's all just emotion.

Feelings are very strong. I know that when I first heard, I cried. Even now my tear up when I hear of some of the details.

I think that most Americans feel that we have been cheated because the gunman killed himself. Unfortunately we do not get to extract a pound of flesh.

jimbur

18th December 2012, 04:54 PM

Thanks for the response Rich. The attitude towards guns is so different across here in Australia. We have no equivalent of your Second Amendment.
What those families are going through must hurt us all.

Master Splinter

18th December 2012, 05:40 PM

Yep. More guns is always a solution to gun crime. Thanks for being such a good example of how that works, USA!

(or if we visit the congressman's world-vision for a moment...teacher goes for the 'school gun', fumbles around to find the right key, opens cabinet, picks up gun, tries to figure out if it's loaded (her last training course on it was five years ago), hopes it is, tries to find safety, hopes weapon is in firing condition now, aims at perpetrator, pulls trigger, gun clicks as the ammo is now 10 years old and is past it's 'bang before' date).

Why not just put a 30-50% levy on ammo sales and use the ongoing revenue to fund better mental health services...oh, I know, then the rural poor wouldn't be able to afford to shoot, and we cant have that!

artme

18th December 2012, 05:58 PM

Nothing like having a gun to defend yourself against people with guns!:o

Scott

18th December 2012, 10:14 PM

I just typed a whole heap of emotional stuff about guns but have just deleted it. What can I say? Won't be travelling to the US in the very near future because of this.

fxst

19th December 2012, 06:24 PM

Again its the gun that causes the problem?? NO its the fact that unstable people have access to guns. So if they ban guns all will be good and we can live in peace...nope as was the case in China the same day 20 children were injured by a nutjob with a knife...ban them too? what about the number of children killed in motor vehicle accidents? I know ban vehicles too. Using Australia as an example won't be that good when you look at the shootings going on in Sydney and so on by criminal elements ...ahh I know tell them that guns are banned they will hand them in....NOT. Guns like all inanimate things are not items that kill....its people that kill and removing guns knives etc will not stop that as rocks and sticks have been used as well. I think it all comes down to lack of access to mental health help but not even that will stop someone from going on a rampage or killing spree unless someone sees the signs. The mother of the boy in the US had a large number of guns for many years as do many there but she didn't go kill people.
Pete

Grumpy John

19th December 2012, 07:08 PM

The news tonight reported that U.S. gunshops were doing record business since the Sandy Hook shootings.

I totalled up the deaths in the list below and came up with 272, that includes the perpetrators who committed suicide.

On Friday morning, 27 people were reportedly shot and killed at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, CT. According to sources, 18 of these casualties were children. This is the second mass shooting in the US this week, after a gunman opened fire in an Oregon shopping mall on Tuesday, killing 2. ABC News reports that there have been 31 school shootings in the US since Columbine in 1999, when 13 people were killed.

The rate of people killed by guns in the US is 19.5 times higher than similar high-income countries in the world. In the last 30 years since 1982, America has mourned at least 61 mass murders. Below is a timeline of mass shootings in the US since the Columbine High massacre:

December 11, 2012. On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown.

September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.

August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.

July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.

May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.

April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.

April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

February 27, 2012. Three students were killed by Thomas “TJ” Lane, another student, in a rampage at Chardon High School in Chardon, OH. Three others were injured.

October 14, 2011. Eight people died in a shooting at Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CA. The gunman, 41-year-old Scott Evans Dekraai, killed six women and two men dead, while just one woman survived. It was Orange County’s deadliest mass killing.

September 6, 2011. Eduardo Sencion, 32, entered an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, NV and shot 12 people. Five died, including three National Guard members.

July 7, 2011. Seven people were shot to death when Rodrick Dantzler went on a rampage in Grand Rapids, MI. He killed his ex-girlfriend, her sister, and her sister’s 10-year-old daughter, his ex-wife and their daughter before going on a rampage on the street

January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head when 22-year-old Jared Loughner opened fire on an event she was holding at a Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. Six people died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Giffords’ staffers, and a 9-year-old girl. 19 total were shot. Loughner has been sentenced to seven life terms plus 140 years, without parole.

August 3, 2010. Omar S. Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton, and two were injured.

November 5, 2009. Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Hasan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.

April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.

March 29, 2009. Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife who worked at the home and survived. Stewart was sentenced to life in prison.

February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing 6 and wounding 21. The gunman shot and killed himself before police arrived. It was the fifth-deadliest university shooting in US history.

February 7, 2008. Six people died and two were injured in a shooting spree at the City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman, Charles Lee Thornton, opened fire during a public meeting after being denied construction contracts he believed he deserved. Thornton was killed by police.

December 5, 2007. A 19-year-old boy, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE. Hawkins killed 9 people and wounded 4 before killing himself. The semi-automatic rifle he used was stolen from his stepfather’s house.

April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech became the site of the deadliest school shooting in US history when a student, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died in the massacre.

February 12, 2007. In Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square Mall, 5 people were shot to death and 4 others were wounded by 18-year-old gunman Sulejman Talović. One of the victims was a 16-year-old boy.

October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, Roberts separated the boys from the girls, binding and shooting the girls. 5 young girls died, while 6 were injured. Roberts committed suicide afterward.

March 25, 2006. Seven died and 2 were injured by 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff in a shooting spree through Capitol Hill in Seattle, WA. The massacre was the worst killing in Seattle since 1983.

March 21, 2005. Teenager Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing 9 people on campus and injuring 5. Weise killed himself.

March 12, 2005. A Living Church of God meeting was gunned down by 44-year-old church member Terry Michael Ratzmann at a Sheraton hotel in Brookfield, WI. Ratzmann was thought to have had religious motivations, and killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and 7 others. Four were wounded.

July 8, 2003. Doug Williams, a Lockheed Martin employee, shot up his plant in Meridian, MS in a racially-motivated rampage. He shot 14 people, most of them African American, and killed 7 before killing himself.

December 26, 2000. Edgewater Technology employee Michael “Mucko” McDermott shot and killed seven of his coworkers at the office in Wakefield, MA. McDermott claimed he had “traveled back in time and killed Hitler and the last 6 Nazis.” He was sentenced to 7 consecutive life sentences.

September 15, 1999. Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. He killed 7 people and wounded 7 others, almost all teenagers. Ashbrook committed suicide.

July 29, 1999. Mark Orrin Barton, 44, murdered his wife and two children with a hammer before shooting up two Atlanta day trading firms. Barton, a day trader, was believed to be motivated by huge monetary losses. He killed 12 including his family and injured 13 before killing himself.

April 20, 1999. In the deadliest high school shooting in US history, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. They killed themselves after the massacre.

Grumpy John

19th December 2012, 07:15 PM

Again its the gun that causes the problem?? NO its the fact that unstable people have access to guns. So if they ban guns all will be good and we can live in peace...nope as was the case in China the same day 20 children were injured by a nutjob with a knife...ban them too? what about the number of children killed in motor vehicle accidents? I know ban vehicles too. Using Australia as an example won't be that good when you look at the shootings going on in Sydney and so on by criminal elements ...ahh I know tell them that guns are banned they will hand them in....NOT. Guns like all inanimate things are not items that kill....its people that kill and removing guns knives etc will not stop that as rocks and sticks have been used as well. I think it all comes down to lack of access to mental health help but not even that will stop someone from going on a rampage or killing spree unless someone sees the signs. The mother of the boy in the US had a large number of guns for many years as do many there but she didn't go kill people.
Pete

"Crazed student kills 3 teachers and 10 students with rocks and then clubs himself to death with a fence paling"

I must have missed that headline.

FenceFurniture

19th December 2012, 08:05 PM

Again its the gun that causes the problem?? NO its the fact that unstable people have access to guns. So if they ban guns all will be good and we can live in peace...nope as was the case in China the same day 20 children were injured by a nutjob with a knife...ban them too? what about the number of children killed in motor vehicle accidents? I know ban vehicles too. Using Australia as an example won't be that good when you look at the shootings going on in Sydney and so on by criminal elements ...ahh I know tell them that guns are banned they will hand them in....NOT. Guns like all inanimate things are not items that kill....its people that kill and removing guns knives etc will not stop that as rocks and sticks have been used as well. I think it all comes down to lack of access to mental health help but not even that will stop someone from going on a rampage or killing spree unless someone sees the signs. The mother of the boy in the US had a large number of guns for many years as do many there but she didn't go kill people.
Pete

Pete, yes it's the people that do the killing, but why give them access to weapons that can be used so "effectively"? I can't for the life of me see why the general public needs access to semi & fully automatic weapons of this nature. So where do you draw the line on weaponry? It still takes a human to operate a tank, so should they be available, and if not, why not?

None of the Chinese children were killed (that doesn't mean I dismiss their physical and mental injuries). The shootings going on in Sydney are a) limited in the number of victims in each case and b) the victims appear to be mostly rival gangs etc, rather than innocent unconnected bystanders.

Rich, looks like another tar & feathering opportunity has been missed.

Master Splinter

19th December 2012, 11:51 PM

I don't know what you are all going on about - Americans are only 20 times more likely (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/) to be killed by a gun than the rest of the developed world. Obviously, what is needed is of course 20 times as many guns, so those people who are going to be killed can shoot back or even shoot first!

Sebastiaan56

20th December 2012, 09:17 AM

I dont think that we understand the American pro gun psyche and probably never will. Its born of the self perception of independent rugged men fighting to save their wimmun and lives from the bad guys in black hats. It is coupled with a hatred for all forms of government. When I have dealt with some of these people I have felt like Im in the wild west, literally.

Of course facts are facts and the higher the rate of gun possession the higher the rate of gun violence. As far as I can determine this applies all over the world. To the point that it is people who kill, it is people who kill. But if they didnt have the gun they would have to be a lot braver and work a lot harder to express their anger and kill. Its the same argument that there should be no speed limits, ever. Personal freedom vs the good of the community.

My biggest concern is that NSW is now being run de facto by the gun lobby. Im not sure I can engage in my pastime of walking in National Parks safely any more. It will only be a matter of time before some trigger happy hunter shoots a kid or bushwalker. There are also moves afoot to undo some of John Howards restrictions on the kinds of guns that can be owned. Welcome to the mid east...

jimbur

20th December 2012, 09:52 AM

I think Sebastiaan nails it down in so far as something most of us find incomprehensible can be nailed down.
I cannot understand how "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can sit comfortably with the (to me) excessive interpretation of the Second Amendment. I was having a coffee at a local place this morning and saw a group of kids on their way to practicing their Christmas concert. To view the lives of such children as unfortunate 'collateral damage' in the protection of the individual from tyranny is an alien concept to me.

Sebastiaan56

20th December 2012, 10:13 AM

I just got sent this link. Normally I dont go for too much psychologising but this article expresses it well.

Defending masculinity with guns (http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/defending-masculinity-with-guns-20121219-2bml3.html)

Wongo

20th December 2012, 10:36 AM

“Pull the gun out and kill the bastard” sounds simple doesn’t it? What about hiring Chuck Norris as chief security officer?

These people need to stop watching action movies.

Wongo

20th December 2012, 11:12 AM

.nope as was the case in China the same day 20 children were injured by a nutjob with a knife

I thought most people would use it as an example to show why guns should be banned. Most of us wish Adam Lanza had a knife.

FenceFurniture

20th December 2012, 12:12 PM

There's a rather black side to this that I just don't get. An M4 assault rifle can fire 700 to 1000 rounds per minute, which is 11 to 16 rounds per second. How come there were only 27 killed?

On the issue of a buy-back of weapons by the govt, I think that this would be reasonably easy to afford over the longer term. If we look at the cost to America of only this latest massacre, it would be a staggering amount of money. Costs would include:

27 autopsies (funerals need not be counted because they will eventually happen anyway)
Attendance of all the emergency services, police etc
Coroners costs
The investigation/inquiry
the lost productivity of the 20 children over their lifespan (and that we be in the millions per life)

It would probably be safe to say that this single episode has cost America in the order of $100,000,000 and quite probably more. If they offered $5000 per weapon in a buy-back that would get 20,000 of these weapons off the streets. I don't know what an M4 costs, but a quick search suggests about $1500, and so you'd have to think that many owners would jump at the chance of a quick $3500 profit.

Bear in mind that every new massacre brings a higher and higher death toll, presumably because each idiot wants to outdo the last.

nrb

20th December 2012, 12:50 PM

The comment i heard on melbourne radio by a caller who said "until the people of the usa love their kids more than they love guns" nothing will change.

artme

20th December 2012, 02:09 PM

Yes, the collective mentality of the USA is very baffling.

I have had the pleasure of spending some time over there and am always
impressed by the friendliness and courtesy of the people. This is totally at
odds with with so much of what we see in relation to guns and rights.

Quite frankly I don't think the USA has truly matured as a nation.:o

I expect plenty of brick bats for that statement and will expand when
I see the responses.

FenceFurniture

20th December 2012, 03:05 PM

I broadly agree Art, but the Americans I've met have not been in the USA (perhaps they're in holiday mode). You're right - it's baffling.

Grumpy John

20th December 2012, 09:59 PM

I snapped this quote from Jimi Hendrix at the Experience Music Project (http://www.empmuseum.org/)in Seattle. It's not about guns, but guns are about power.

246262

Bushmiller

21st December 2012, 02:38 AM

There's a rather black side to this that I just don't get. An M4 assault rifle can fire 700 to 1000 rounds per minute, which is 11 to 16 rounds per second. How come there were only 27 killed?

On the issue of a buy-back of weapons by the govt, I think that this would be reasonably easy to afford over the longer term. If we look at the cost to America of only this latest massacre, it would be a staggering amount of money. Costs would include:

27 autopsies (funerals need not be counted because they will eventually happen anyway)
Attendance of all the emergency services, police etc
Coroners costs
The investigation/inquiry
the lost productivity of the 20 children over their lifespan (and that we be in the millions per life)

It would probably be safe to say that this single episode has cost America in the order of $100,000,000 and quite probably more. If they offered $5000 per weapon in a buy-back that would get 20,000 of these weapons off the streets. I don't know what an M4 costs, but a quick search suggests about $1500, and so you'd have to think that many owners would jump at the chance of a quick $3500 profit.

Bear in mind that every new massacre brings a higher and higher death toll, presumably because each idiot wants to outdo the last.

Brett

You make some very valid points, but you may not have taken into account that the US is dire financial straits and anything that impinges on their so-called freedom will be viewed in a very dim light. The cost would be enormous for a buy back such as we did here in Oz.

Remember that we are not talking about one or two guns per person. Without having delved into the amount of gun ownership I would hazzard a guess that it would be getting close to double figures per head of population. I base this on knowing that there are people that virtually own arsenals. I worked with an american who told me his father had four hundred guns. This bloke was a lay preacher!

Just a sec while I put on my charlatan hat; That's better :wink:. An assault rifle that can fire 700 rounds per minute will discharge it's magazine in two to three seconds. With a heavy hand most of the bullets would go through the same person. Having said that, I think there should be a facility to fire no more than 3 rounds with each trigger squeeze. Why are they allowed such weapons? Excellent question. Even some handguns have large magazine capacities.

I am afraid there is no easy solution to the american problem, particularly while the NRA has such a big say in the country and has high profile personalities shouting their cause. Well at least one of them has now died, but their political clout remains.

I think those of you who have said people kill (not guns) are correct, but the more guns there are in circulation the greater the liklihood there is of some nutter going beserk and gaining access to a highly lethal weapon :((. I suspect there are a lot more americans, mostly innocents, who have their name written on a bullet somewhere. We will hear of them posthumously.

Regards
Paul

A Duke

21st December 2012, 11:57 AM

Hi,
My only concern is "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns."

A memento of some of the "interesting times" I have lived in, in my 73 and a half years.
Regards

Wongo

21st December 2012, 01:23 PM

At least outlaws don’t normally go around shooting innocent people or kids. Most gun related crimes here are bad people killing bad people.

A Duke

21st December 2012, 01:55 PM

At least outlaws don’t normally go around shooting innocent people or kids. Most gun related crimes here are bad people killing bad people.What about the innocent truck driver from a couple of blocks away who copped a stray bullet in Sydney when a few hoods were having a shoot up in the Mac Donald's car park. You also have to remember hold up victims who are just trying to do a day's work, and the drive bys where the wrong house has been shot up.
Leaving the hoods to shoot each other up does not seem like a safe option to me.
Regards

DavidG

21st December 2012, 01:57 PM

Wikipedia (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wikipedia&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F&ei=nhnUUNSPHcmQiQfamYCoDQ&usg=AFQjCNHcaS9ywOmqmejD0HTUdvf-7m4hYg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY)
Per 100,000 population

<tbody>
Country
Total firearm-related death rate
Homicides
Suicides
Unintentional
Undetermined

El Salvador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador)
50.36
50.36
NA
NA
NA

Jamaica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica)
47.44
47.44
NA
NA
NA

Honduras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras)
46.7
46.7
NA
NA
NA

Guatemala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala)
38.52
38.52
NA
NA
NA

Swaziland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaziland)
37.16
37.16
NA
NA
NA

Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia)
28.11
27.1
0.87
0.14
NA

Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil)
19.01
18.1
0.73
0.18
NA

Panama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama)
12.92
12.92
NA
NA
NA

Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico)
11.14
10
0.67
0.47
NA

United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)
10.2
3.7
6.1
0.2
0.1

Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines)
9.46
9.46
NA
NA
NA

South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa)
9.41
NA
NA
NA
NA

Montenegro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro)
8.55
2.06
6.49
NA
NA

Paraguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay)
7.35
7.35
NA
NA
NA

Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua)
7.14
7.14
NA
NA
NA

Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina)
5.65
3
2.01
0.64
NA

Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada)
4.78
0.76
3.72
0.22
NA

Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe)
4.75
4.75
NA
NA
NA

Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia)
3.9
0.62
2.81
0.18
0.29

Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland)
3.64
0.26
3.34
0.02
0.02

Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland)
3.5
0.52
3.15
0.1
0.07

Costa Rica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica)
3.32
3.32
NA
NA
NA

Uruguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay)
3.24
3.24
NA
NA
NA

Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia)
3.01
0.57
2.35
0.07
0.02

Barbados (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados)
3
3
NA
NA
NA

France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)
3
0.22
2.33
0.05
0.41

Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria)
2.94
0.18
2.68
NA
0.08

New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand)
2.66
0.17
2.14
0.09
NA

Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia)
2.54
0.3
1.57
0.07
0.6

Slovenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia)
2.44
0.05
2.34
NA
0.05

Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium)
2.43
0.29
1.96
0.01
0.16

Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta)
2.16
0.48
1.68
NA
NA

Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru)
1.87
1.87
NA
NA
NA

Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)
1.86
0.94
0.71
0.03
0.19

Republic of Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia)
1.04
0.45
0.42
0.08
0.08

Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg)
1.81
0.6
1
NA
0.2

Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway)
1.78
0.04
1.72
0.02
NA

Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal)
1.77
0.48
1.09
0.02
0.18

Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic)
1.76
0.12
1.39
0.1
0.15

Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia)
1.75
0.18
0.94
0.39
0.24

Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania)
1.61
0.24
1
0.03
0.33

Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country))
1.54
0.23
0.09
1
0.23

Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece)
1.5
0.59
0.84
0.04
NA

Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden)
1.47
0.19
1.2
0.06
0.01

Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark)
1.45
0.22
1.16
0.04
0.04

Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia)
1.43
0.18
0.94
0.04
0.27

Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria)
1.35
0.23
0.87
0.14
0.11

Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy)
1.28
0.36
0.81
0.08
0.03

Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait)
1.25
0.36
0.06
0
NA

Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland)
1.25
NA
1.25
NA
NA

Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)
1.1
0.06
0.94
0.02
0.08

Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova)
1.04
1.04
NA
NA
NA

Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia)
1.05
0.09
0.79
0.02
0.15

Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland)
1.03
0.36
0.56
0.04
0.07

Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan)
1.01
0.53
0.07
0.28
0.13

India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India)
0.93
0.93
NA
NA
NA

Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary)
0.85
0.13
0.72
NA
NA

Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus)
0.83
0.24
0.48
NA
0.11

Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan)
0.68
0.58
0.03
NA
0.08

Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain)
0.63
0.15
0.42
0.05
0.01

Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands)
0.46
0.2
0.24
0.01
0.01

Taiwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan)
0.42
0.13
0.12
0.11
NA

Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus)
0.38
0.38
NA
NA
NA

Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine)
0.35
0.35
NA
NA
NA

United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)
0.25
0.04
0.17
0.01
0.02

Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland)
0.26
0.02
0.12
0.02
0.09

Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)
0.24
0.07
0.17
0
NA

Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)
0.2
0.04
0.06
0.09
0.01

Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong)
0.19
0.12
0.07
0
NA

Mauritius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius)
0.19
0
0.09
0.09
NA

Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar)
0.18
0.18
NA
NA
NA

South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea)
0.13
0.04
0.02
0.05
NA

Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan)
0.07
0.02
0.04
0
NA

Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan)
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.02
NA

Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile)
0.06
0.06
NA
NA
NA

</tbody>

DavidG

21st December 2012, 02:03 PM

Wikipedia (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wikipedia&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F&ei=nhnUUNSPHcmQiQfamYCoDQ&usg=AFQjCNHcaS9ywOmqmejD0HTUdvf-7m4hYg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY)

<tbody>
Country
Guns per 100
residents (2007)

United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)
88.8

Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia)
58.2

Yemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen)
54.8

Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland)
45.7

Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus)
36.4

Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia)
35

Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq)
34.2

Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland)
32

Uruguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay)
31.8

Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden)
31.6

Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway)
31.3

France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)
31.2

Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada)
30.8

Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria)
30.4

Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)
30.3

Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland)
30.3

Oman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oman)
25.5

Bahrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain)
24.8

Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait)
24.8

Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia)
24.1

Montenegro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro)
23.1

New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand)
22.6

Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece)
22.5

United Arab Emirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates)
22.1

Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland)
21.9

Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia)
21.7

Panama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama)
21.7

Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon)
21

Equatorial Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea)
19.9

Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar)
19.2

Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia)
19

Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru)
18.8

Angola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola)
17.3

Bosnia and Herzegovina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina)
17.3

Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium)
17.2

Paraguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay)
17

Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic)
16.3

Thailand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand)
15.6

Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Socialist_People%27s_Libyan_Arab_Jamahiriya)
15.5

Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg)
15.3

Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia)
15

Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico)
15

Mauritius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius)
14.7

Guyana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyana)
14.6

Gabon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabon)
14

Slovenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia)
13.5

Suriname (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname)
13.4

Guatemala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala)
13.1

South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa)
12.7

Namibia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namibia)
12.6

Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia)
12.5

Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey)
12.5

Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark)
12

Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy)
11.9

Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta)
11.9

Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan)
11.6

Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan)
11.5

Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile)
10.7

Venezuela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela)
10.7

Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain)
10.4

Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina)
10.2

Belize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize)
10

Costa Rica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica)
9.9

Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia)
9.2

Somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia)
9.1

Transnistria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria)
9.1

Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)
8.9

Zambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambia)
8.9

Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania)
8.6

Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland)
8.6

Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal)
8.5

Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia)
8.3

Jamaica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica)
8.1

Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil)
8

Barbados (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados)
7.8

Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua)
7.7

Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria)
7.6

Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus)
7.3

Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country))
7.3

Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran)
7.3

Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)
7.3

Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova)
7.1

Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine)
6.6

Maldives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives)
6.5

Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya)
6.4

Swaziland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaziland)
6.4

Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria)
6.2

England and Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales)
6.2

Honduras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras)
6.2

Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia)
5.9

El Salvador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador)
5.8

Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary)
5.5

Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland)
5.5

Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan)
5.5

Cape Verde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Verde)
5.4

Seychelles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seychelles)
5.4

Bahamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bahamas)
5.3

Dominican Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic)
5.1

Mozambique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique)
5.1

Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco)
5

Botswana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana)
4.9

China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China)
4.9

Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba)
4.8

Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines)
4.7

Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan)
4.6

Taiwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan)
4.6

Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe)
4.6

Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia)
4.3

India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India)
4.2

Burma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma)
4

Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands)
3.9

Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria)
3.9

Turkmenistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan)
3.8

Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan)
3.5

Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt)
3.5

Bhutan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan)
3.5

Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories)
3.4

Bolivia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia)
2.8

Cameroon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameroon)
2.8

Djibouti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti)
2.8

Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo)
2.7

Lesotho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesotho)
2.7

Ivory Coast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_Coast)
2.4

Senegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegal)
2

Mongolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia)
1.9

Comoros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoros)
1.8

Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam)
1.7

Guinea-Bissau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea-Bissau)
1.6

Liberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia)
1.6

Mauritania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania)
1.6

Trinidad and Tobago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinidad_and_Tobago)
1.6

Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia)
1.5

Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria)
1.5

Sri Lanka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka)
1.5

Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan)
1.5

Benin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin)
1.4

Brunei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunei)
1.4

Democratic Republic of the Congo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo)
1.4

Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania)
1.4

Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda)
1.4

Ecuador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador)
1.3

Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan)
1.3

Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland)
1.3

Burundi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burundi)
1.2

Laos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laos)
1.2

Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea)
1.2

Papua New Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea)
1.2

Burkina Faso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso)
1.1

Chad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad)
1.1

South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea)
1.1

Mali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali)
1.1

Central African Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic)
1

Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan)
1

Togo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togo)
1

Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan)
0.9

Gambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gambia)
0.8

Madagascar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar)
0.8

Nepal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal)
0.8

Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania)
0.7

Malawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi)
0.7

Niger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger)
0.7

Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)
0.7

Haiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti)
0.6

Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan)
0.6

North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea)
0.6

Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda)
0.6

Sierra Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone)
0.6

Bangladesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh)
0.5

Eritrea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea)
0.5

Fiji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji)
0.5

Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia)
0.5

Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)
0.5

Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia)
0.4

Ghana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana)
0.4

Solomon Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands)
0.4

Timor-Leste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor)
0.3

Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia)
0.1

</tbody>

Wongo

21st December 2012, 02:04 PM

What about the innocent truck driver from a couple of blocks away who copped a stray bullet in Sydney when a few hoods were having a shoot up in the Mac Donald's car park. You also have to remember hold up victims who are just trying to do a day's work, and the drive bys where the wrong house has been shot up.
Leaving the hoods to shoot each other up does not seem like a safe option to me.
Regards

Ok this is one dead. Keep going. Give us another 20 kids and 6 adults.

Beside how is it going to help if the truck driver had a gun, should he join in too?

DavidG

21st December 2012, 02:12 PM

Per 100,000 population - Sorted by homicides

<colgroup><col width="166"><col width="86"><col width="86"><col width="86"><col width="86"><col width="86"></colgroup> <tbody>
South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa)
9.41
NA
NA
NA
NA

Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland)
1.25
NA
1.25
NA
NA

El Salvador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador)
50.36
50.36
NA
NA
NA

Jamaica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica)
47.44
47.44
NA
NA
NA

Honduras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras)
46.7
46.7
NA
NA
NA

Guatemala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala)
38.52
38.52
NA
NA
NA

Swaziland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaziland)
37.16
37.16
NA
NA
NA

Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia)
28.11
27.1
0.87
0.14
NA

Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil)
19.01
18.1
0.73
0.18
NA

Panama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama)
12.92
12.92
NA
NA
NA

Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico)
11.14
10
0.67
0.47
NA

Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines)
9.46
9.46
NA
NA
NA

Paraguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay)
7.35
7.35
NA
NA
NA

Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua)
7.14
7.14
NA
NA
NA

Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe)
4.75
4.75
NA
NA
NA

United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)
10.2
3.7
6.1
0.2
0.1

Costa Rica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica)
3.32
3.32
NA
NA
NA

Uruguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay)
3.24
3.24
NA
NA
NA

Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina)
5.65
3
2.01
0.64
NA

Barbados (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados)
3
3
NA
NA
NA

Montenegro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro)
8.55
2.06
6.49
NA
NA

Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru)
1.87
1.87
NA
NA
NA

Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova)
1.04
1.04
NA
NA
NA

Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)
1.86
0.94
0.71
0.03
0.19

India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India)
0.93
0.93
NA
NA
NA

Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada)
4.78
0.76
3.72
0.22
NA

Serbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia)
3.9
0.62
2.81
0.18
0.29

Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg)
1.81
0.6
1
NA
0.2

Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece)
1.5
0.59
0.84
0.04
NA

Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan)
0.68
0.58
0.03
NA
0.08

Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia)
3.01
0.57
2.35
0.07
0.02

Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan)
1.01
0.53
0.07
0.28
0.13

Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland)
3.5
0.52
3.15
0.1
0.07

Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta)
2.16
0.48
1.68
NA
NA

Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal)
1.77
0.48
1.09
0.02
0.18

Republic of Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia)
1.04
0.45
0.42
0.08
0.08

Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus)
0.38
0.38
NA
NA
NA

Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy)
1.28
0.36
0.81
0.08
0.03

Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait)
1.25
0.36
0.06
0
NA

Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland)
1.03
0.36
0.56
0.04
0.07

Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine)
0.35
0.35
NA
NA
NA

Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia)
2.54
0.3
1.57
0.07
0.6

Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium)
2.43
0.29
1.96
0.01
0.16

Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland)
3.64
0.26
3.34
0.02
0.02

Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania)
1.61
0.24
1
0.03
0.33

Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus)
0.83
0.24
0.48
NA
0.11

Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country))
1.54
0.23
0.09
1
0.23

Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria)
1.35
0.23
0.87
0.14
0.11

France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)
3
0.22
2.33
0.05
0.41

Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark)
1.45
0.22
1.16
0.04
0.04

Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands)
0.46
0.2
0.24
0.01
0.01

Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden)
1.47
0.19
1.2
0.06
0.01

Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria)
2.94
0.18
2.68
NA
0.08

Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia)
1.75
0.18
0.94
0.39
0.24

Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia)
1.43
0.18
0.94
0.04
0.27

Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar)
0.18
0.18
NA
NA
NA

New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand)
2.66
0.17
2.14
0.09
NA

Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain)
0.63
0.15
0.42
0.05
0.01

Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary)
0.85
0.13
0.72
NA
NA

Taiwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan)
0.42
0.13
0.12
0.11
NA

Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic)
1.76
0.12
1.39
0.1
0.15

Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong)
0.19
0.12
0.07
0
NA

Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia)
1.05
0.09
0.79
0.02
0.15

Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)
0.24
0.07
0.17
0
NA

Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)
1.1
0.06
0.94
0.02
0.08

Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile)
0.06
0.06
NA
NA
NA

Slovenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia)
2.44
0.05
2.34
NA
0.05

Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway)
1.78
0.04
1.72
0.02
NA

United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)
0.25
0.04
0.17
0.01
0.02

Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)
0.2
0.04
0.06
0.09
0.01

South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea)
0.13
0.04
0.02
0.05
NA

Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan)
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.02
NA

Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland)
0.26
0.02
0.12
0.02
0.09

Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan)
0.07
0.02
0.04
0
NA

Mauritius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius)
0.19
0
0.09
0.09
NA

</tbody>

FenceFurniture

21st December 2012, 02:21 PM

DavidG, thanks for those lists. Stats are always useful in this sort of debate (even if mine were a bit out Paul :U).

Would it be possible to combine both lists? I think it would be interesting to look at the two together, but at this point it looks like the UK model should be looked at. Other models that would be really interesting to see would be where the gun ownership is up, but the deaths are down - but that may not exist eh?

A Duke

21st December 2012, 02:23 PM

Hi DavidG,
Some surprises there in both directions. Especially based on my perceptions in some of the countries I have lived in. Who's figures are they and are those only the legal (registered) weapons?
Regards

Koala-Man

21st December 2012, 02:56 PM

Louie Gohmert's comment (starting this thread) about how the teacher, if armed with an assult rifle, could have shot the shooter doesn't get around the fact that the shots the teacher heard in the first place would have been the sound of his students being killed. As if it would have been OK if Lanza had been stopped at, say, 10 kids instead of 20.

What a moron.

artme

21st December 2012, 05:03 PM

Perhaps you are playing devil's advocate here Hugh.

I would like to know which figures surprise you and in what direction.

Why question the figures? I believe they are sourced via Wikipedia form
official government figures.

If you have "better" figures then feel free tom use them.

A Duke

21st December 2012, 05:37 PM

Perhaps you are playing devil's advocate here Hugh.

I would like to know which figures surprise you and in what direction.

Why question the figures? I believe they are sourced via Wikipedia form
official government figures.

If you have "better" figures then feel free tom use them.As I said in both directions. A little country like Swaziland being so high on the list of gun homicides. No suicides in a number of countries. The low number of guns in some countries when I know how many were left floating around after the liberation wars in Africa I can only guess they haven't counted the ones in the hands of militia and rebels. As to better numbers, I don't have any it's just a gut feeling from having been there and not swallowing every statistic fed to me. As you say government figures, if you know some of those governments you would wonder too.
Any way it's only me you can take it with a pinch of salt if you like.:wink::)
Regards

Bushmiller

21st December 2012, 05:50 PM

Thanks to David for digging up the stats. At the very least they show a broad trend even if they don't include the illegal weapons and for a broad discussion here, I am sure they suffice. (I couldn't see Australia listed in the list of gun ownership. Probably a typo.)

Factors that would distort the stats apart from illegal weapons would be the genocide conducted by some of those countries. In other words is it restricted to peacetime or does it include SRCC (strikes, riots, civil commotion, malicious damgage and war whether declared or not)?

However that is getting off the point. Wherever guns are prevalent there is a high risk of collateral damage amongst the innocent. The point is that they are not the primary targets during criminal activity. The event we are describing is where the innocents are the primary targets and I think this is the important point.

I think it is interesting to compare, from David's stats, the corralation between homicides and level of gun ownership in the UK (some is listed under England and Wales and Scotland). It is extremely low. It is only in recent years the pommy police have had access to hand guns and they still don't carry them on a routine basis.

It is still amazing, to my mind, that so many americans seem to think that their level of innocent death is acceptable and that the answer is more guns.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

21st December 2012, 05:54 PM

Something else that I should mention is the type of weapon that is allowed in the US. What reason can there be for wanting a fully automatic gun apart from the desire to wreak mayhem? If you are a member of a sporting gun club or hunt for wild deer, rabbits etc the automatic machine gun has no place.

Regards
Paul

jimbur

21st December 2012, 05:55 PM

Three facts seem self-evident to me:
Firstly, the mentally troubled are always with us.
Secondly, the children have been killed by a weapon, the only purpose of which is to kill and/or maim people as quickly as possible.
Thirdly, the private ownership of such weapons has been justified by the need of the citizen to be able to take up arms against a tyrannical government.

I suppose all nations indulge in mythologising their foundations to some extent. Here we have a nation of convicts, Ned Kelly, the Eureka Stockade etc. Such mythology tends to be fairly harmless though it can hide the true facts of history be they good or bad.
Simplistic notions such as the belief that the force behind the creation of the US lies in the ability of the citizen to bear arms is downright dangerous and denigrates the intellectual capacity of the founding fathers of the republic and the power of their ideas.
Of course the republic was formed through force of arms but it is not a prerequisite for the creation or the maintenance of a democratic system. So many totalitarian regimes came to power in the same way – for example the Taliban in recent times.
Of course the entertainment industry and their mythology probably doesn’t help - the Die Hard films, Lethal Weapon etc etc.
I would prefer that the biblical quotation on the wall of the CIA Headquarters, “The truth shall make you free”, were used rather than placing reliance on the assault rifle.

Grumpy John

21st December 2012, 06:14 PM

Hi DavidG, can you please tell us the source of your figures. They don't quite match the OECD figures. I'm not saying either figures are wrong, we all know how numbers can be skewed to support a given argument.

246398

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/)

pmcgee

21st December 2012, 06:26 PM

A few points from my radio-listening mainly ...

The M-4 available to civilians is not the same as the military one. I took that to mean it cannot multi-fire - or not at the same rate. I think that is one argument offered why they are 'acceptable' for civilian ownership.

I understand that the number of guns in the USA is roughly 1-1 with the population ... but only about 20% are gun-owners. This implies that the people who have guns have several.

Lastly I recently was completely shocked ... reading about saws (surprisingly) ... to finally comprehend that the American Civil War was in 1861-1864 timeframe. I was dumb-founded. Agincourt was in the 1400s, as was the War of the Roses. English Civil war in the 1600s. I was unconsciously thinking in these terms.

1860. That's only yesterday. WW1 and WW2 are very real, concrete and fresh to many Australians ... so I'd have to guess that the Civil War is also to a lot of americans. I wonder if that comes into it?

Cheers,
Paul

Grumpy John

21st December 2012, 06:31 PM

Hi DavidG, can you please tell us the source of your figures. They don't quite match the OECD figures. I'm not saying either figures are wrong, we all know how numbers can be skewed to support a given argument.

246398

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/)

Added: David, after closer inspection your figures are very close the the OECD figures, just presented in a different way. The inclusion of the South American countries and Jamaica threw me for a while.

FenceFurniture

21st December 2012, 06:36 PM

Hmmmm. :think:

I've taken David's stats and amalgamated them, and eliminated the incomplete ones. Then, I added a column "Safety Index", which is the gun ownership divided by the Homicides. To get the two tables on the same scale I changed the Guns per 100 people to per 100,000 people.

So, the lower the index, the less safe the place is, and it makes very surprising reading. Check out how far down the list the USA is: 34th place.

6 of the 10 most dangerous places are in Central or South America.

What I wanted to learn from this exercise (if possible) was which countries of a similar nature (not war torn, western civilisation) had high gun ownership, but low homicide rates.

It would seem Norway, Sweden, Austria, France, Finland, Cyprus and Germany know how to manage this (high gun ownership, but relatively low homicide rate). All of those countries have about 1 gun for every 3 people (we have 1 for every 6.5).

Funny that, they are all European nations.

Having said all of that, we are debating Automatic assault rifles here (and the list is just "Guns"), and I'm sure the USA would come out either on top or damn near.

I am aware that the list is incomplete, but there does seem to be a clear trend emerging - however the Europeans manage high gun ownership, it seems to work.

<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup><tbody>
RANK
Country

SAFETY
INDEX
(Guns/Deaths
Guns per 100,000
residents (2007)
Homicides

1
El Salvador
115
5800
50.36

2
Honduras
133
6200
46.7

3
Jamaica
171
8100
47.44

4
Swaziland
172
6400
37.16

5
Colombia
218
5900
27.1

6
Guatemala
340
13100
38.52

7
Brazil
442
8000
18.1

8
Philippines
497
4700
9.46

9
Zimbabwe
968
4600
4.75

10
Nicaragua
1078
7700
7.14

11
South Africa
1350
12700
NA

12
Mexico
1500
15000
10

13
Panama
1680
21700
12.92

14
Kyrgyzstan
1698
900
0.53

15
Paraguay
2313
17000
7.35

16
Uzbekistan
2586
1500
0.58

17
Barbados
2600
7800
3

18
Lithuania
2917
700
0.24

19
Costa Rica
2982
9900
3.32

20
Argentina
3400
10200
3

21
India
4516
4200
0.93

22
Moldova
6827
7100
1.04

23
Singapore
7143
500
0.07

24
Israel
7766
7300
0.94

25
Uruguay
9815
31800
3.24

26
Peru
10053
18800
1.87

27
Montenegro
11214
23100
2.06

28
Romania
17500
700
0.04

29
Portugal
17708
8500
0.48

30
Ukraine
18857
6600
0.35

31
Belarus
19211
7300
0.38

32
Netherlands
19500
3900
0.2

33
Ireland
23889
8600
0.36

34
United States
24000
88800
3.7

35
Malta
24792
11900
0.48

36
Luxembourg
25500
15300
0.6

37
Bulgaria
26957
6200
0.23

38
South Korea
27500
1100
0.04

39
Japan
30000
600
0.02

40
Estonia
30667
9200
0.3

41
Georgia
31739
7300
0.23

42
Italy
33056
11900
0.36

43
Taiwan
35385
4600
0.13

44
Croatia
38070
21700
0.57

45
Greece
38136
22500
0.59

46
Canada
40526
30800
0.76

47
Hungary
42308
5500
0.13

48
Slovakia
46111
8300
0.18

49
Macedonia
53556
24100
0.45

50
Denmark
54545
12000
0.22

51
Belgium
59310
17200
0.29

52
Poland
65000
1300
0.02

53
Kuwait
68889
24800
0.36

54
Spain
69333
10400
0.15

55
Azerbaijan
87500
3500
0.04

56
Switzerland
87885
45700
0.52

57
Serbia
93871
58200
0.62

58
Latvia
105556
19000
0.18

59
Qatar
106667
19200
0.18

60
Finland
123077
32000
0.26

61
New Zealand
132941
22600
0.17

62
Czech Republic
135833
16300
0.12

63
France
141818
31200
0.22

64
United Kingdom
150000
6000
0.04

65
Cyprus
151667
36400
0.24

66
Sweden
166316
31600
0.19

67
Australia
166667
15000
0.09

68
Austria
168889
30400
0.18

69
Chile
178333
10700
0.06

70
Slovenia
270000
13500
0.05

71
Germany
505000
30300
0.06

72
Norway
782500
31300
0.04

</tbody>

jimbur

21st December 2012, 06:40 PM

Paul, talking of timelines, the second amendment was, I believe, 1791. This was just after the French Revolution and it is possible that the growing opposition in the European monarchies to the French experiment was seen in the US as a future threat to them.

Scott

21st December 2012, 06:45 PM

Regardless of statistics, a gun is a gun. From my point of view the only people who should have a gun are the Police and Army, full stop. There should be absolutely no reason why a civilian should own a gun. All the stats in the world doesn't temper the fact that children were killed.

FenceFurniture

21st December 2012, 06:50 PM

Pretty right Scott, but I guess you have to add in professional hunters and the like (feral animal control yadda yadda)

pmcgee

21st December 2012, 09:04 PM

This was discussed on the ABC quite early in the year.

I believe in Switzerland (please don't shoot me if it's Sweden) a rifle is (unless recently changed) kept by law in every household. I note they are among the safe countries - although I am sure the program said this was wanted to be changed as they were being employed in domestic violence situations.

Paul.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)

BBC News - Swiss gun culture comes under fire (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12414841)

ozhunter

21st December 2012, 09:07 PM

What occurred is a tragedy in anyones terms and my thoughts are with the families of the victims.

Saying that firearms should be banned from civilian society is as extreme on one end of the scale as the US gun culture is extreme on the other end.

I see no reason for Joe Average to possess an assault rifle. Semi automatic weapons are fine for situations like high volume pest control, but semi-automatic is different to a firearm that has a rate of fire up wards of 1000 rounds per minute, or even one that is capable of controlled bursts. If you have a genuine need for a semi-automatic rifle, have one and use it, but only for the reason you gave to get it in the first place. AFAIAC, the penalties for illegal ownership and/or use of firearms are too lax by a long stretch in this country, (along with a lot of other laws). Note I said illegal ownership/use. Why should I be persecuted because of the actions of someone else.

I own firearms. I have been around them all my life. I use them for recreation and for business. My kids use them regularly, under my supervision. I am not a mass murderer, mentally unbalanced despot walking the streets with an assault weapon under my jacket, and nor are my kids, and I object to being placed in the same basket as people that do, and calling for a civilian ban of firearms based on what one of these people do, does just that.

Saying that banning firearms from civilian society will prevent more shootings is a pipe dream.Regardless of how tough gun laws are, those that want them badly enough will get them. This latest incident is proof; his mother purchased the firearms, because he was concerned about background checks (so I read). Only threat of death or long term prison (not prison like we have here, a prison in China) are any deterrent.

The black market in firearms is as strong as ever in this country (the cops are doing their best) despite the millions that were wasted on the buy-backs. I doubt you'd get the required stats, but I'd bet a large percentage of the firearms bought by the government where rubbish that couldn't be used to harm a flea, let alone kill someone, simply because they where paying money for them.

Don't bash law abiding citizens because of the actions or others.

For the record, I believe the gun-culture is OTT in the US. That is my opinion, but I don't live there nor have a I been exposed to their culture by living in it. Nor does that mean I think firearms should be removed from civilian society altogether.

IMO, if people are so interested in stopping something from occuring again, push for more action on people like Robert Mugabe and a 20 gallon bucket full of other third world leaders. There are no statistics, and most of it is not reported, but many scores of people are killed, or die as a direct result of action, or inaction, by these people, every week. Most won't talk about, but get someone from somewhere like Zimbabwe to talk about atrocities perpetrated on the people. It will sicken you to your very core. Or closer to home, help put a stop the illegal drug trade (stop it, not legalise it)or the people smugglers that scoff at our weak and do-gooder attitude to the boat problem.

pmcgee

21st December 2012, 09:40 PM

I believe I heard (ABC) - but can't back it up - that the national gun homicide rate halved after the gun buy-back.

ozhunter

21st December 2012, 09:57 PM

I believe I heard (ABC) - but can't back it up - that the national gun homicide rate halved after the gun buy-back.

From The Australian Institute of Criminlogy
(http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html)
"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."

I would expect that the number of firearm related homocides would drop after an event such as Port Arthur and the ensueing media coverage and buy back (I didn't say all the firearms handed in where rubbish), but it was already on a downward trend, again that doesn't surprise me. Society changed a lot from 1968 to 2003. People became increasingly more willing to report crime and attitudes and what was accepted changed as well, that's my opinion anyway.

Big Shed

21st December 2012, 10:00 PM

I believe I heard (ABC) - but can't back it up - that the national gun homicide rate halved after the gun buy-back.

It would be more interesting to know what happened to the total homicide rate?

Were fewer people killed because there were fewer guns around, or were the same number killed but by different means?

Just as a casual observation, there appear to a lot more knifes around and a lot more people prepared to use them.

ozhunter

21st December 2012, 10:20 PM

It would be more interesting to know what happened to the total homicide rate?

Were fewer people killed because there were fewer guns around, or were the same number killed but by different means?

Just as a casual observation, there appear to a lot more knifes around and a lot more people prepared to use them.

From the same website

"The Australian Institute of Criminology has been monitoring homicides in Australia since 1989. Homicide includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide, but excludes driving-related fatalities unless these occur in the course of a criminal event. In 2005-06 there were 283 homicide incidents in Australia, resulting in 301 victims, committed by 336 offenders. This represents an increase from the previous year, although overall it appears that homicide incidents are in decline. The figure below shows the number of homicide incidents in Australia from 1989-90 to 2005-06. There has been a statistically significant downward trend in the incidence of homicide in Australia over this 17 year period (<DFN title="Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient is used to measure the degree of correspondence between two rankings and assessing the significance of this correspondence">Kendall's tau</DFN> = -0.42; p=.02)."

I agree on knives Fred.

Bushmiller

22nd December 2012, 12:21 AM

Regardless of statistics, a gun is a gun. From my point of view the only people who should have a gun are the Police and Army, full stop. There should be absolutely no reason why a civilian should own a gun. All the stats in the world doesn't temper the fact that children were killed.

Scott

I understand your sentiment, but I would suggest that ownership of guns should be restricted to people with a legitimate reason. To give you some idea, a farmer is a civilian but he may also need a gun for feral animal control. He may also need a gun to humanely put down sick or injured domestic animals. I am just pointing out that we have to be careful how we delineate.

I would also state for the record I have never owned a gun and when I had sick animals I used to ask a neighbour to come over and shoot them for me. Sounds callous I know, but the choice is lingering and painful death or quick and merciful death.

It is quite difficult to obtain a gun in Oz and a protracted process. I don't believe it is difficult in the US and there is a vast array of weapons available. We are talking about a hugely different culture and very different legislation.

Regards
Paul

jimbur

22nd December 2012, 10:28 AM

i see in today's news that the NRA have come out in favour of the status quo. They suggest that armed guards should be patrolling the schools! I don't know how that fits in with the mantra of small government and lower taxes.

FenceFurniture

22nd December 2012, 10:51 AM

Yes I did see that Jim. As we know, the solution to the gun problem is more guns.

Ozhunter, I've been wondering when you might drop in here. I think a debate such as this is quite incomplete without the veiws of someone such as yourself (i.e. a responsible gun owner/user).

Btw, has anyone noticed the distinct lack of hysteria in this thread so far? Wonder how long that will last....

jimbur

22nd December 2012, 11:08 AM

Btw, has anyone noticed the distinct lack of hysteria in this thread so far? Wonder how long that will last....
I, and I suppose many others, own or have owned guns. I needed them for vermin and the occasionally putting down of a sick animal but when I moved into a township I didn't see the point in having them anymore.
We do have a different attitude and, I feel, are more likely to trust the next bloke than to see him as a threat. Perhaps I'm getting old but I can't see that happening when you see guns as a solution.

A Duke

22nd December 2012, 11:11 AM

i see in today's news that the NRA have come out in favour of the status quo. They suggest that armed guards should be patrolling the schools! I don't know how that fits in with the mantra of small government and lower taxes.An interesting point, reading farther on this is that one third of the schools already have armed guards.
Regards

Vernonv

22nd December 2012, 11:48 AM

I must agree whole heartedly with Ozhunter's comments. I also have no issue with the restrictions on semi-auto weapons, however I think the general firearm restrictions are overly restrictive, while the punishments for illegal use are too low.

To me, those that call for a ban on all firearms are either ignorant or possible just arrogant (or maybe a bit of both). Ignorant of the benefits firearms have in society and the low risk they actually pose, or arrogant to the needs/wants of those who use firearms in their work, sport or hobby.

Life is full of risk and it is near impossible to eliminate it. Are firearms in society are risk? ... certainly, but I believe the risks are far outweighed by the benefits. Plus in the grand scheme of things there are a lot greater risks out there ... take alcohol for instance - it has a huge impact/cost on society (for both adults and children) yet there is no real benefit to society (note that I do enjoy a drink :) ). Maybe those wanting a full ban on firearms need to refocus where there efforts can pay the biggest dividend in reducing risk.

FenceFurniture

22nd December 2012, 11:57 AM

Just to be clear on my position - it's the assault rifles that can do so much damage, and serve no civilian need that I would like to see banned.

Vernon, I think that alcohol does serve a social function, to some extent anyway. Bit of a loosener etc. To go a little further (and it might be a bit silly, but...) one of my best mates and I forged a frienship because we used to go out on the balcony at work for a smoke, and subsequently got to more relaxed chatting etc (i.e. more social conversation rather than work).

ozhunter

22nd December 2012, 12:15 PM

i see in today's news that the NRA have come out in favour of the status quo. They suggest that armed guards should be patrolling the schools! I don't know how that fits in with the mantra of small government and lower taxes.

In the current climate there, this might go some way toward reducing the occurrence of these shootings. I cannot see an easy fix for them though. If they try and restrict firearm ownership too much, it might trigger groups like local militia (of which there are plenty) to think they have had their rights impinged and take action. That doesn't bear thinking about, but given the attitude toward maintaining freedom, you never know. Once again, the opinions I have formed about the militia and the thinking of the American people have been formed from the outside. Maybe some of our US friends could chime in.

Ozhunter, I've been wondering when you might drop in here. I think a debate such as this is quite incomplete without the veiws of someone such as yourself (i.e. a responsible gun owner/user).

I have stayed away until I saw the tone that things would take. Often this subject sends people from 37° to 110° instantly, and the conversation serves no purpose.

Btw, has anyone noticed the distinct lack of hysteria in this thread so far? Wonder how long that will last....

It will stay that way, at least from my stand point anyway.

And lets give a hooray to auto save. I've had three goes at posting this, our internet is pretending to be second hand chainsaw ATM

Vernonv

22nd December 2012, 12:16 PM

FF you could have substituted a coffee or a tea for that cigarette - same "social" effect, not nearly as risky. :)

I guess my point is that there are a lot of things we "accept" in society that are "risky". As far as I'm concerned (and statistically speaking in Australia) firearms are no where near the top.

FenceFurniture

22nd December 2012, 12:32 PM

FF you could have substituted a coffee or a tea for that cigarette - same "social" effect, not nearly as risky. :)

Vernon, the (minor) point was that we had to go to a designated area, and were therefore thrown together. C & T can still be consumed wherever your desk is.

We were working in Sales at the time (investment properties) and it was a useful technique to excuse one's self from the clients..."Well, I'm just going out for a durrie, so you might like to have a chat while I'm gone" coz they really needed to have a chat by this time.:U

Scott

22nd December 2012, 12:39 PM

I get the feeling your sitting on the fence here ozhunter :D

I'd also like to state that one of the requirements of owning a gun should be an IQ above a certain score. On that point, I reckon most members of the NRA would fail dismally. Mind you, some of the nutters who perpetrate these mass shootings could very well be of the intelligent variety.

Another solution would be to herd all gun owners into a large compound and allow them to have a shootout. That would weed out the minority who think they're invincible with gun in hand.

On a serious note, the issue of gun control is a very big conundrum. I'm glad I don't live in the U.S. where it's citizens have a 'right' to bear arms. To that end, it shows how powerful the NRA is and how 'gutless' the lawmakers are. In my not so humble opinion the second amendment is, at this point in time, an indictment upon the rational portion of American people.

Let me start an interesting debate which would affect some members of this forum. How would you feel if one of the bullet casings from your bullet pen was used to kill/maim/injure? Should we (the forum as a whole) be taking some recognisable action by shunning bullet pens? Please note, I'm intentionally stirring a debate here but in the light of these shootings, am I taking things TOO far?

FenceFurniture

22nd December 2012, 12:43 PM

I get the feeling your sitting on the fence here ozhunter :D

:roflmao: "help, I can't breathe (not that I want to atm)"

ozhunter

22nd December 2012, 12:59 PM

I get the feeling your sitting on the fence here ozhunter :D

Nah, he'd complain too much.

I'd also like to state that one of the requirements of owning a gun should be an IQ above a certain score. On that point, I reckon most members of the NRA would fail dismally.

Do you really think the NRA is what it is today because of low IQ's? There are lots of people out there who's IQ doesn't reflect them as a person, being outside a certain set of parameters on a scale doesn't make you an idiot, nor is it a pre-requisite for being a homicidal maniac.

Mind you, some of the nutters who perpetrate these mass shootings could very well be of the intelligent variety.

I have no statistics or reports to back it up, but I would say that could very well be the case.

Another solution would be to herd all gun owners into a large compound and allow them to have a shootout. That would weed out the minority who think they're invincible with gun in hand.

If you think you are invincible with a firearm in hand, you probably shouldn't have one to start with.

On a serious note, the issue of gun control is a very big conundrum. I'm glad I don't live in the U.S. where it's citizens have a 'right' to bear arms. To that end, it shows how powerful the NRA is and how 'gutless' the lawmakers are. In my not so humble opinion the second amendment is, at this point in time, an indictment upon the rational portion of American people.

Trouble is, the rational portion of Americans would have a large proportion of firearms owners. 99.9% of them are normal people like you and I. Unfortunately, most people from outside the US that are exposed to USicans, are only exposed to the loud mouth, over bearing tourist. The people I have met over there are just like you and I, except they talk funny.

Let me start an interesting debate which would affect some members of this forum. How would you feel if one of the bullet casings from your bullet pen was used to kill/maim/injure? Should we (the forum as a whole) be taking some recognisable action by shunning bullet pens? Please note, I'm intentionally stirring a debate here but in the light of these shootings, am I taking things TOO far?

Please!!:?

Bob38S

22nd December 2012, 01:05 PM

I was going to stay out of this as it often simply degenerates into a highly polarized argument which serves no purpose other than people venting their views and offers no rational solution - if I had to put it simply "people may hear but they do not listen". So far I'm impressed with the tone and tolerance of the views put.

Generally speaking, I have no problem with people using guns doing the wrong thing being banned / confiscated / punished - I would stand behind / beside / in front of you 110%. However, I do have a big problem if people who own [legally] guns are banned / confiscated / punished because of what is implied as to what they might or could do. I do not see punishing innocent people as the solution for the wrongdoing of others.

Society requires rules and those who break them deserve what they get [often far too lenient sentences] however, those who do the right thing should be encouraged to continue to do so rather becoming resentful for being punished for the actions of wrongdoers.

Leaving firearms aside for a moment - using mobile phones while driving - I don't really believe that any thinking person would have a problem with those that do the wrong thing getting punished. However, because of those that do the wrong thing should all mobile phones be confiscated or banned. I can only imagine what an uproar this would cause.

I could go on but I've probably said enough.

Regards,
Bob

ozhunter

22nd December 2012, 01:11 PM

I do not see punishing innocent people as the solution for the wrongdoing of others.

Hallelujah, Amen, all hail the wise man. Very well said.

jimbur

22nd December 2012, 01:13 PM

Taking Scott seriously I believe the NRA stance is going to create the situation it dreads. They seem to see any diminution of the right to own arms as an attack on democracy and the thin end of the wedge. Their apparently rigid belief is in my mind more likely to mobilise opposition. God knows how it is going to work out but apparently He's on both sides.

Scott

22nd December 2012, 01:18 PM

I do not see punishing innocent people as the solution for the wrongdoing of others.

Hallelujah, Amen, all hail the wise man. Very well said.

With respect, seriously? Then I think you've (we've) now lost sight of who is innocent here. Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners?

Hmm, let me think about that one.

Vernonv

22nd December 2012, 01:22 PM

With respect, seriously? Then I think you've (we've) now lost sight of who is innocent here. Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners? Children? Gun Owners?

Hmm, let me think about that one.So do you also advocate banning alcohol, cigarettes, non-public transport, swimming, etc, etc ... they are all much more of a danger to children in Australia ... where do you stop?

A Duke

22nd December 2012, 01:26 PM

The lack of response from our US members is quite noticeable, only the second post, they have just let us waffle on, may be they are too outraged at our opinions or they are rolling on the floor laughing and can't reach the mouse.
:roflmao:
Regards

Scott

22nd December 2012, 01:26 PM

So do you also advocate banning alcohol, cigarettes, non-public transport, swimming, etc, etc ... they are all much more of a danger to children in Australia ... where do you stop?

Yup, we've lost sight.

Vernonv

22nd December 2012, 01:45 PM

Yup, we've lost sight.I don't think so. You can dismiss it all you want, you can be blinded by the emotion of it all if you wish, but the fact remains that kids face much larger dangers in our society than those posed by guns.

I know who has lost sight, and it's not me.

ozhunter

22nd December 2012, 01:47 PM

I don't think anyone has lost sight of anything. Conversation ebb and flow, but the eddy stays within the pool.

It was you that suggested removing all firearms from civilian ownership, or that all firearms owners should put into a corral and shoot it out, or that if you have a lesser IQ than others, you shouldn't be able to own firearms. None of that is any further from sight than saying that the persecution of innocent (in a different context) people will help.

May the souls of those 26 victims rest in peace.

I'm going to make some shavings on the lathe.

jimbur

22nd December 2012, 02:24 PM

One thing the NRA is good at is using people who in normal circumstances would not go along with them. It's the thin end of the wedge argument - if 'they' restrict the ownership of assault rifles 'they' will next take away your hunting rifles, shotguns etc, etc.
'They' are often seen by those of extreme opinions as equating to tree-hugging, immoral lefties of indeterminate gender (certainly not red-blooded) who wish to pollute the young.
I support Scott in that we are seeing mental troubles, assault rifle and dead children.
ps I'm going to go to the shed too. this is too painfull

Scott

22nd December 2012, 02:34 PM

I support Scott in that we are seeing mental troubles, assault rifle and dead children.

Thanks Jim. If gun owners are going to divulge their interests, let me divulge mine. 2 daughters aged 6 and 4. I could make it a bit more emotional by posting a picture but that's going a bit far. Morally, I know that my stance is pure and with a rock solid foundation (see 3rd sentence).

I'm not denying anyone the right to own a firearm here, just injecting some emotional arguments from a non-gun ownership point of view. First and foremost, innocent people need to be protected from firearms and their owners. It just seems a frightfully imbalanced situation; gun vs child and one which scares the bejesus out of me.

NCArcher

22nd December 2012, 02:49 PM

There's a rather black side to this that I just don't get. An M4 assault rifle can fire 700 to 1000 rounds per minute, which is 11 to 16 rounds per second. How come there were only 27 killed?

An M4 can fire 700 - 1000 rpm but the weapon found at the scene was an AR15. The AR15 is the 'civilain' version of the M4 (it's probably more acurate to say that the M4 is the military version of the AR15) and is not capable of full auto or select fire. It is semi auto only. There is also some debate as to whether the AR15 was used. It is possible that all deaths were as a result of the two hand guns. I haven't been able to confirm or deny that though.

Although I whinged about it at the time, I now believe the Australian banning of semi auto guns and buy back was a good thing. I had to hand in three guns at the time. And while I used the money to buy a new, more powerful, single shot rifle I no longer own any guns and can't see myself owning any in the near future.

Unfortunately I just don't see the US being able to do a similar thing. The cost of a buy back scheme would be enormous and the NRA is extremely powerful. Nearly four and a half million members and revenue of over $270 million per year. Thats a lot of lobby power.

Bushmiller

22nd December 2012, 02:58 PM

I think, almost without exception, we are outraged at these massacres perpertrated in schools and to my mind the reason is that:

They are unwarranted and unprovoked
They involve persons or an age that is regarded as innocent
We find it hard to comprehend the mentality behind these incidents
They are beyond our control.

It is this last point that particularly irks us. An analogy I would draw is our horror at plane crashes compared to road death. Both of course are tragic, but although far fewer people are killed in plane crashes than every day on the road we are more disturbed by areonautical incidents (arguably because of their magnitude): Because they are beyond our control.

So it is with the school and other public place shootings. They are small in the overall scheme of hazzardous situations that confront us and our children everyday of our lives.

However, I have not heard the americans explain how it is they have so many of these incidents compared to other countires where small arms tend not to proliferate the community. I would be particularly interested to hear the NRA's explanation for this. I rather think they would simply say there are not enough armed guards at the schools. That attitude in no way corrects the fundamental problem.

I think we accept, while tut tutting all the way, that criminals have access to guns, but also recognise that mainly they use them on each other. If a bikie wants to waste a bikie from a rival gang, good luck to him ( without condoning collateral damage, which I think it is relatively rare.)

To return to the main point, it is the unbalanced soul that is our problem. If that person gains access to high powered weapons (or explosives) we are in big trouble because it is an unpredictable event.

If any of what I say above has any merit, the first step for gun ownership would be character reference and mental checks. Of course it is not that simple as I think the bloke concerned got his mother to buy the gun for him.

Lastly it must be remembered that guns in the US are a huge business and source of revenue both at retail street level and the international level of sophisticated weaponry. Those interested parties are simply not going to sit back and allow their business to be swept away from them.

Regards
Paul

Vernonv

22nd December 2012, 03:17 PM

First and foremost, innocent people need to be protected from firearms and their owners.Oh ok, I didn't realise all gun owners were all criminals, just waiting for the chance to gun people down ... my mistake.

It seems quite clear you are at the polar opposite end to the NRA on the firearm ownership spectrum, with the same fanatical, irrational stance, just with different objectives. Sorry, but it's pointless attempting a logical discussion with a fanatic.

Sturdee

22nd December 2012, 03:55 PM

It seems quite clear you are at the polar opposite end to the NRA on the firearm ownership spectrum, with the same fanatical, irrational stance, just with different objectives. Sorry, but it's pointless attempting a logical discussion with a fanatic.

And IMO you come over just as fanatical to the right to own a gun.

Leaving aside the gun issue in the USA, which is totally different from a cultural aspect then here, the right to have a licence to own a gun here is much too lax and ought to be restricted even more and any breach should be punished much more harshly then the current slap on the wrist.

Before obtaining such licence proof of need should be required and sport should not be proof of need.

Peter.

Ps. Before anyone misinterprets my words again , I did not call anyone a fanatic.

DavidG

22nd December 2012, 04:12 PM

Please do NOT attack a persons opinion.

Everyone is entitled to one, no matter how right or wrong it is.

Stick to the topic of what could be done in this situation.

DavidG
Moderator

Vernonv

22nd December 2012, 04:14 PM

And IMO you come over just as fanatical to the right to own a gun.The NRA's stance on gun ownership is what I'd call fanatical (at that end of the spectrum) and I would assume most people would also. I'm not advocating assualt rifles for all or anything even resembling that. I'm advocating a system that minimises risk, but still allows people the freedom to do their job, and/or pursue their chosen sport or hobby without undue interference. Hardly seems fanatical to me.

At the other end of the spectrum are those that want all firearms banned, across the board, regardless of need ... to me that is the other fanatical end of the spectrum, especially in Australia where firearm crime is minimal (while keeping in mind the fact that banning firearms hasn't and won't stop criminals for either obtaining or using them).

Scott

22nd December 2012, 04:20 PM

Oh ok, I didn't realise all gun owners were all criminals, just waiting for the chance to gun people down ... my mistake.

I suppose Adam Lanza's mother would of been the ideal gun owner, wouldn't she? Look where we are now.

It seems quite clear you are at the polar opposite end to the NRA on the firearm ownership spectrum, with the same fanatical, irrational stance, just with different objectives. Sorry, but it's pointless attempting a logical discussion with a fanatic.

Yup, so be it. If you'd like to call me a fanatic, then I'm happy with that. Gun owners and impotent politicians kow-tow'ing to gun lobbies have had it their own way for way too long.

Sturdee

22nd December 2012, 04:30 PM

By way of explanation let me explain that my elder brother, as a teenager straight after WW2, lost sight in one eye as a result of being the innocent victim of kids playing with a Luger found on the street after discarded by the Nazi occupation forces.

So my views are formed by this sad experience and I believe that no one in a normal society has the right to own a firearm and that a licence to own one is a privilege granted by society in very specific circumstances.

This privilege to own one must be strictly controlled, and policed, and can only be based on need. This need ought to be justified in each case and IMO sport or hobby is not good enough.

If that means I'm on the fanatical side in favour of banning ALL guns so be it.

Peter.

DavidG

22nd December 2012, 04:32 PM

USA Deaths from motor vehicles

Wikipedia

<colgroup><col width="86"><col width="144"><col width="193"></colgroup> <tbody>
year
deaths
fatalities per 100,000 population

2008
37261
12.264

2009
33808
11.0737

2010
32885
10.6511

2011 [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#cite_note-NBC_News-2)
32367
10.3876

</tbody>

<colgroup><col width="114"><col width="151"><col width="158"></colgroup><tbody></tbody>

Vernonv

22nd December 2012, 04:40 PM

I suppose Adam Lanza's mother would of been the ideal gun owner, wouldn't she? Look where we are now.So one person, in another country screws up and everyone else should be punished .... sound logical. If governments developed policy/law on this basis, God help us (trouble is I reckon they sometimes do).

By way of explanation let me explain that my elder brother, as a teenager straight after WW2, lost sight in one eye as a result of being the innocent victim of kids playing with a Luger found on the street after discarded by the Nazi occupation forces. That is a terrible thing to happen to a kid, and I can understand how that may have affected you, however it doesn't exactly relate to gun ownership in modern day Australia.

So my views are formed by this sad experience and I believe that no one in a normal society has the right to own a firearm and that a licence to own one is a privilege granted by society in very specific circumstances.

This privilege to own one must be strictly controlled, and policed, and can only be based on need. This need ought to be justified in each case and IMO sport or hobby is not good enough.I think that is the big difference between Australia and the US - they see it as a right and we see it as a privilege, and hence we treat it that way.

If that means I'm on the fanatical side in favour of banning ALL guns so be it.Has someone described you as a fanatic, or are you describing yourself as one?

BobL

22nd December 2012, 05:25 PM

A few years ago I attended a small international science workshop. The workshop was attended by about a dozen people from all over the world and was held in a large government geological science lab in a major city. Security to get into this building was airport style Xray scanners and metal detectors, and we had to show our laptops were working laptops every time we went into the building. There were dozens of guards with automatic weapons at the high perimeter gates and fences and at the entrance to the building. With all respect to the guards doing the right thing they did not appear all that bright and when I heard on the first day that they had a hard time getting people with half a brain and no criminal record to become security guards I felt even less safer than I already was. The reason for all this security had nothing to do with any thing of possible value in the building but purely because it was a government building.

On the evening of the last day we attended a BBQ at the home of the local host. The home was out of the city deep in the woods where the nearest house was a couple of kms away. When we arrived our host gave a short speech whereby he apologized for the ridiculous security and the behaviour of their government and senior politicians on the world stage. While our host was speaking I kept thinking this could have been any soviet bloc or third world dictatorship but no, it was the good ole USA.

Koala-Man

22nd December 2012, 05:53 PM

So one person, in another country screws up and everyone else should be punished .... sound logical. If governments developed policy/law on this basis, God help us (trouble is I reckon they sometimes do).

The depiction of laws to restrict gun ownership as "punishment" of people who want to own guns is no more than a clever public relations trick by the US gun lobby, unwittingly repeated ad nauseum by gun enthusiasts around the world.

It is no more "punishment" than the restriciton of any potentially harmful activities.

Stopping people from smoking in restaurants is not punishment of smokers.

The requirement to stick below a speed limit or to not drive while drunk is not punishment of people (and aren't there so many of them) who think they are better drivers than everyone else, even when they're sloshed.

The banning of the lighting of fires on hot, dry days is not punishment of people who think they're really, really good at keeping fires under control.

Lanza's gun-totin' Mom wasn't a criminal. Big deal. If she didn't have a house full of guns there's a very, very good chance she and 26 other people would still be alive, including 20 little kids.

Why aren't people honest enough to just come out and say it: "Owning guns makes me feel good. And that feeling is more imprtant to me than the knowledge that tighter gun laws will greatly reduce the number of gun murders and suicides."

By the way, Vernon, it wasn't just one person in one country. Just scroll back and look at those statistics. Each number represents a dead person.

Bushmiller

22nd December 2012, 06:12 PM

USA Deaths from motor vehicles

Wikipedia

<TBODY>
year

deaths

fatalities per 100,000 population

2008

37261

12.264

2009

33808

11.0737

2010

32885

10.6511

2011 [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#cite_note-NBC_News-2)

32367

10.3876

</TBODY>

David

Very similar, from your previous stats, to the rate of homicides. We could conclude that cars should be banned too.

Except that we have to assume most motoring fatalities are inadvertent whilst the majority of gun related deaths are intentional.

We keep harking back to a comparison between the US and Oz in the availability of guns and the type of guns available. There is a very big difference. It is quite difficult here. I don't pretend to know all the detail, but in Oz you have to undergo training, have security checks, provide a valid reason for ownership and when the licence is finally issued there is another cooling off period before you can purchase a gun. This I believe is to prevent the crimes of passion and revenge.

Little of this exists in the US.

As far as sporting guns are concerned, to own a hand gun you must, in Oz, be a member of a pistol club and there are further rigorous regulations. Having lived in rural Oz for quite a long time now I have not seen indiscriminate or ill-considered use of guns and I don't believe it is warranted to lump Oz in the same category as the US.

I will repeat I am not a gun owner and I never have been, just so there can be no confusion in that regard.

For me it is the ability, in the US, by the average citizen to purchase enough fire-power to commence a war that is the issue. There is virtually no control (on the pretext of the second ammendment - I think that's the one) and inevitably it will lead to a bad conclusion.

It has done so already.

Several times!

Regards
Paul

Grumpy John

22nd December 2012, 07:01 PM

I would really like to see some of our American forum members contribute to this debate. I think we need some first hand input into the apparent American obsession with guns and their mistrust of government. We can debate this topic to death and it won't change anything in America, nor should it, they have to recognise that they have a problem and deal with it.

One thing I will say is that "if" I were a sporting shooter and new laws were passed that would negatively impact my hobby because someone circumvented existing laws to obtain a gun and commit this kind of atrocity I would be ropeable. I know how I felt when the Federal Government introduced higher taxes on premixed spirits to counter alcohol fuelled violence, it really p!55ed me off. Why should I be slugged extra taxes to enjoy a quiet Bundy & Coke at home just because some 18 y/o wants to get s#!tfaced and start a fight. Kids still get drunk and start fights, so how well is the alcopop tax working?

Just for the record, I don't believe that city dwellers need guns or rifles, but I worked with a couple of guys that are sporting shooters and I know they are very responsible and I would not like to see them have their hobby taken away from them.

Bushmiller

22nd December 2012, 07:56 PM

Very nicely put Grumpy :) .

Regards
Paul

corbs

22nd December 2012, 10:35 PM

I was reading about the subject on news.com.au and found the attached pic below which I thought was interesting. Many are suggesting that these shootings are not by the law abiding citizens, however the image below suggests that all but two of the shootings were with legally purchased weapons. One of those two used a combination of legal and illegal.

I personally think the pendulum has swung too far towards the anti gun side in Australia to the point that anyone who stands up in support of relaxed firearm laws is treated in a similar fashion to those supporting tighter controls in America.

artme

23rd December 2012, 04:48 AM

Not one female amongst that lot Corbs.

Grumpy John

23rd December 2012, 08:03 AM

100 Shooting deaths since Sandy Hook (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/us-shooting-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2348466.html)

Unbelievable, the killing just goes on and on.

Who's going to win the argument?

Them

<iframe src="http://video.theaustralian.com.au/embed/2320363212/Celebrities-speak-out-on-gun-violence?player=narrow" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" height="365" scrolling="no" width="330">VIDEO: Celebrities speak out on gun violence (http://video.theaustralian.com.au/2320363212/Celebrities-speak-out-on-gun-violence)
</iframe>

Or him

<iframe src="http://video.theaustralian.com.au/embed/2320365984/NRA-calls-for-armed-school-guards-amid-protests?player=narrow" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" height="365" scrolling="no" width="330">VIDEO: NRA calls for armed school guards amid protests (http://video.theaustralian.com.au/2320365984/NRA-calls-for-armed-school-guards-amid-protests)
</iframe>

Grumpy John

23rd December 2012, 08:50 AM

A selection from the Huntington Post Article.

Drug deal gone wrong, thrill kill, gang initiation, doesn't matter another innocent child dead.
"WASHINGTON -- The night after Sandy Hook, a gunman pulled behind a car in Kansas City's east side and opened fire, striking 4-year-old Aydan Perea in the head. The boy had just gotten into his father's car."

Responsible gun ownership at work.
"On Saturday afternoon, a 3-year-old in Guthrie, Okla., died after accidentally shooting himself in the head with a gun he found inside his aunt and uncle's house. His uncle is an Oklahoma state trooper."

More guns - that's the answer.
"A 20-year-old man shot and killed Veronica Soto, a young mother of two, in an apparent road rage incident on Thursday. Soto and her husband had gone out to a nearby Jack in the Box in the Houston area when they became involved in a confrontation with drivers in two other cars. The accused killer Mark Trevino, and the victim's husband pulled guns."

Collateral damage.
"Ramona Foreman was found shot in the doorway of the Oakland, Calif., 92nd Avenue Head Start office. The 48-year-old and her sister were walking home from a store when shots rang out. Foreman had been the innocent victim of a drive-by shooting. The victim's stepdaughter told a reporter that her grandmother was the 13th person she knows killed this year."

devnull

23rd December 2012, 09:32 AM

The topic of gun control always ends up being an emotive one, for some reason...

People talk glibly about US gun laws, but nobody seems to consider that this is a myth - there is no one set of gun laws. They vary from state to state, with the most restrictive states having the highest rates of gun crimes.
Why? Because only the criminals are armed. The innocent, law-abiding people are forbidden the means to defend themselves or their family.

What's been missing in many of the media reports has been the mental health issues of those that commit these crimes in schools.
In Connecticut, a mental health bill was squashed by the liberals at the beginning of the year, as they felt it would infringe personal freedoms.
Recently Defeated Connecticut Mental Health Bill May Have Stopped Friday's Shooter (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/16/Recently-Defeated-Connecticut-Mental-Health-Bill-May-Have-Stopped-Friday-s-Shooter)

In this shooting, the offender was not a licenced firearms owner, his mother was. The rifle he used, a sporting semi-automatic not an assault rifle), was banned in the state of Ct anyway.
He killed his mother & stole the firearms. Then went to a gun-free zone & committed multiple murders.

So with all these crimes, does anyone think that making guns illegal would have stopped such a person? One more law would make no difference whatsoever.

While the NRA may not be wording their stance nicely, they are pretty much correct in their stance.
Statistics show that the vast majority of these shooters will turn their weapon on themselves if they encounter resistance. Just recently, there was a shooting at a shopping mall there - a retired security guard drew his weapon and took aim at the shooter. The shooter saw him, and turned his weapon on himself. The retired guard didn't get a shot off, as there were people behind his target.

Gun control is a kneejerk reaction. Understandable, but ill considered.
Mental health is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed.

Millions carry concealed weapons every day. This does not make them become homicidal maniacs, any more than putting a seatbelt on makes a driver try to ram every other vehicle on the roads.
Criminals are criminals because they disregard laws. Adding another law will make no difference to them. They'll still ignore it.
A ban would make their occupation a lot safer though. They would be much less likely to be injured or killed.

Grumpy John

23rd December 2012, 10:08 AM

The topic of gun control always ends up being an emotive one, for some reason...
What, we're not allowed to get emotional when 20 children are murdered?

People talk glibly about US gun laws, but nobody seems to consider that this is a myth - there is no one set of gun laws. They vary from state to state, with the most restrictive states having the highest rates of gun crimes.
Why? Because only the criminals are armed. The innocent, law-abiding people are forbidden the means to defend themselves or their family.
I thought that the second amendment guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to arm themselves

What's been missing in many of the media reports has been the mental health issues of those that commit these crimes in schools.
In Connecticut, a mental health bill was squashed by the liberals at the beginning of the year, as they felt it would infringe personal freedoms.
Recently Defeated Connecticut Mental Health Bill May Have Stopped Friday's Shooter (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/16/Recently-Defeated-Connecticut-Mental-Health-Bill-May-Have-Stopped-Friday-s-Shooter)
That's right they're all nuts. As the line above states, MAY have stopped Friday's shooter.

In this shooting, the offender was not a licenced firearms owner, his mother was. The rifle he used, a sporting semi-automatic not an assault rifle), was banned in the state of Ct anyway.
He killed his mother & stole the firearms. Then went to a gun-free zone & committed multiple murders.

So with all these crimes, does anyone think that making guns illegal would have stopped such a person? One more law would make no difference whatsoever.
True, but having them legal isn't working out very well is it?

While the NRA may not be wording their stance nicely, they are pretty much correct in their stance.
Statistics show that the vast majority of these shooters will turn their weapon on themselves if they encounter resistance. Just recently, there was a shooting at a shopping mall there - a retired security guard drew his weapon and took aim at the shooter. The shooter saw him, and turned his weapon on himself. The retired guard didn't get a shot off, as there were people behind his target.
If he was a retired security guard why was he carrying a gun? See point two.

Gun control is a kneejerk reaction. Understandable, but ill considered.
Mental health is the underlying problem that needs to be addressed.
Where's the mental health issue when a 3 year old child kills itself with a gun left lying around the house?

Millions carry concealed weapons every day. This does not make them become homicidal maniacs, any more than putting a seatbelt on makes a driver try to ram every other vehicle on the roads.
Criminals are criminals because they disregard laws. Adding another law will make no difference to them. They'll still ignore it.
A ban would make their occupation a lot safer though. They would be much less likely to be injured or killed.
So what are you suggesting, give everyone guns? You're not Wayne LaPierre (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gretchen-whitmer/nra-wayne-lapierre-guns_b_2349771.html) are you?
.

jimbur

23rd December 2012, 10:52 AM

John's put it far more calmly than I would.
So, according to the NRA, the parents of the children will be spending Christmas and the rest of their lives coming to terms with a statistical aberration.

devnull

23rd December 2012, 11:03 AM

What, we're not allowed to get emotional when 20 children are murdered?

Of course you can. I'm just suggesting that you also apply a bit of common sense. After all, where was the emotional outbursts over the Chinese man that entered a kindergarten and attacked children with a knife? There seems to be emphasis on the method, not the crime.

I thought that the second amendment guaranteed U.S. citizens the right to arm themselves

Yes, and no. While their constitution says they have the right to bear arms, individual states impose their own restrictions. Most notable are Illinois & California.

That's right they're all nuts. As the line above states, MAY have stopped Friday's shooter.

That's a dangerous generalisation, that could be applied to any racial group.

True, but having them legal isn't working out very well is it?

If you do some digging, you'll find many instances of people protecting themselves or others from criminals with the use of lethal force. Unfortunately, these stories are often poorly reported by the media, presumably because they don't stir up the same level of hysteria in the public.

If he was a retired security guard why was he carrying a gun? See point two.

Being retired doesn't mean you can't hold a concealed carry permit.

Where's the mental health issue when a 3 year old child kills itself with a gun left lying around the house?

You can pass as many laws as you like, but you can't legislate common sense.

So what are you suggesting, give everyone guns? You're not Wayne LaPierre (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gretchen-whitmer/nra-wayne-lapierre-guns_b_2349771.html) are you?

Just suggesting more common sense and less hysteria. A firearm is just a tool, like any other. It isn't inherently good or bad. That definition is dictated by the user of that tool.
When the majority of these shooters kill themselves when faced with resistance, giving them more unarmed victims makes no sense whatsoever.
Some areas have instituted programs in conjunction with local law enforcement, in which teachers are being trained in firearms use and issued concealed carry permits.
My opinion is better to be prepared and never have to use it, rather than to be unprepared & wish you were.

Do you run saws & planes without guards on them? Or wear a seatbelt? All things you will most likely never need, but if something does go wrong, these things act in your favour to reduce the likelihood of more serious injury....

.

FenceFurniture

23rd December 2012, 11:17 AM

devnull, are you suggesting maintain the status quo (with the amount of guns and laws), or an increase in guns (I'm pretty sure that you not advocating a gun reduction)?

The tool guards and seat belt analogy doesn't work because they are not weapons that can be used on somebody.

Grumpy John

23rd December 2012, 11:23 AM

I think you're missing the point Devnull, guns are designed to kill, if used correctly they will kill, or at least maim. Cars, planes tablesaws even knives are not designed to kill. Death or injury from these and other risky machinery is usually the result of an accident, it is rarely intentional.
Police are instructed not to pull their weapons unless they intend to use them and then they are expected to shoot to kill. I'm assuming that the security guard was an honest citizen carrying a legal weapon, this still didn't stop a killing. More guns IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!!

An insight to the gun mentality:
Several years ago I was driving through Houston TX. and pulled up behind a Ford F150 with a rifle rack in the rear window with several rifles in it. There was a sticker on the bumper which read "KEEP HONKING, I'M RELOADING". Maybe a joke, but it scared the carp out of me.

Grumpy John

23rd December 2012, 12:24 PM

Of course you can. I'm just suggesting that you also apply a bit of common sense. After all, where was the emotional outbursts over the Chinese man that entered a kindergarten and attacked children with a knife? There seems to be emphasis on the method, not the crime.
Were any of the children in the kindergarten killed, not that they won't suffer long term emotional issues. I don't know I'm just asking.

Yes, and no. While their constitution says they have the right to bear arms, individual states impose their own restrictions. Most notable are Illinois & California.
Are you saying that citizens of Illinois and California are not allowed to bear arms?

That's a dangerous generalisation, that could be applied to any racial group.
I think it's you and the NRA that are generalising about the mental state of these murderers.

If you do some digging, you'll find many instances of people protecting themselves or others from criminals with the use of lethal force. Unfortunately, these stories are often poorly reported by the media, presumably because they don't stir up the same level of hysteria in the public.
True, the press do love a good negative story. That has been discussed elsewhere.

Being retired doesn't mean you can't hold a concealed carry permit.
Point is he was armed and still unable to stop a tragedy.

You can pass as many laws as you like, but you can't legislate common sense.
Are you saying that it's alright for irresponsible people to own lethal weapons?

Just suggesting more common sense and less hysteria. A firearm is just a tool, like any other. It isn't inherently good or bad. That definition is dictated by the user of that tool.
When the majority of these shooters kill themselves when faced with resistance, giving them more unarmed victims makes no sense whatsoever.
Some areas have instituted programs in conjunction with local law enforcement, in which teachers are being trained in firearms use and issued concealed carry permits.
My opinion is better to be prepared and never have to use it, rather than to be unprepared & wish you were.

Do you run saws & planes without guards on them? Or wear a seatbelt? All things you will most likely never need, but if something does go wrong, these things act in your favour to reduce the likelihood of more serious injury....
A firearm is not just a tool. It's a tool designed to inflict serious bodily harm, and does so very efficiently as we continue to witness.