The US, gun violence, and gun control

[WIP]

When did this become about a firearm mass murder every three weeks? Good Lord. I never made a comment about that claim, so I'm not trying to argue my way out of anything; I just pointed it out when I knew the mass murders by gun were incorrectly stated.

What is this:

American Woman, on 19 December 2012 - 05:01 PM, said: This is false. There isn't one mass murder by guns every two weeks in America.

It wasn't my statement to begin with, but when you claimed that the statement was false, and you were provided with clear evidence that even with separating out non-firearms mass murders, the rate would still be about one out of every three weeks, you have no point to make, other than hair-splitting!

By the way, I see you've had nothing to say about the false accusation you made about me; having trouble admitting that I was right, eh? Ironic.

Okay, what is it then? Delusional thinking? I don't see a great deal of difference between one out of two and one out of three. We're not mixing chemicals here, just showing how often major gun crimes are occurring with today's lax gun laws and virtually unregulated gun shows.

Edited to add: I have to wonder how many read to the end of the article.

During those five years, more died from migraines and falling out of chairs than were murdered by mass killers, according to death records kept by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Three times as many people perished from sunstroke.

And that is truly a WTF moment!

[cybercoma]

Mmm. I doubt 20 six year olds ever fell out of their chairs and killed themselves in unison. You continue to amaze me AW, putting a household accident or sunstroke in the same category as a mass shooting of children. Good Lord indeed.

That's pretty appalling. Who the hell does that?

[cybercoma]

The obvious answer to that is for the bunch of people to have concealed weapons. He would still get his ass kicked. With the added bonus that he wouldn't get a shot (sorry) at doing it again.

I'm sure when one person starts shooting, then others start firing back, in the panic and chaos the average Joe will know exactly who the initial shooter was.

[cybercoma]

I've got a statistic for everyone.

100% of people die.

So there's no reason to ban guns.

[Wilber]

Who the hell is gonna want to live in a society where you need to be armed all the time just to be safe?

Quite a few are under that illusion despite overwhelming evidence it makes them less safe.?

[punked]

Quite a few are under that illusion despite overwhelming evidence it makes them less safe.?

CITATION PLEASE!!!! Where is this overwhelming evidence? Oh it does not exist glad that argument was pointless.

[Wilber]

CITATION PLEASE!!!! Where is this overwhelming evidence? Oh it does not exist glad that argument was pointless.

Every other country that has gun controls. The US kills as many people with guns in a day as the UK does in a year.

[punked]

Every other country that has gun controls. The US kills as many people with guns in a day as the UK does in a year.

I am sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying. You are right.

[Guest American Woman]

What is this:

American Woman, on 19 December 2012 - 05:01 PM, said: This is false. There isn't one mass murder by guns every two weeks in America.

It wasn't my statement to begin with, but when you claimed that the statement was false, and you were provided with clear evidence that even with separating out non-firearms mass murders, the rate would still be about one out of every three weeks, you have no point to make, other than hair-splitting!

Really. Pointing out that there are 1/3 less mass murders by gun deaths that was claimed is splitting hairs?? So I can inflate Canada's homocide by gun statistics by 1/3 and when you call me on it, I could accuse you of "splitting hairs?"

I don't see a great deal of difference between one out of two and one out of three.

Really. You don't see a 1/3 difference as "a great deal of difference??" Sorry, but that says a whole lot about you, and it tells me is that you don't know how do engage in an honest discussion about this.

[punked]

Really. Pointing out that there are 1/3 less mass murders by gun deaths that was claimed is splitting hairs?? So I can inflate Canada's homocide by gun statistics by 1/3 and when you call me on it, I could accuse you of "splitting hairs?"

Really. You don't see a 1/3 difference as "a great deal of difference??" Sorry, but that says a whole lot about you, and it tells me is that you don't know how do engage in an honest discussion about this.

Yeah sorry I was off on my stat by a week. There is a huge difference that instead of Mass killings by guns every two weeks it is every three. We should do nothing until there are mass killings by guns every 2 weeks, that is clearly the straw that will break the camels back.

Look I understand you are all for the second amendment. I am to but this is out of hand something should be done and that doesn't mean outlawing guns but some steps have to be taken. Covering our eyes, sticking our figures in our ears and saying "America is a big country and this is the price of freedom" isn't the way to go anymore. I think we should be able to agree on that, where we can disagree is on the action steps.

[eyeball]

Look I understand you are all for the second amendment. I am to but this is out of hand something should be done and that doesn't mean outlawing guns but some steps have to be taken. Covering our eyes, sticking our figures in our ears and saying "America is a big country and this is the price of freedom" isn't the way to go anymore.

If there is anything beyond a pile of dead kids that will cause the 2nd amendment to be amended faster, that's it.

Is it just me or do I get the distinct impression all is not well in the world of gun-advocacy? The pro-gun crowd seems to realize that the jig, or a good portion of it at least is up, but if the infighting is anything to go by it's deeply divided as to what to do about it. Personally I think the loons presently in charge of the NRA are perfect for the times.

Nothing will advance the point of gun-control faster.

[Guest American Woman]

Good point American Woman!

But I believe that there is more going on in these stats then what some may think.

If a fall from a chair is enough to kill you then you've got some serious health issues!!!Like why are you falling from your chair in the first place?

Same goes for the migrane issue.

Actually,everyone will eventually die.This is a natural process of life.

But in society,murder is froned upon and measures are taken to prevent.Just as in ealth and health care.

Yes murder is frowned upon, which is why we have strong sentences for those convicted of murder; and yes, people do have to die of something. Without any further information, the stats are rather meaningless - except to help put the numbers in perspective. In a nation of 320 million people, numbers are going to look really high to people who are used to seeing stats for a nation of 33 million people - and the stats for some nations involve populations less than some of our cities.

Another reason I pointed out the stats is because so many people go into hyper-mode when four or more people are killed at one time (the U.S. definition of "mass murder," not the world's - so comparisons aren't even possible since different criteria would be involved) - yet these mass murders account for only 1% of homicides in the U.S If we are to change our gun laws, it shouldn't be because of these mass murders - but for the 'large picture.'

Furthermore, I've seen stats for how murders in the U.S. occur every x minutes, but that's only if they were all single murders, which they are not. Which leads me to my next point - mass murders don't "happen every two weeks" in the U.S. - they average every two weeks, over five years. I'm sure I'm going to be accused of "splitting hairs," but there is a difference - and it can be a significant difference when trying to see the whole picture. For example, there could have been a whole lot of mass murders in 2006 and hardly any in the years since, but it still "averages" out to one every two weeks over the course of those five years, even though our mass murder rate could significantly be going down.

In other words, such sensationalism - and that's really what it is - means little to me without more details. Just as the 'death by falling out of a chair' statistics don't mean much without any other criteria. So I responded to what I see as hyperbole with hyperbole.

I'd also like to point out that 3000 deaths on one day make the "mass murder" stats pale in comparison, yet so many are critical of the U.S.'s measures to prevent another such tragedy from happening - while going on about gun stats and being critical that we aren't doing more.

I'd also like to know how many gun deaths and mass murder deaths are criminal/drug related. I think that would be significant information to have.

Also, I see people who really don't appear to give a damn about Americans suddenly all concerned over the deaths of Americans who are killed by guns. I have to wonder how much of their 'concern' is for the people and how much of it is just basking in criticizing the U.S. The way I see it, problems exist in other nations, too, but to hear tell, the U.S. is the only one who has a gun problem. Furthermore, the comparisons to Canada's gun laws without criticism for Canada leads me to believe that there are a few who believe that Canada has, as it was put, 'the right blend of freedom and public protection.' Who determines what number of gun deaths is, in effect, acceptable? And what is that criteria based on?

Canada has had more than a few mass murders, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the weapons used in some of these murders have not been banned as a result, in spite of efforts and the outcry from the victims' families In fact, from what I've read, the Ruger Mini-14 doesn't even have to be registered outside of Quebec.

So why all the concern and criticism for the U.S.'s gun laws - and criticism for not doing anything/enough as a result of such mass murders?

Last but not least, there's been very little acknowledgement of the reality that 1/3 of the mass murders in the statistics quoted were not committed with a gun. That's a significant percentage, proving, as I said, that one need not use guns to commit mass murder. Yet people have had very little to say about that. I cannot imagine that "1/3" not going up significantly if guns were not available.

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah sorry I was off on my stat by a week. There is a huge difference that instead of Mass killings by guns every two weeks it is every three.

Again. 1/3 is a "huge difference." If you can't see that, I can only assume that you sucked at math.

[punked]

Again. 1/3 is a "huge difference." If you can't see that, I can only assume that you sucked at math.

Do we agree that an attack once every three weeks is an insane number to be comfortable with?

Edited December 21, 2012 by punked

[The_Squid]

Again. 1/3 is a "huge difference." If you can't see that, I can only assume that you sucked at math.

Do you think that a mass shooting every 3 weeks is acceptable?

[betsy]

What I am saying is the argument for keeping guns legal is the same for soft drugs. Yet the hypocrites on this board still act like guns should have no regulations and drugs should be illegal. It is crazy. I think both should be regulated by the government. I think hard drugs which can harm society should be illegal just like very large weapons. However the smaller stuff which people use for themselves and harm no one else when used in the proper way should be regulated and controlled. It is the same argument of personal freedom conservatives on this board love to make. Those who can not handle either should be banned and it should all be that simple. Freedom is important and guns are a tool which people should have access to if they are responsible.

How can you compare guns with drugs????

[punked]

How can you compare guns with drugs????

Because it is the same thing. Why do we keep drugs illegal?

[BC_chick]

Without any further information, the stats are rather meaningless - except to help put the numbers in perspective. In a nation of 320 million people, numbers are going to look really high to people who are used to seeing stats for a nation of 33 million people - and the stats for some nations involve populations less than some of our cities.

That's why we use gun-related deaths per capita. Oh I forgot, you don't like that either.

[betsy]

Because it is the same thing. Why do we keep drugs illegal?

How are they the same thing?

[punked]

How are they the same thing?

Because the same reasons to keep guns legal are why soft drugs should be legal and visa versa. You can't be for one and against the other with out being a hypocrite.

[Black Dog]

That's why we use gun-related deaths per capita. Oh I forgot, you don't like that either.

The only stats that are relevant to AW are ones that make her country look good on this subject.

Ergo, stats are irrelevant.

[betsy]

Because the same reasons to keep guns legal are why soft drugs should be legal and visa versa. You can't be for one and against the other with out being a hypocrite.

You didn't answer the question. How are drugs and guns the same thing? Like how??

[Guest American Woman]

That's why we use gun-related deaths per capita. Oh I forgot, you don't like that either.

Seems to me you're not so fond of that yourself. I've asked you repeatedly what's wrong with Vancouver that your murder per capita stats are so much higher than my city's - if it's proof that something has gone really, terribly wrong within Vancouver - and you've yet to respond.

Edited December 21, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Yeah sorry I was off on my stat by a week. There is a huge difference that instead of Mass killings by guns every two weeks it is every three. We should do nothing until there are mass killings by guns every 2 weeks, that is clearly the straw that will break the camels back.

There are mass killings every 2 weeks anyway. It's just they're not always done with firearms. That's a big issue in and of itself that there are so many mass killings, even if they're committed by other means.

[msj]

Again. 1/3 is a "huge difference." If you can't see that, I can only assume that you sucked at math.

What do you see?

I see it is, at best, once every 17 days (2 and a half weeks) and, more likely once every 15 days (basically 2 weeks) if you would take the time to understand my posts above (283 and 285) rather than dish out insults.

Edited December 21, 2012 by msj