Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass Shootings - Mental Illness?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The percentage of households with a gun in them, as well as the percentage of population owning firearms in the US has steadily been declining slowly for years.

    So combined with what Cambronne posted there, that would mean that fewer people actually own more guns, but do less shootings ?

    All very complicated - I'm going to bow out here,

    let me just once again emphasize - I do NOT have a problem with Trung Si or anyone in the US owning/carrying/firing a gun of any kind, thank you,
    just try not to hurt eachother
    High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

      So combined with what Cambronne posted there, that would mean that fewer people actually own more guns, but do less shootings ?

      All very complicated - I'm going to bow out here,

      let me just once again emphasize - I do NOT have a problem with Trung Si or anyone in the US owning/carrying/firing a gun of any kind, thank you,
      just try not to hurt eachother
      Even if you had a problem, we all know you're just a crazy Belgian.

      That said, there is room for reasonable debate on the issue.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        They do have a problem in Europe with violent crime. But, far less of it is committed with a firearm. Europe has its share of mass violence too. This isn't as well publicized simply because laws governing the media in Europe are different from the US. France for example, suppresses a lot of their problems with violence.
        Europe is also experiencing a considerable rise in violence due to illegal immigration and refugees pouring in from, particularly, the Middle East and Africa.

        Yes, Europe has their equivalent of Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore.

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a6895511.html

        https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...in-europe.html



        They even have many events that qualify as mass shootings

        https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4...europe-in-2016

        https://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/co...-in-frequency/

        https://aoav.org.uk/2016/16-deadlies...ope-1987-2016/

        So, while the US has a higher homicide rate, violent crime isn't that much different from Europe overall. After all, murder isn't the only violent crime there is, just the worst of a bunch of bad choices.
        Checked one of the lists.
        2016 Europe, (incl.Ukraine and Russia which are hardly western Europe) : 53 dead due to mass shootings.
        2016 USA : 392 dead due to mass shootings.
        Quite a diff.
        "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

          Banning bullets is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
          What dems are trying to do instead is tax them to death like is done with cigarettes. (Cook county (Chicago) adds a 5 cent tax per round increasing the cost by about 30%)

          Illinois has recently enacted laws that make it almost impossible for small gun stores to remain open.
          The fact that the criminal element isn't getting their guns from those stores isn't important.

          None of these gun laws will do anything about the numbers of murders in places like Chicago, but they will make it very difficult for those who aren't breaking the law and never will from buying stuff the dems don't like.
          Really in what way does banning bullets violated the 2nd. Your trying to read something in to the 2nd that isn't there.

          buying stuff the dems don't like.
          Utter Bull. Many Dems are also gun owners and unless a person is totally dim witted, like most trump supporters, they would know that,
          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Rutger View Post

            Checked one of the lists.
            2016 Europe, (incl.Ukraine and Russia which are hardly western Europe) : 53 dead due to mass shootings.
            2016 USA : 392 dead due to mass shootings.
            Quite a diff.
            Out of curiosity, how does your source they define "mass shooting"?
            Many of the sources I have seen in the past include any shooting that results in 2 or 3 or more, injuries.
            Obviously, that would include a lot of gang related, drive by shootings.

            If we are talking about the types of shootings that happened in El paso or Dayton, then gang related shootings shouldn't be included, if you are just talking about shootings in general and want to include the criminal element in the statistics as opposed to just the mentally ill then please be clear about it.

            Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is a reasonable goal.
            Given that it is already illegal for the criminal element to own guns or shoot people with them, making those things more illegal won't make any difference
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #51
              Well it's not my source, ask the person who listed it, but the list includes many with 0 dead. Not mass shootings in my book.

              And further to that:
              Basically Europe have the exact same sort of people walking the face of the earth as in the USA. The same percentage of criminals, the same percentage of mentally ill. the same percentage having relational problems, the same percentage suicide-inclined, etcetera etcetera.

              So with 53 dead in Europe and 392 dead in the USA in 2016 (mind you, from one source not mine but someone who claims that Europe is about in the same league as the USA as far as mass shootings go) my question stands and remains unanswered:
              The basic inhabitant being equal, why is it that in Europe there are far less dead due to mass shootings than in the USA, or for that matter, far less mass shootings?

              Please tell me, because someone else who claimed to be able to show that Europe is at roughly the same level came up with 53 vs 392. And that doesn't convince me.

              It would be naive to believe that ubiquitous availability does not play a significant role in that.

              Ubiquitous availability of drugs creates an enormous population of users.
              I have no problem claiming that the same will apply to guns. They are after all efficient problem solvers, and such is proven daily.
              And claiming that if guns are gone, knives will take over at the same scale is ludicrous. The killing capacity is far outperformed by guns in maany ways: range, speed, deadliness. A man with a gun will kill 12 people in mere seconds. Give him a knife and bystanders will much easier be able to disarm him.
              Last edited by Rutger; 19 Aug 19, 12:51.
              "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                Not so - the Swiss have had the highest number of gun related deaths for the population size of W Europe. Pales into indignifigance with the US but still not managing. They are now severely restricting the conditions around holding of military fire ams
                IIRC, the Swiss fatalities were all Alpenhorn Greet the Dawn fanatics;
                and the Finns fatalities were people who spoke while drinking in a public house...
                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Rutger View Post
                  Well it's not my source, ask the person who listed it, but the list includes many with 0 dead. Not mass shootings in my book.

                  And further to that:
                  Basically Europe have the exact same sort of people walking the face of the earth as in the USA. The same percentage of criminals, the same percentage of mentally ill. the same percentage having relational problems, the same percentage suicide-inclined, etcetera etcetera.

                  So with 53 dead in Europe and 392 dead in the USA in 2016 (mind you, from one source not mine but someone who claims that Europe is about in the same league as the USA as far as mass shootings go) my question stands and remains unanswered:
                  The basic inhabitant being equal, why is it that in Europe there are far less dead due to mass shootings than in the USA, or for that matter, far less mass shootings?

                  Please tell me, because someone else who claimed to be able to show that Europe is at roughly the same level came up with 53 vs 392. And that doesn't convince me.

                  It would be naive to believe that ubiquitous availability does not play a significant role in that.

                  Ubiquitous availability of drugs creates an enormous population of users.
                  I have no problem claiming that the same will apply to guns. They are after all efficient problem solvers, and such is proven daily.
                  And claiming that if guns are gone, knives will take over at the same scale is ludicrous. The killing capacity is far outperformed by guns in maany ways: range, speed, deadliness. A man with a gun will kill 12 people in mere seconds. Give him a knife and bystanders will much easier be able to disarm him.


                  Guns do play a role in our violence.
                  But they do not cause it.
                  Guns make our violence more deadly.

                  As I have said repeatedly, the US is not in Europe nor are their problems exactly the same.
                  We are adjacent to a number of failed or semi failed narco states.
                  Our gang and drug problem are different.

                  I don't know the level of gang related violence in Europe, but here is some data for the USThe last year of statistics in the above link indicates that in 2011 there were about 2300 gang related murders. That actually is about 20% of our national total.

                  You reference the drug problem. They are illegal and yet they are everywhere. How would banning guns work better than banning drugs has turned out?
                  Also, if you ban guns, only the law abiding (i.e. the people who aren't shooting others) will comply with the ban.
                  The end result is that the the law abiding who were using the gun solely for protection will be disarmed and dependent on the mercy of those who would do violence.

                  The elderly in the cities would just have to hope their attackers are nice to them.

                  What is the end result of the following if the 14 year old girl had no gun?


                  On Sunday, two men in a white sedan pulled up to a home in Blaine. One got out of the car and repeatedly tried to gain entry by trying to kick in the doors.
                  At one point, the man who was trying to break in circled around to the backyard and was prepared to bust open a window with a shovel.

                  When this was about to happen, the man and his driver began to start arguing. During that argument, the youngest of the teenage girls in the home, only 14 years old, had found and loaded the 9mm pistol.
                  https://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Te...526277011.html


                  That is an anecdote, but per the CDC report I quoted above, there are at least 116,000 defensive gun uses per year.
                  How many of those people would suffer great harm or death?
                  We can make guns illegal, but we can't get rid of them or those who would do us harm.

                  That all said, our murder rate is half of what it was 25 years ago despite guns being more available.
                  How does that happen?


                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Rutger View Post

                    Checked one of the lists.
                    2016 Europe, (incl.Ukraine and Russia which are hardly western Europe) : 53 dead due to mass shootings.
                    2016 USA : 392 dead due to mass shootings.
                    Quite a diff.
                    I was looking at overall crime rates, not just "mass shootings." All I pointed out in mentioning mass shootings is that Europe does have them.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X