Thread: incompetent news reporting

What is the deal with news "reporters" these days. They seem completely oblivious to knowing what is and is not news.

So this guy shoots up a school and kills a bunch of kids. Follow up news would be information as to recent relevant developments. Such as, maybe finding journals where he planned it out, letters from an unknown source threatening him and appearing to be from teachers, intoxication at teh time of the shooting. Bath salts... something relevant! but instead this particular reporter wastes net space by telling us something about the guy that had nothing to do with what happened that day.

So he had aspergers syndrome. So what. The police have said that it had nothing to with what happened. Nothing more than the fact that he probably had toes and a nose as well. All this type of reporting will do, is create a fear among the uninformed of people with aspergers syndrome. Aspies are very common and anyone reading this probably knows a handful of people that are aspie without even realizing it. My son has aspergers, I have aspergers, and many people I know have aspergers. Aspergers is a common trait among people who are highly skilled in technical careers. Engineers, programmers, physicists. Even Einstein is suspected of having aspergers.


But most people know very little about aspergers unless someone they know is diagnosed with it. And even then they probably only look into it, if it is their own child or themselves. NTs, (neurotypical, people who do not have aspergers) usually find it much easier to just not interact with aspies except to tease them for being awkward. Or dismiss them as shy or something. Aspergers does not make people violent. If someone has aspergers and is abnormally violent then it is likely they have some other mental illness or circumstance that created that inclination towards violence.

Imagine, a sane person commits murder. will they report... "The murderer is said to be completely sane however the police have stated that this did not have anything to do the violent acts they committed. "


This is the article that annoyed me:

By: Danielle Deavours | Alabama's13.com
Published: December 15, 2012


NEW YORK (AP) --

A law enforcement official says the gunman in the Connecticut school shooting had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome but experts say there's no connection between the disorder and violent behavior.

Asperger's is a mild form of autism often characterized by social awkwardness.

High school classmates have described the gunman, Adam Lanza, as being bright but painfully shy, anxious and a loner.

It's the time-honoured self protection mechanism of 'othering' people who make us feel uncomfortable. So mass murderers are instantly, remotely, determined to have been abnormal, therefore not like us, not like anyone 'we' are likely to know.

Anything that can isolate a person as being different, anything at all. Being quiet, or a loner, or having some kind of mental condition or disability, or anything at all which is, in fact, just one among many individual features of lots and lots of people who are no threat to anyone or anything.

One day people are going to realise that this is the far end of the spectrum of acting out behaviours, road rage, domestic violence and the like that are part of normal human failings. How to deal with the problems and how to prevent them will never be properly examined until people stop treating this as not-like-us, individuals-who-didn't-get-mental-health-services, dysfunctional-families or other platitudes, but as part of society and human behaviour that we should deal with honestly and openly.

It seems when things like this happen they'll say anything, apart from questioning the lax guns laws that contribute to the body count. I heard that after Columbine, the school banned trench coats, but there was no change in local gun laws. Aspergers and trench coats are not the problem.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Aspergers and trench coats are not the problem.

Nor are guns. Or knives or bombs for that matter, as the Columbine students were bombers, not gunman. Not much fortune, really, that the bombs failed and they had to fall back on plan B.

Even blaming gun laws is an example of scapegoating. Human beings are to blame for these tragedies. It was a human being that decided to kill. Not a gun. Not aspergers. Not a trench coat. The human being did it. And human beings kill each other, in one way or another, every day. It is part of our nature that we bury and suppress. but sometimes, we experience things that we just can't handle and so we lose our control and do something "crazy". I think we lose our ability to suppress our true nature at times, and sadly, it is in the nature of every one of us to be violent towards that which we feel threatened by. Whether a perceived threat is substantiated or not is irrelevant. Sometimes, it is simple assault, sometimes aggravated assault, sometimes it is nothing more than harsh words, but emotions get the best of us sometimes and things happen. Things we regret.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Even blaming gun laws is an example of scapegoating. Human beings are to blame for these tragedies. It was a human being that decided to kill. Not a gun.

It was a human being with easy access to firearms. If guns weren't a factor, other countries with more strict gun laws would see the same rate of homicides per annum, via other means, but we just don't see that. The homicide rate in the USA is four times that of the UK, for instance. Guns allow people to act on their impulses, and who hasn't got a bit annoyed with someone at some point in their life? Add a firearm into that disagreement and it's possibly not going to end well. Lax guns laws are a very real factor in this.

Going by homicide rates by country, it appears that education and cultural influences play a far greater role in homicide that access to one particular tool for the job...:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Even blaming gun laws is an example of scapegoating. Human beings are to blame for these tragedies. It was a human being that decided to kill. Not a gun.

It was a human being with easy access to firearms. If guns weren't a factor, other countries with more strict gun laws would see the same rate of homicides per annum, via other means, but we just don't see that. The homicide rate in the USA is four times that of the UK, for instance. Guns allow people to act on their impulses, and who hasn't got a bit annoyed with someone at some point in their life? Add a firearm into that disagreement and it's possibly not going to end well. Lax guns laws are a very real factor in this.

I have had easy access to guns most of my life, and until relatively recently I have had a hair trigger temper. But I have never reached for the guns that were easily within my grasp. If the availability of the gun is to blame, then that suggests that if any gun is available that it WILL be used to murder someone. Consider how many people in America have access to guns. Then consider how many of THOSE people go out and shoot someone. Having the gun available is not the reason this guy killed people. It was probably the reason he chose a gun as his preferred method but not his motivation for killing. The guns didn't make him kill someone. He made himself kill. If he had not had a gun available, he likely would have used some other method. Maybe he would have knifed his mother and then ran a school bus off an embankment or something. Maybe a pipe bomb. Maybe arson.

When I was in school I was bullied heavily and I hated everyone in my school. I wanted them all to die. I had access to guns. What stopped me? My mom told me she loved me. She told me that some day, those kids wouldn't matter to me anymore. She didn't have a habit of lying to me. And I still believed in God, so I feared going to hell. Ultimately, I feared disappointing my mom, going to jail, and going to hell. Fear of the consequences is all that stopped me from killing all those kids. And I had no desire to shoot anyone. I didn't see shooting as very efficient. I intended to use arson will all the exits blocked. But that fear is what stopped me.

When the fear of consequences is gone, a person will do anything. This man had already chosen the consequences. He probably already planned to take his own life but for some reason felt he should take others out first. His motivations for that are still unknown. But he didn't fear the consequences because he had control of the consequences. He was apparently ok with death since he self executed. He satisfied his urge to kill and did not have any consequences to face. Did he have a belief in heaven/hell? who knows? I'm guessing he didn't. I am not saying that people should fear those things, but fear of consequences is what stops people from giving into their primal urges.

Absence of an immediate means rarely prevents someone from killing if that is what they have set their mind to doing.

So before you blame the easy access to guns consider the implications that presents. It suggests that anyone with access to a gun will use it to commit murder. This is an unfair assumption. Do you think you would kill someone if you had easy access to a gun?

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Having the gun available is not the reason this guy killed people. It was probably the reason he chose a gun as his preferred method but not his motivation for killing.

How do you explain that the homicide rate is four times that of the UK, if it's not influenced by the availability of guns?

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Having the gun available is not the reason this guy killed people. It was probably the reason he chose a gun as his preferred method but not his motivation for killing.

How do you explain that the homicide rate is four times that of the UK, if it's not influenced by the availability of guns?

Social differences. Entitlement attitudes running a muck. More people than our social infrustructure can support. I don't mean social welfare programs, I mean too much anonymity. When you feel as if no one knows you exist, you lose your humanity. anyone can speculate, and just about any suggestion can be supported by circumstantial evidence. Not knowing exactly what causes it does not automatically mean that availibility of guns is to blame. Your assumption doesn't follow observed patterns.

Sorry for the old numbers, had trouble finding statistics that were consistent and not reported with a biased slant.
but:

o In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million
firearms, 65 million of which were handguns.
Although there were enough guns to have provided
every U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of
adults actually owned firearms; 74 percent of gun
owners possessed two or more.

- source

in 1994 there were only 23,330 murders in all, that includes murders not involving guns. so for the 44 million gun owners there were only 23,330 murders. and these 44 million gun owners had access to over 190 million guns 65 million of which were hand guns. So if availability is to blame, shouldn't there have been several million murders?

availability didn't cause millions of murders. and lack of a gun didn't prevent the murders that didn't involve guns. Your logic doesn't follow. It seems to be a scapegoat. Unpleasant things are easier to cope with when we have a scapegoat to blame. We cannot fight our attacker if we do not know who our attacker is. Not knowing why worries all of us. But creating a boogyman for lack of knowing who or what the real problem is does not solve anything. Ultimately, the only ones we can blame for murders are the murderers. And whether we like it or not, they were human beings, just like the rest of us.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

So if availability is to blame, shouldn't there have been several million murders?

That's a non-sequitur. The murder rate is what it is, and it's four times higher than the UK, and guns are far more prevalent, seems a simple correlation, especially when you haven't qualified the other factors you cited as being intrinsically American phenomena. There are disaffected people in other countries too. For a developed nation, the gun homicide rates makes America stand out, and so does the rate of firearm ownership.

It really is worth taking some time to look at various countries on that map - different numbers/rates of gun ownership, of homicide, % of homicides by gun. The USA is extremely unusual among advanced economies.

Until you look at the % numbers, where you might think there's a similarity. There are a couple of countries with the same % of homicides by gunshot, but when you look at the numbers themselves, they're in a different world. 60% of murders by gunshot are a lot fewer homicides when you're talking a murder rate of 0.6 per 100000 versus USA's 4.2 per 100000 population.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by seagypsy

So if availability is to blame, shouldn't there have been several million murders?

That's a non-sequitur. The murder rate is what it is, and it's four times higher than the UK, and guns are far more prevalent, seems a simple correlation, especially when you haven't qualified the other factors you cited as being intrinsically American phenomena. There are disaffected people in other countries too. For a developed nation, the gun homicide rates makes America stand out, and so does the rate of firearm ownership.

You said it yourself; its correlation, not causation. Yet.

It stands to reason that if there are more guns, more murders will be committed by a gun, but that doesn't necessarily mean that many more murders of all types would occur, though at least some of it can be attributed to the fact that it is easier to kill with a gun than with about anything else.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by seagypsy

So if availability is to blame, shouldn't there have been several million murders?

That's a non-sequitur. The murder rate is what it is, and it's four times higher than the UK, and guns are far more prevalent, seems a simple correlation, especially when you haven't qualified the other factors you cited as being intrinsically American phenomena. There are disaffected people in other countries too. For a developed nation, the gun homicide rates makes America stand out, and so does the rate of firearm ownership.

You said it yourself; its correlation, not causation. Yet.

It stands to reason that if there are more guns, more murders will be committed by a gun as a percentage of the total, but that doesn't necessarily mean that many more murders of all types would occur, though at least some of it can be attributed to the fact that it is easier to kill with a gun than with about anything else.

Originally Posted by adelady

It really is worth taking some time to look at various countries on that map - different numbers/rates of gun ownership, of homicide, % of homicides by gun. The USA is extremely unusual among advanced economies.

Until you look at the % numbers, where you might think there's a similarity. There are a couple of countries with the same % of homicides by gunshot, but when you look at the numbers themselves, they're in a different world. 60% of murders by gunshot are a lot fewer homicides when you're talking a murder rate of 0.6 per 100000 versus USA's 4.2 per 100000 population.

Exactly, a higher population, and a culture of mixed culture. We have the most diverse culture in the world here. And we do not insist on immigrants assimilating and never really have. Any group can retain their ancient heritage and when you have two groups living next to each other with vastly different POV and the encouragement to speak their mind, you will get conflict. We have a culture of conflict. We are a country of fighters. We are the descendents of dissenters and the very nature of our constitution breeds dissention, because our right to dissent is so blatantly spelled out in the constitution and bill of rights. This right to dissent is what attracts immigrants. And so what kind of people immigrate here? More dissenters. Where you have dissent, you have conflict. Where you have conflict, you have high emotions. Where you have high emotions, you have motivations for violence.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

That's a non-sequitur. The murder rate is what it is, and it's four times higher than the UK, and guns are far more prevalent, seems a simple correlation, especially when you haven't qualified the other factors you cited as being intrinsically American phenomena. There are disaffected people in other countries too. For a developed nation, the gun homicide rates makes America stand out, and so does the rate of firearm ownership.

I see your logic as a non-sequitur. This issue is a matter of perceptions and speculations. It is not a fact that gun availability is the cause of murders. This is proven every day that 44million + gun owners do not shoot someone. It makes as much sense as saying that suicide is caused by the availability of razor blades.

Guns are a means of committing murder. Murder does not go away by taking away guns. Let's say guns disappear from the face of the planet. Will you take away knives next? ok now those are gone, what next, automobiles? how about baseball bats, golf clubs, and pipe wrenches? Then maybe pillows, plastic bags, and ropes. Where will it stop before you realize that if a person wants to kill they will find a way and they will kill.

Are you only put off by gun murders? do other murders not bother you? Just because something seems to be a correlation doesn't mean that there is actual causation shown. there are other factors murders have in common that have nothing to do with gun availability. Uncontrolled anger is a very common factor. Disenfranchisement is another. Desperation is another. These are things that are common factors in all murders regardless of method.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. You present data and I do not deny the facts of the data. but I disagree with your interpretation of it. We see it from a different point of view. At this point we are arguing beliefs. So any debate will be no more beneficial than two theists arguing the merits of their own religions against each other.

In any case, back to the OP. The article was poorly written and a waste of time. Why bother calling it an article any case when it is only 4 sentences long? And what good did the "journalist" think they were achieving by pointing fingers at aspies then pretending not to do so.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

It seems when things like this happen they'll say anything, apart from questioning the lax guns laws that contribute to the body count. I heard that after Columbine, the school banned trench coats, but there was no change in local gun laws. Aspergers and trench coats are not the problem.

Gun laws seems to be the hottest topic as a result of this, from the reports I heard.

If the bloke has aspergers (which I didn't hear about) and is very uncomfortable socially, then this is likely to have played a part in creating the feelings which led to the severe actions. I don't know about the story, but a lesson from this is that those who are socially awkward need to be treated with respect and compassion, or they might flip.

One comment was from an American lady who thinks the competative and combatative, ego centric culture in America has played a big part in pushing this vulnerable individual over the edge. Therefore the fact that he has aspergers and has been bullied, is relevant and can teach us lessons that help to avoid such instances in the future.
I don't take from this that aspergers sufferers and those on the autism spectrum are more dangerous than anybody else, simply that they are more likely to be victimised in a culture that doesn't protect them, which is more likely to push them into severe actions.

But really, I have no clue what happened.

Another comment was that america has the same constitution as the UK, except the americans removed a qualifying statement which states that the right to bear arms only allows reasonable armoury and in accordance with the law.

I presume that any american with enough money is allowed to build an army?

It is not a fact that gun availability is the cause of murders.

It may not be the cause, but there are correlations that need to be incorporated into discussion and policy making.

From Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

and from America is a Violent Country - Kieran Healy

Note that “assault” as a cause of death does not distinguish the mechanism of death (gunshot, stabbing, etc). If anyone knows of a similar time series for gun-related deaths only, let me know.

It's worth looking at the link to see the graphs for individual countries. Not one single country ever has a high point anywhere in its series near the two lowest points on the USA graph. If someone gave you these graphs as data for statistical analysis you'd tell them they'd made a mistake. One of the graphs appears not to belong with the rest - that would be the USA.

qfu
Whenever there is a sensational killing involving guns
the gun control gouls come out of the woodwork to feast upon the corpses
for their own agenda
..............
the usa is different from most industrialized.advanced countries in that we have little in the way of a social welfare state
so we have a higher percentage of people who could have been helped or treated, but weren't due to our criminally expensive medical care(where care is just a four letter word) industry
so we have more desperation
and a television that constantly glorifies violence
and
some mentally ill people reach out in a crazed attempt to have some impact

guns ain't the illness
just a symptom of the rot and decay

Originally Posted by adelady

It is not a fact that gun availability is the cause of murders.

It may not be the cause, but there are correlations that need to be incorporated into discussion and policy making.

I agree that it needs to be considered, but so do all other factors. The issue of murder is being looked at with tunnel vision. Other factors playing into what leads one to murder are not being evaluated. I don't think there is any ONE cause of murder. I don't think there will be an simple fix like taking away guns. There is a reason we were given the right to bear arms and in today's world I think that justification is more relevant than ever. The purpose for allowing the armament of citizens is so that in case of invasion, every last one of us becomes an armed combatant that the invaders has to contend with. For a very long time we have been a superpower unchallenged. But not so much today. The world has become disenchanted with America and Americans. We are at higher risk of attack than ever and we should never let our guard down and assume the army can protect us. Of course, perhaps if we change our government policies towards foreign entities then maybe there wouldn't be so much animosity towards us coming from the outside. It seems, to outsiders anyway, we are a nation of bullies, and bullying breeds contempt.

the usa is different from most industrialized.advanced countries in that we have little in the way of a social welfare state

But neither does Japan. Its total murder rate is less than 10% of the USA - 0.3 per 100000 population versus 4.2 per 100k for the USA.

(It does have a fairly sensible health system - but very little mental health care.)

There's more to it than that.

Originally Posted by adelady

the usa is different from most industrialized.advanced countries in that we have little in the way of a social welfare state

But neither does Japan. Its total murder rate is less than 10% of the USA - 0.3 per 100000 population versus 4.2 per 100k for the USA.

(It does have a fairly sensible health system - but very little mental health care.)

There's more to it than that.

agree

murder rate is too broad
needs refinement by economic status/race/ethnicity/ etc.

we are a melting pot of many races and cultures, not so the japanese

we are a melting pot of many races and cultures

And so is Australia (and the UK for that matter). In my kids' small primary school there were something like 60 languages spoken in the homes of the students.

Originally Posted by adelady

the usa is different from most industrialized.advanced countries in that we have little in the way of a social welfare state

But neither does Japan. Its total murder rate is less than 10% of the USA - 0.3 per 100000 population versus 4.2 per 100k for the USA.

(It does have a fairly sensible health system - but very little mental health care.)

There's more to it than that.

Their culture is also very different there. The idea of honor and respect is unlike anything in the US. Honor and respect is default in Japan, in the US you have to earn it. Respect is even built into the Japanese language. And disrespect and familiarity tends to be the default setting for Americans. Just look how hard it is to get people to respect each other on this forum. Irrelevant personal ad hom attacks are the norm when two people disagree on politics or ideologies. Very few here are tolerant of other views. When Americans ARE being tolerant, it is through very conscious strong effort that it is expressed. And even then, the tolerance is usually superficial. We will say one thing in public, while in our heads or between close friends we declare that the people we disagree with shouldn't be allowed to breath or joke that it would be funny if the opponent meets a tragic end.

Adelady, could you please provide several citations showing that the United States is unusual or extremely high in homicide rates? This claim contradicts just about everything I've read including the source I linked to earlier where the US is midrange and many nations have a higher homicide rate, including South American countries and Asian countries.
I'm baffled by your repeated claim.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Adelady, could you please provide several citations showing that the United States is unusual or extremely high in homicide rates? This claim contradicts just about everything I've read including the source I linked to earlier where the US is midrange and many nations have a higher homicide rate, including South American countries and Asian countries.
I'm baffled by your repeated claim.

The wiki tables shows the UN data....no real reason to dispute them.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US homocide rate is nearly four times higher than most other advanced nations, the lethality of guns being a big part of the reason. About 2/3 of those are by handguns.

And so many generallized numbers don't apply in this case.

Consider what we know so far: he used a high capacity semi-auto rifle to do most of the killing. This isn't typical, most homocide in the US is done by handguns.

This guy seemed off the radar in terms of mental health problems, or past troubles with the law-- improved mental health care most likely wouldn't have prevented this case. This guy could have probably passed any reasonable screening even if he's decided to purchase the guns he used that day.

The US Constitution 2nd amendment has always been pretty fuzzy--the writings by the founding fathers make a few things clear though--they wanted the citizenry to have the ability to form a militia to repel foreign or domestic tyranny and their homes. This intent is why I've always thought handguns don't apply nor should fall under the 2nd, while rifles should. The courts have recently lumped all firearms together and decided there's near absolute protection for those rights. A constitutional admendment change are very unlikely.

Ok, so the qualifier is that it has a high amount for being a developed country, but not the highest, nor the highest among general nations, got it.

Yep. For an OECD country, it's not just high, it's an outlier.

The easiest way to see ranking in the world is to click on the "Rate" heading on the "By Country" listing on this page. You can see how many are above and below, and compare with countries you'd think of as being comparable. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by adelady

Yep. For an OECD country, it's not just high, it's an outlier.

The easiest way to see ranking in the world is to click on the "Rate" heading on the "By Country" listing on this page. You can see how many are above and below, and compare with countries you'd think of as being comparable. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm not following you at all.
I did as you suggested, the US is less than Russia and the Ukraine. It's midrange. What am I missing here? That if it's higher than other European countries or Australia than it must be an outlier? There are less developed countries that have a lower homicide rate above and below the U.S.
There are developed countries with a higher rate than the U.S. and developed countries with a lower rate.

I'm just not seeing the extremity here- it still looks Midrange.

if it's higher than other European countries or Australia than it must be an outlier?

Among OECD countries I can only see Estonia with a higher murder rate - which has a population about the same as Nebraska or West Virginia. Though here there's an obvious problem with different data collections - those two states both seem to have higher murder rates than Estonia but it looks a bit odd.

A lot of the ex USSR and Eastern European countries, but not all, have murder rates higher than the USA. Considering how Russia in particular collapsed after the end of state control with death rates from TB to measles to alcoholism to violence and just about everything else increasing tremendously. being better than them is a bit like being better than South Africa. Not an achievement.

I think there are a lot of factors in this one and it's best for anyone to reserve judgment on causes for murder rates.

I just wonder what the strongest contributing factors are.

Adelady, I'd have to really crunch the numbers on this one and frankly, I got my hands full with work, holidays and whatnot- I've not been delving into serious posting lately.

Thing is, I'll take your word for it on these figures for now- You're not exatly an unreliable source where science is concerned.

But when I do have time, I want to follow up on it and some heavy comparing between nations and factors of crime rates. It just seems like it comes up in many debates.
Guns? Comparing murder rates between countries of differing laws
Religion? Comparing murder rates between different cultures and religious nations.
So on and so on.

This is a nice compilation of original and literature review research. Homicide - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

Haven't yet looked at it but this one looks to be the most interesting (to me anyway).

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

My issue with availability is Firearm Training and ownership.

Here's the real clincher: Most people are not armed and not armed about their daily business.

So- firearms are more readily available to those that may wish to do harm or are motivated to do so, but those that would be using them for self defense do not undergo training nor ownership.

What's left is a bunch of people that have the right to arm and defend themselves, but choose not to do so. Then, they blame firearms when a lunatic uses one improperly.

Self reliance and accountability... not in my backyard! Maybe one could be responsible and say, "I knew that there was a certain risk to living in society, maybe I should have taken the necessary and proper precautions instead of doing nothing- then calling for someone else to come and save my butt after I failed to do anything- then I'll blame the implement used, rather than the people or *gasp* myself!"

If these madmen had to shoot into an armed crowd, they'd lose the purpose even if their intent is to die. As it is, they are mowing into a crowd of unarmed people. The shock value and societal impact from the damages will be large. But if he was going to get popped off the moment he pulls out his firearm and starts in... he'd lose the purpose.

People are less quick to shoot at someone who will shoot back.

I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gun murders are against unarmed people.

If firearms caused murders, then there would be 44million shooting murders a day. No, the implication of that is absurd.
If you have ten people armed, does that mean those ten people are going to start shooting at eachother?

The larger population you have, the higher the odds you will have a murderer within that population.

A very interesting article:
Are We Hardwired to Kill? : The Intersection

This one is a pdf file that wants to download to your computer:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...55534169,d.b2U

So, we are animals. Yet, in our society, many people abhor the idea that we are animals. It's easier to find blame elsewhere.

#2 Males usually attack when the ratio is 3:1. Wrangham and Wilson reported that both chimpanzees and young men in gangs attack when they outnumber their victim 3 to 1 or more. The reason for this? This is the minimum number that can safely overpower a single victim.

The more populated, the more attacks. The USA is one of the heavier populated nations on the planet. (Estonia has a much smaller population...)

#3 The murder rate between chimps and humans is the same. Before we had inventive weaponry that could kill thousands with the press of a button, humans lived in hunter gatherer groups where we lived off the land like chimpanzees. Watts et al, reported that in these societies the homicide rate in humans and chimps is about the same.

The larger population you have, the higher the odds you will have a murderer within that population.

That's why murder rates across the world are expressed per 100000 of population.

The lack of gun availability has had a big impact in Australia. No mass killings - none at all (unless 2 counts as mass, but many domestic killings involve more than that) - in the 16 years since the Port Arthur mass murder. I don't see the USA going for the same bans on handguns as we have, but the only guns generally legal here are now shotguns and rifles. No high capacity clips. They're strictly for the military only. Since the big buy-back there have been several amnesties for handing in guns, no questions asked.

Now it's basically cops and robbers with handguns and noone else. And criminals seem to concentrate their efforts mostly on killing each other rather than anyone else.

Originally Posted by adelady

That's why murder rates across the world are expressed per 100000 of population.

Density plays a role that I think is not being factored in, here.

Originally Posted by adelady

Now it's basically cops and robbers with handguns and noone else. And criminals seem to concentrate their efforts mostly on killing each other rather than anyone else.

Crime in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -interesting...
So, cops and robbers doing their thing, there... But that doesn't apply to all other countries? Yes, robbers doing their thing- murder is murder. You cannot discount that, even if the claim they only kill eachother is accurate (which I don't think it is.)

You cannot discount that, even if the claim they only kill each other is accurate (which I don't think it is.)

Nothing is entirely one thing and nothing else. But homicides by gun are dominated in Australia by gang warfare and family violence. Armed robbery is nowadays dominated by smallish events/soft targets with people using knives, machetes and syringes or steel pipe or baseball bats.

Of course, our other great advantage is in the reduced numbers of accidental deaths and suicides by gunshot. These numbers are huge in the USA.

http://upwithchris.tumblr.com/post/3...dren-are-often

Originally Posted by adelady

Nothing is entirely one thing and nothing else. But homicides by gun are dominated in Australia by gang warfare and family violence.

And this is different from elsewhere- how?
As for the rest, if the bank was armed, even a gunman would think twice about busting in to rob it.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

It stands to reason that if there are more guns, more murders will be committed by a gun, but that doesn't necessarily mean that many more murders of all types would occur, though at least some of it can be attributed to the fact that it is easier to kill with a gun than with about anything else.

In the USA, guns account for between 60 to 70% of murder weapons, nearly accounting for all the extra murders you see in your stats, but not quite, meaning the US is a slightly more violent society than the UK, made worse by easy access to firearms.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The US Constitution 2nd amendment has always been pretty fuzzy--

What I don't get is how 'arms' is interpreted solely as 'firearms'.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

made worse by easy access to firearms.

This is non sequitur.
It doesn't follow.

Again, it's access to firearms when the "victims" that have the same access choose to not support a proper defense. I find it more vulgar, to be blunt.

One difference between the USA and other countries is that in school, kids are disciplined. At home, kids are disciplined.
But the trend in the USA for the last thirty years or so is that discipline is somehow bad. We're supposed to coddle the self esteem.

But if kids do what kids do- and bullying happens, the victim of bullying is more likely to get in trouble for fighting back because of the coddly "Zero-Tolerance" policies that get the victim chastised for striking or punching a bully- zero tolerance for getting physical.
So when these mentally deranged kids snap...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This is non sequitur.
It doesn't follow.

Again, it's access to firearms when the "victims" that have the same access choose to not support a proper defense. I find it more vulgar, to be blunt.

Of course it follows. Read the report Adelady linked to. More guns = more homicides, period. It's time to stop navel gazing and trying to excuse the prevalence of handguns, and stop passing the blame onto other factors. Lax gun laws are to blame for the most part.

'Supporting a proper defense' is just ridiculous, armed people get shot dead too.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

So when these mentally deranged kids snap...

The kid was not 'mentally deranged' and such comments are not helpful.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by Neverfly

So when these mentally deranged kids snap...

The kid was not 'mentally deranged' and such comments are not helpful.

Really? So it's mentally stable to shoot up a school?

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Of course it follows. Read the report Adelady linked to. More guns = more homicides, period. It's time to stop navel gazing and trying to excuse the prevalence of handguns, and stop passing the blame onto other factors. Lax gun laws are to blame for the most part.

'Supporting a proper defense' is just ridiculous, armed people get shot dead too.

I saw it- it just doesn't impress me much. A large chunk of people decide on a whim that it's the job of others to protect them and they refuse to take part in their own survival and defense. No, it's scapegoating and pointing the finger to blame anyone but SELF.
Lax gun laws aren't the problem- society as a whole is. It's broken. I saw Adelady's link- see mine also, showing it's our animal nature to behave this way, no matter the tool used.

We deny this constantly and instead, try to blame anything but ourselves.
Passing the blame onto other factors is exactly what you're doing.
Armed people get shot dead too- a lot less frequently than unarmed ones.

All the hand-waiving in the world won't alter the fact that most shooters would opt out of walking into a loaded room. Most criminals seek easy prey.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Really? So it's mentally stable to shoot up a school?

you implied he was 'mentally deranged' before he snapped, implying the the diagnosis of Aspergers was to blame.

I saw it- it just doesn't impress me much. A large chunk of people decide on a whim that it's the job of others to protect them

That's BS. I live in England, the protection I have is protection FROM firearms, I don't want to be 'protected' _by_ one, because they afford zero protection. The sooner gun strokers wise up to this the better.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

you implied he was 'mentally deranged' before he snapped, implying the the diagnosis of Aspergers was to blame.

That wasn't my intention at all- Poor wording on my part. No, I consider the whole snapping bit as evidence that his mind wasn't set quite right.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

That's BS. I live in England, the protection I have is protection FROM firearms, I don't want to be 'protected' _by_ one, because they afford zero protection. The sooner gun strokers wise up to this the better.

Zero protection! Oh, that was a good one. Go on- tell another one!

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Zero protection! Oh, that was a good one. Go on- tell another one!

I was taught to shoot by my father, a small arms instructor in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, who has survived live fire exchanges during periods of unrest. He made a few things very clear, amongst them were the advice to only point a gun at someone I genuinely intended to kill, and to assume that was the intention of anyone who points a gun at me. So, if I draw on you, you are dead. If you draw on me, I'll try to make you dead before you can make me dead, there'll be no 'put the gun down man' type stand off, I'll just double tap you and then stick one in your skull for good measure. Guns are for killing people, body armour is for protection.

You only need guns to protect against guns... a society full of guns offers no more reasurance than a society were guns are banished.

When we talk about survival, then it seems to me that guns are an unatural mechanism which is therefore interfering with natural survival mechanisms. Thats ofcourse assuming that it is natural to kill another human, I personally don't see that as the truth.

We are clearly very distinct from the rest of the animals... They are not violent, the just have the occasional test of strength to determine mating rights (by and large)...

for everbod to have a gun is actually far removed from the natural survival mechanisms that have served us for however long... A dispute over a girlfriend or boyfriend which results in the one who is fastest on the trigger winning, means that those with quick fingers and a willingness to kill others dead will prosper in the evolutionary game. is that how we want the race to evolve?

I would rather see people revert to resolving disputes with the bodies they have developed... meaning that the strongest and fittest will prosper in the evolutionary game, just like with all the other animals. Healthy evolution. It so easy, if somebody doesn't want a confrontation, then they don't enter into one... if they do want a confrontation, then they use the tools that nature provided in order for the healthiest to prosper. that might be contrived to sound cold, but actually it seems colder to me to allow the weakest to prosper and create a 'devolution'.

Evolution dictated by willingness to kill and ability to buy guns is obviously going to lead to a far more pathological species, in my opinion.

I wouldn't want to advocate the tightening of gun laws on civilians, unless we also tighten the gun (weapons) laws of governments... The people and government should ban weapons completely and throw away the blue prints, ideally.

Our laws should be based not just on the greatest good for the greatest number, but also the greatest good for the evolution of our species as well as all other species.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Zero protection! Oh, that was a good one. Go on- tell another one!

I was taught to shoot by my father, a small arms instructor in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, who has survived live fire exchanges during periods of unrest. He made a few things very clear, amongst them were the advice to only point a gun at someone I genuinely intended to kill, and to assume that was the intention of anyone who points a gun at me. So, if I draw on you, you are dead. If you draw on me, I'll try to make you dead before you can make me dead, there'll be no 'put the gun down man' type stand off, I'll just double tap you and then stick one in your skull for good measure. Guns are for killing people, body armour is for protection.

All true- except that you negated your own argument. If someone has a weapon on you- that firearm will drop them. It is self defense. You cannot wear armor over your entire body and no more people walk out wearing full body armor than those that walk out armed.
A gunman can shoot at unarmored areas or weak points in it. You can only evade so much before you need to eliminate the threat.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

eliminate the threat.

In the Uk we've pretty much achieved that by having strict gun control. I don't need a gun because nobody else has one, see?

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by Neverfly

eliminate the threat.

In the Uk we've pretty much achieved that by having strict gun control. I don't need a gun because nobody else has one, see?

Yes, the threats have been eliminated by... wait a second...:
UKCrimeStats.com - The Leading Independent Crime Data Platform

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Having the gun available is not the reason this guy killed people. It was probably the reason he chose a gun as his preferred method but not his motivation for killing.

How do you explain that the homicide rate is four times that of the UK, if it's not influenced by the availability of guns?

The United States is a global community. It is a melting pot that holds the worlds people and cultures under one roof. With that comes the good and the bad.

If we look at states like North and South Dakota, some of the most heavily armed (gun wise) peoples/states, we see that guns do not lead to homicide. In fact, you are more likely to be killed by a knife, bat, sword or poison in those states than you are a gun. Just as safe as Europe. Why is that? The population of those states have a different culture than say the drug cartel and central and south american gangs living in parts of Texas, California, etc..

Outside of the mentally ill, which Europe and the rest of the world has, the level of gang violence and foreign influence within the United States due to organized crime is a problem the UK does not have on the scale the United States has it.

This violence is not due to guns though, it is due to organized crime and the cultures of those criminals. If the United States wanted to stop the violence they would do something meaningful like legalize drugs. The few neighborhoods and areas that produce the overwhelming majority of homicides in the United States would stop doing so. Homicides in the United States would drop like a ton of bricks from the top of a 10 story building.

The idea that democrats, liberals and socialist sell, "that people kill people with guns because they see a gun and then they are somehow possessed and forced by that gun to go kill people for no other reason or rhyme than the gun made them do it", is as silly as it gets. Thoughts, reasons, plans, power, greed, etc, make people kill others, and the instrument by which they carry out their plans or actions of murder are not the problem.

Banning guns in the US will only create more violence and more deaths by creating one more banned and illegal substance/thing that is easily obtained in the Americas that gangs and organized crime and criminals can make a fortune off in the united states.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The idea that democrats, liberals and socialist sell, "that people kill people with guns because they see a gun and then they are somehow possessed and forced by that gun to go kill people for no other reason or rhyme than the gun made them do it", is as silly as it gets. Thoughts, reasons, plans, power, greed, etc, make people kill others, and the instrument by which they carry out their plans or actions of murder are not the problem.

Political party affiliation aside: Bingo!

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Banning guns in the US will only create more violence and more deaths by creating one more banned and illegal substance/thing that is easily obtained in the Americas that gangs and organized crime and criminals can make a fortune off in the united states.

Why do people from england and australia care about gun access in the U.S.?

that'd be like me caring whether you wore hats

Originally Posted by sculptor

Why do people from england and australia care about gun access in the U.S.?

that'd be like me caring whether you wore hats

Hey, mean't to press the quote button there caught the like instead lol. But I think it is important what happens in America for many countries as it sets a standard and expectation levels, you guys have got the most powerful and richest country on the planet then naturally other countries are going to look to you for guidance.

looking to us for guidance
or looking to guide us?

if the former, buy yourself a rifle(or 2 or 3), shotgun, and pistol
................
but maybe you ain't got deer(read lunch) wandering over your back yard garden?

Why do people from england and australia care about gun access in the U.S.?

Why do we care about our neighbours or the people half a mile away or on the other side of our state or country?

Some of us have friends or relatives living in the USA.

Many of us care about people no matter where they are.

That's three for starters.

so
you care about me
and
you'll defend my right to keep weapons?

No I don't mind fishing and I'd quite happily shoot guns at target or on a shooting range, but I couldn't shoot an animal, I think I would really have to be starving to death before I could shoot an animal. But there are lots of countries where people own guns doesn't mean they all go out shooting people with them, it's the nutters of this world that go out and get what they need to do their damage. Yeah you could ban guns but how long then until the next massacre happens with a chain saw, then what ban power tools. Heck even in this country I could go down to the police station and get a shot gun license.

I eat meat
I think "grass fed" wild game is healthier than supermarket meat
I shoot 'em
I butcher 'em
I eat 'em
and I feel healthier for the effort

you'll defend my right to keep weapons?

Hunting rifles? Fine.

30 round magazines? No.

one shot
one kill

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Yeah you could ban guns but how long then until the next massacre happens with a chain saw, then what ban power tools. Heck even in this country I could go down to the police station and get a shot gun license.

I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight. There's a big difference between adapting something to kill, and allowing free, unchecked and unrestricted purchase of something like the Bushmaster rifle used in this incident. That rifle from its basic design to the round it used 0.223/5.56-NATO was designed from the ground up for killing people and use by the military--the only functional difference between it and the most common issued weapons used by NATO are the unavailability of burst or auto.

As for hunting, that bushmaster, isn't really a good hunting rifle--unless you like coyote, prairie dog or people. It's not even legal to hunt deer with it in most states. If however we wanted to throw off a tyrannical government it would be excellent.

So where does this leave us? What measures can we put into place to preserve every citizens right to defend their home when they live 30 minutes from a police response? How about work in large groups...a militia as the last stop gap if the US government decides to toss the US Constitution away? How do we minimize the crazies from getting their hands on these weapons?

Also, last time ago the definition of "assault rifle" was so muddled it was darn near meaningless and had more to do with cosmetics than capability. For starters nearly every dear rifle as well as most home defense rifles are semi-auto. Perhaps the most distinquishable feature we could restrict is round capacity, maximum clip/magazine sizes or perhaps even getting rid of clips and magazines altogether. That would have many good and effective tube fedd hunting and defense weapons with 3-5 rounds in high caliber and up to ten or so in smaller calibers. Of course they are more difficult to load, so would need to be left loaded in any realistic home defense scenario.

how many of the recent mass murder "crazies" owned the weapons they used?
what percentage?

It seems that freedom isn't free
it comes with risks

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Yeah you could ban guns but how long then until the next massacre happens with a chain saw, then what ban power tools. Heck even in this country I could go down to the police station and get a shot gun license.

I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight. There's a big difference between adapting something to kill, and allowing free, unchecked and unrestricted purchase of something like the Bushmaster rifle used in this incident. That rifle from its basic design to the round it used 0.223/5.56-NATO was designed from the ground up for killing people and use by the military--the only functional difference between it and the most common issued weapons used by NATO are the unavailability of burst or auto.

As for hunting, that bushmaster, isn't really a good hunting rifle--unless you like coyote, prairie dog or people. It's not even legal to hunt deer with it in most states. If however we wanted to throw off a tyrannical government it would be excellent.

So where does this leave us? What measures can we put into place to preserve every citizens right to defend their home when they live 30 minutes from a police response? How about work in large groups...a militia as the last stop gap if the US government decides to toss the US Constitution away? How do we minimize the crazies from getting their hands on these weapons?

Well I suppose if you wanted they could ban all the conventional fire arms and just let people have tranquiliser guns, I suppose you could still hunt with them and take down a burglar, I think Obama would have a hard time getting the legislation through though and the NRA would go nuts.

try and buy tranquiliser for tranquiliser guns
I do not know how to do this, and
even is the tranquilisers were available
I doubt that tranquiliser guns could replace rifles
and
do I want to eat meat heavily dosed with a tranquiliser?

(my uninformed opinion is NO)

You can restrict people, to try to control the minority- by controlling the majority.

Free and unrestricted... hmmm...

It just seems to me that the fault lies not in the "victims" but those that demand others be restricted just to make their own lives carry the illusion of being easier.

Some people like the idea of a guard but I don't. Even if I must take risks, I'd rather take risks than be at the mercy of a guard- a guard that may or not be incompetent.

Maybe I would live longer with bodyguards. But what kind of quality of life would I have? It's not just One legality- it's books full of them.

A little bit of responsibility from people... or everyone must be restricted- Not Free.
I prefer the responsibility. I truly cannot fathom why others would WANT to live as slaves to society, dependent on others to protect them. To never get passed childhood, being told what to do, how to do it, when to do it, what not to do, being punished and relying on those above for sustenance and protection.

Gotta grow up, sometime.

And I do care, too. I care about others, even to know they are ok in other countries. But none of us are ok. Some kids need Tough Love. And we're all being coddled, not allowed to grow up, leave the nest and take some damned risks in the world.

That's not good parenting. That's not caring, that's just controlling.

Maybe some people like to be children all their lives. I like being a kid sometimes, too. But when the trail gets tough, you gotta pack the kiddo away and get down to grim business. I don't want to be a kid forever, I don't want to avoid the risks of living- I want to be ALIVE and allowed to be, allowed to defend myself and to have quality of life, not just survival.

Maybe I'm just too primitive but the concept of "warm and safe" all the time doesn't appeal to me at all. It has its moments, but those moments should be at my choosing. How can one appreciate warm and safe if it's all there is?

Society isn't a grand civilization- it's a frightened child.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Yeah you could ban guns but how long then until the next massacre happens with a chain saw, then what ban power tools. Heck even in this country I could go down to the police station and get a shot gun license.

I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight. There's a big difference between adapting something to kill, and allowing free, unchecked and unrestricted purchase of something like the Bushmaster rifle used in this incident. That rifle from its basic design to the round it used 0.223/5.56-NATO was designed from the ground up for killing people and use by the military--the only functional difference between it and the most common issued weapons used by NATO are the unavailability of burst or auto.

As for hunting, that bushmaster, isn't really a good hunting rifle--unless you like coyote, prairie dog or people. It's not even legal to hunt deer with it in most states. If however we wanted to throw off a tyrannical government it would be excellent.

So where does this leave us? What measures can we put into place to preserve every citizens right to defend their home when they live 30 minutes from a police response? How about work in large groups...a militia as the last stop gap if the US government decides to toss the US Constitution away? How do we minimize the crazies from getting their hands on these weapons?

Also, last time ago the definition of "assault rifle" was so muddled it was darn near meaningless and had more to do with cosmetics than capability. For starters nearly every dear rifle as well as most home defense rifles are semi-auto. Perhaps the most distinquishable feature we could restrict is round capacity, maximum clip/magazine sizes or perhaps even getting rid of clips and magazines altogether. That would have many good and effective tube fedd hunting and defense weapons with 3-5 rounds in high caliber and up to ten or so in smaller calibers. Of course they are more difficult to load, so would need to be left loaded in any realistic home defense scenario.

Actually attacking schools and children is unfortunately nothing new in the world and different types of guns, bombs, knifes, cleavers, swords, etc., have been used and end up being the preferred weapon of choice for most of these mentally ill people.

In 1996 a man used a handgun to kill 16 children in Scotland. In Norway a man killed 77 people last year (2011) with a bomb and guns. In China, just this past Friday, 1 man walked into an elementary school with a knife and stabbed 22 kids, many of which are in critical condition. In 2010, China, 8 Children were killed by a knife in another attack on a school and 44 others were injured.

The .223 is also a hunting round/rifle. It is the military that adopted that round from hunters and then created the m16 around it. It is a .22 caliber hunting round. Outside of a BB gun, it is hard to get a smaller round than that. As a fully automatic weapon, the AR15/M16 platform is an effective battle machine gun rifle. As a semi auto rifle, it is not effective as a soldiers battle rifle. It would not be used in the military if it was semi auto. Troops would be dead or running for the hills if they had the AR15 semi auto.

Anytime criminals and the mentally ill attack and/or kill people with guns, there is always a group of people who do not care about why or how, they only use the tragedy to attack and restrict law biding citizens.... People have to ask themselves why and for what purpose/means/agenda?

It is, IMO, very disturbing that people use and want to use this as a political tool to push an agenda that has nothing at all to do with the tragedy. Banning anything and everything will not and would not prevent this tragedy and it will not prevent it in the future. Someone who is willing and ready to murder people simply will not and do not care if you make a law telling them it is illegal to posses a piece of metal. It does not even matter if they can get a gun or a .22 caliber rifle or not, they are going to murder men, women and children.

Originally Posted by adelady

you'll defend my right to keep weapons?

Hunting rifles? Fine.

30 round magazines? No.

There is only a split second difference, if any at all, between say a 10 round clip and a 30 round clip.. Even with that said, it is easy to make an extended clip for guns and what makes you think murderers will not make one if they need one? You think they will be afraid of the law saying its been banned? Do you think murderers are thinking how much they would love to go murder people but, because they only have a 10 round clip, and it is a crime to have a bigger one, they are going to stop murdering or are not going to go out and start murdering? They are going to be so scared and deterred by the 30 round mag ban that they will give up their murdering ways?

Ineffective, unimportant, not a solution and a lie sold as a solution/fix that fixes nothing and only effects law biding citizens.

Someone who is willing and ready to murder people simply will not and do not care if you make a law telling them it is illegal to posses a piece of metal. It does not even matter if they can get a gun or a .22 caliber rifle or not, they are going to murder men, women and children.

What we don't know about such people is what else they might want. For those who have a weird fantasy of bullets flying everywhere (whether it's film or game based or out of their own warped imaginations doesn't really matter), the unavailability of guns with large capacity clips/magazines is a big drawback. That cuts out some such attacks right from the start. It certainly would have reduced, if not eliminated, the death toll at Port Arthur. Seeing as we have had no such mass killings in the sixteen years since we outlawed, bought back or otherwise eliminated such guns in Australia after Port Arthur, that tells us it might be a good start.

For those who are going to do the "running amok" thing with a knife or machete, we know that far fewer people will die. There are three brave American schoolteachers with horrible scars on their hands and arms who fought off such a man in their school. None of the children in their school were even injured, let alone killed. No-one died in the knife attack outside a school in China the other day, although 20+ people, including children, were injured.

No, it just changed the name of the game:

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

The killing goes on- just not all at once.

From the '90s onward:
Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by adelady

Someone who is willing and ready to murder people simply will not and do not care if you make a law telling them it is illegal to posses a piece of metal. It does not even matter if they can get a gun or a .22 caliber rifle or not, they are going to murder men, women and children.

What we don't know about such people is what else they might want. For those who have a weird fantasy of bullets flying everywhere (whether it's film or game based or out of their own warped imaginations doesn't really matter), the unavailability of guns with large capacity clips/magazines is a big drawback. That cuts out some such attacks right from the start. It certainly would have reduced, if not eliminated, the death toll at Port Arthur. Seeing as we have had no such mass killings in the sixteen years since we outlawed, bought back or otherwise eliminated such guns in Australia after Port Arthur, that tells us it might be a good start.

For those who are going to do the "running amok" thing with a knife or machete, we know that far fewer people will die. There are three brave American schoolteachers with horrible scars on their hands and arms who fought off such a man in their school. None of the children in their school were even injured, let alone killed. No-one died in the knife attack outside a school in China the other day, although 20+ people, including children, were injured.

A measure like that will not work in the United States to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals. The United States is in a different part of the world, and guns will flow from central and south america into the United States, ending up in the hands of gangs, criminals and the insane. Removing guns from law biding citizens in the United States will insure that gangs, criminals and the insane stay heavily armed and the law biding citizens do not.

Two different situations. Two different national circumstances/conditions.

Last time I checked, the world was not sending fully automatic guns, grenades and rocket launchers to that part of the world. They send them to the Americas, and they have been, for decades now. The same drug routes the cartel use, they use to get their hands on these weapons from south america. Cut off guns in the United States and the Cartel will simply make money supplying gangs and the insane in the United States with these fully automatic weapons. Soon enough, law biding citizens will no longer be so and will also start buying these real military weapons.

Gangs and criminals in Australia still get hold of illegal weapons. But they mainly kill each other.

The biggest problem for mass killings is guns held legally in homes - as in Newtown - where someone loses their temper or has a first-time psychotic episode.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

No, it just changed the name of the game:

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

The killing goes on- just not all at once.

From the '90s onward:
Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now put them right in the middle of cartel country and warring nations, with illegal transport and trade routes set up all over north, central and south america, then remove the guns just from the law biding citizens, and guess what would happen?

It takes a highly ignorant person to believe that the cartel and gangs will not sell weapons and will disarm because a government banned its law biding citizens from buying something from Walmart.

Originally Posted by adelady

Gangs and criminals in Australia still get hold of illegal weapons. But they mainly kill each other.

The biggest problem for mass killings is guns held legally in homes - as in Newtown - where someone loses their temper or has a first-time psychotic episode.

Remove guns legally held in homes and what do you have left? In America, this would mean a drastic spike in real actual military weapons from South America (not the fake ones Walmart sells to American citizens) being needed by millions and millions of cartel, mafia and gang members in the United States. This will lead to law biding citizens demanding these same guns too. Now the crazy people can get their hands on real military weapons and weaponry.

It is a supply thing. If the gangs in your country are easily getting their hands on fully automatic weapons then it is only a matter of time before a crazy person gets their hands on one. Now what have you done? You have slowed down the tragedies in your country for a while, but what happens when fully automatic machine guns and/or grenades are used next time? What did you accomplish and how do you get murderers and gangs to give up their guns?

The gang problems you have in your country is also nothing compared to the cartel and central and south american gorillas and mafias found in the United States. The American gangs will stay armed and rearm as fast and swiftly as they can, and they will do so mainly with the military weapons found in south america because that is what will mainly be available to them. What then? What has been accomplished?

If the gangs in your country are easily getting their hands on fully automatic weapons

Not many. Remember we've also banned handguns (the Dunblane school shooting was in the same period). So they concentrate on those just as much.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Why do people from england and australia care about gun access in the U.S.?

that'd be like me caring whether you wore hats

Because the largest supplier of illegal firearms in the Uk was re-activating MAC10s imported from the USA and selling them to criminals. Your guns become our gun problem. But hey, carry on with the isolationist attitude, it's not like you are reinforcing a stereotype or anything.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by Neverfly

eliminate the threat.

In the Uk we've pretty much achieved that by having strict gun control. I don't need a gun because nobody else has one, see?

Yes, the threats have been eliminated by... wait a second...:
UKCrimeStats.com - The Leading Independent Crime Data Platform

Are you trying to make a point? Robberies and muggings are slightly more prevalent in the UK. Slightly. Murders and rapes four times more prevalent in the USA. Your guns are not keeping you safe from murder or rape.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The United States is a global community. It is a melting pot that holds the worlds people and cultures under one roof. With that comes the good and the bad.

My City has approximately 50% non-white population, yet a lower crime rate than many others which have less of a racial and ethnic mix. I find the claim that a 'melting pot' is somehow to blame fallacious therefore. Seems to be the more dense the population, and the less affluent, sees higher crime, irrespective of background.

If we look at states like North and South Dakota, some of the most heavily armed (gun wise) peoples/states, we see that guns do not lead to homicide. In fact, you are more likely to be killed by a knife, bat, sword or poison in those states than you are a gun.

That's the 'murder' rate, given dead men tell no tales, and those states have a 'Stand your ground' law, I wonder how many murders have been overlooked? Those states are also an exception, rather than the rule, and using that to try to prove something is poor science.

Just as safe as Europe. Why is that?

Not quite, both states still have a higher over all murder rate.

The population of those states have a different culture than say the drug cartel and central and south american gangs living in parts of Texas, California, etc..

Here we go with the double speak. If gun crime and homicide is intrinsically linked to those groups, and you are not a member of one of those groups, why do you need a gun?

Outside of the mentally ill, which Europe and the rest of the world has, the level of gang violence and foreign influence within the United States due to organized crime is a problem the UK does not have on the scale the United States has it.

So arming your gangs via lax guns laws is the answer?

This violence is not due to guns though,

Nope, and cars don't cause car crashes, and motorcycles don't cause motorcycle crashes, but we accept we need the safeguards of seatbelts and helmets, don't we?

Banning guns in the US will only create more violence and more deaths by creating one more banned and illegal substance/thing that is easily obtained in the Americas that gangs and organized crime and criminals can make a fortune off in the united states.

It's possibly too late to fix, but do you really think things should continue? That the price of murdered children is OK so folks can have a gun they don't need? I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns, just tightening up ownership criteria, licensing, registration, restriction of ammunition sales to valid permit holders, safety and competency tests. You know, the kind of regulation you accept is required for vehicle ownership and operation, without screaming it violates your constitutional right to free travel.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Your guns are not keeping you safe from murder or rape.

As I pointed out, the culture is divided.

Many people buy into the bunk that they are supposed to let others deal with threats. They don't arm themselves, even if they have the right or freedom to do so.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Your guns are not keeping you safe from murder or rape.

As I pointed out, the culture is divided.

Many people buy into the bunk that they are supposed to let others deal with threats. They don't arm themselves, even if they have the right or freedom to do so.

Have you ever needed your gun to deal with threats in everyday life in America? Or does it just give you some comfort to have it on you?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

As I pointed out, the culture is divided.

Many people buy into the bunk that they are supposed to let others deal with threats. They don't arm themselves, even if they have the right or freedom to do so.

Women are the targets of the vast majority of rapes, yet only ~23% of women arm themselves, compared with 47% of the general population. So why is this? It's about perceived risk, isn't it? Non gun owners aren't asking for others to deal with threats, they just don't perceive the risk to be as high as gun owners do, so don't feel they need to be armed to feel safe.

But then pro-gun types talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time, on one hand saying they need a gun for protection, whilst dismissing the horrific gun homicide rate as being internecine squabbles amongst drug pushers. If the vast majority of the threat come from within that group, and you aren't a drug pusher, you don't need to defend yourself from that threat.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Your guns are not keeping you safe from murder or rape.

As I pointed out, the culture is divided.

Many people buy into the bunk that they are supposed to let others deal with threats. They don't arm themselves, even if they have the right or freedom to do so.

Have you ever needed your gun to deal with threats in everyday life in America? Or does it just give you some comfort to have it on you?

Gun owners report using their gun for self defense more often that non-gun owners report crimes against themselves. So either guns are crime magnets, or owners a little paranoid and pull their piece when someone they don't like the look of gets too close. Gun defense stats are ridiculous, if taken at face value, they undermine everything gun ownership allegedly achieves.

Originally Posted by question for you

Have you ever needed your gun to deal with threats in everyday life in America? Or does it just give you some comfort to have it on you?

In some situations, I might need a firearm. I'm sure it would be quite nice to have one handy when I do need it, however rare it is I might. Burglery and rapes and muggins are not so frequent. Yet, when they do happen, as all rare things eventually do, being armed is quite the boon when your families health and safety may be in danger.

I do not own any firearms, however. It's not from a lack of desire, I'd like to have a good rifle, for example.
If I had my way, everyone would be walking around with a pistol at the hip. Thing is, it's not my way. I live in a society that is divided on the issue.

For example, I take my little son to the Zoo. Everything's going fine (Ok, I'm not a big fan of zoo's; it's just an example) and my son's admiring the interesting animals when suddenly, a PETA wanna be psychopath comes blazing in.
Hey, it's rare but these things actually do happen in real life.
So, let's assume the world is my way. Dude comes in all crazy and instantly, he is a threat to my son.

Not a good thing to be.

I do not care about his motives. I don't care about his life or whether he was being spontaneous or really thought it all out. In that moment, he is nothing to me except for a threat to my son.

I draw and fire and -problem solved. No more people being shot at in a crowd, no more threat. It's quick.

This is primitive. It's the primal wrath of a parent. It's not necessarily logical or even proper. It's human.

So, how often does this happen? Well, any frequency is too much as far as society is concerned. So saying it doesn't happen often enough for one to bother to be armed is nonsense.

As it is, I'm unarmed- mostly due to the culture of my society. I don't usually need a gun for self defense, most things, aside from a rabid shooter with an automatic rifle I can handle without a gun.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Gun owners report using their gun for self defense more often that non-gun owners report crimes against themselves. So either guns are crime magnets, or owners a little paranoid and pull their piece when someone they don't like the look of gets too close. Gun defense stats are ridiculous, if taken at face value, they undermine everything gun ownership allegedly achieves.

Back this up with said stats.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Women are the targets of the vast majority of rapes, yet only ~23% of women arm themselves, compared with 47% of the general population. So why is this? It's about perceived risk, isn't it? Non gun owners aren't asking for others to deal with threats, they just don't perceive the risk to be as high as gun owners do, so don't feel they need to be armed to feel safe.

Good question. A lot of people see burglaries and rapes as things that happen to other people, not to them- Until it does. Many women do take courses in firearm use after they have been raped and arm themselves- after the fact.
The mentality of "it won't happen to me" is prevalent. You can hardly use that to support your claims.

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by Neverfly

As I pointed out, the culture is divided.

Many people buy into the bunk that they are supposed to let others deal with threats. They don't arm themselves, even if they have the right or freedom to do so.

Women are the targets of the vast majority of rapes, yet only ~23% of women arm themselves, compared with 47% of the general population. So why is this? It's about perceived risk, isn't it? Non gun owners aren't asking for others to deal with threats, they just don't perceive the risk to be as high as gun owners do, so don't feel they need to be armed to feel safe.

But then pro-gun types talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time, on one hand saying they need a gun for protection, whilst dismissing the horrific gun homicide rate as being internecine squabbles amongst drug pushers. If the vast majority of the threat come from within that group, and you aren't a drug pusher, you don't need to defend yourself from that threat.

Believing that gangs and criminals only sell drugs and only go after drug dealers is ignorance at its best. Organized crime and criminals have their hands and reach into just about everything the governments gives out, taxes to much, restrict and outlaws.

My cousin was just shot by a thug for not pulling into his own driveway fast enough. The thug even got out of his car and went after him to kill him until my cousin pulled his own gun out and fired a few rounds in his direction. One cannot carry a police officer with them and so they better carry a gun if they wish to protect themselves.

I myself grew up in rough neighborhoods, been shot at more than a few time, even been stabbed and I know how the streets in america are and how they work. Gangs, thugs and the ignorant go out all the time looking to rob, hurt and victimize people. It is just a matter of time before people will need a policeman or a gun, and I can promise you the gun will be there far faster and far more often than a policeman ever will be. Policemen tend to investigate crimes, not prevent them or stop them while in progress.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Yeah you could ban guns but how long then until the next massacre happens with a chain saw, then what ban power tools. Heck even in this country I could go down to the police station and get a shot gun license.

I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight. There's a big difference between adapting something to kill, and allowing free, unchecked and unrestricted purchase of something like the Bushmaster rifle used in this incident. That rifle from its basic design to the round it used 0.223/5.56-NATO was designed from the ground up for killing people and use by the military--the only functional difference between it and the most common issued weapons used by NATO are the unavailability of burst or auto.

As for hunting, that bushmaster, isn't really a good hunting rifle--unless you like coyote, prairie dog or people. It's not even legal to hunt deer with it in most states. If however we wanted to throw off a tyrannical government it would be excellent.

So where does this leave us? What measures can we put into place to preserve every citizens right to defend their home when they live 30 minutes from a police response? How about work in large groups...a militia as the last stop gap if the US government decides to toss the US Constitution away? How do we minimize the crazies from getting their hands on these weapons?

Also, last time ago the definition of "assault rifle" was so muddled it was darn near meaningless and had more to do with cosmetics than capability. For starters nearly every dear rifle as well as most home defense rifles are semi-auto. Perhaps the most distinquishable feature we could restrict is round capacity, maximum clip/magazine sizes or perhaps even getting rid of clips and magazines altogether. That would have many good and effective tube fedd hunting and defense weapons with 3-5 rounds in high caliber and up to ten or so in smaller calibers. Of course they are more difficult to load, so would need to be left loaded in any realistic home defense scenario.

Actually attacking schools and children is unfortunately nothing new in the world and different types of guns, bombs, knifes, cleavers, swords, etc., have been used and end up being the preferred weapon of choice for most of these mentally ill people.

In 1996 a man used a handgun to kill 16 children in Scotland. In Norway a man killed 77 people last year (2011) with a bomb and guns. In China, just this past Friday, 1 man walked into an elementary school with a knife and stabbed 22 kids, many of which are in critical condition. In 2010, China, 8 Children were killed by a knife in another attack on a school and 44 others were injured.

The .223 is also a hunting round/rifle. It is the military that adopted that round from hunters and then created the m16 around it. It is a .22 caliber hunting round. Outside of a BB gun, it is hard to get a smaller round than that. As a fully automatic weapon, the AR15/M16 platform is an effective battle machine gun rifle. As a semi auto rifle, it is not effective as a soldiers battle rifle. It would not be used in the military if it was semi auto. Troops would be dead or running for the hills if they had the AR15 semi auto.

Anytime criminals and the mentally ill attack and/or kill people with guns, there is always a group of people who do not care about why or how, they only use the tragedy to attack and restrict law biding citizens.... People have to ask themselves why and for what purpose/means/agenda?

It is, IMO, very disturbing that people use and want to use this as a political tool to push an agenda that has nothing at all to do with the tragedy. Banning anything and everything will not and would not prevent this tragedy and it will not prevent it in the future. Someone who is willing and ready to murder people simply will not and do not care if you make a law telling them it is illegal to posses a piece of metal. It does not even matter if they can get a gun or a .22 caliber rifle or not, they are going to murder men, women and children.

You should do some reading about the history. The 0.223/5.56 was developed specifically to meet NATO standards after lessons from WWII and extensively tested against many other rounds developed during that period for the same purpose. Not a single example you provide excluded a gun or took as many lives--it contradicted your own statements. We did have a bombing of a school way back in 1927 that took more lives--but average people can't buy dynamite anymore.

You are also wrong about semi-auto capability. I was in the Army for 24 years as well as did operations with other NATO and trained the Iraqi Army--semi automatic fire is the standard of fire; it is not only how we train, it's how we use the M16/M4 weapons in combat. Semi auto single shots at long to medium range...and semi-auto double taps in close quarters/reflexive fire (e.g. building) fights.

Though developed for killing humans, the is a pretty good vermit rifle. Many of my friends still hunt (I don't so much anymore). The 0.223/5.56 is something you screw around with at a range, not something people go hunting with very often. If I wanted to go hunting I'd grab a 12 gauge, or 30-30 or 30-06. (though 25-06 is my favorite!)

---
To those who ask if guns are required? I've personally used a rifle to deter trespassers twice; both times when I was living 20+ minutes away from a police response. Neither was reported because I dealt with the situation and didn't want to spend the night answering dumb questions at the police station. As a civilian, I've never taken a gun for protection outside my home.

--
I don't have an agenda. I do think it's time we take a hard look at what's reasonable access for certain types of weapons.

I am not against tougher restrictions on owning a gun in general but I wouldn't want to see a ban on any type of weapon.

I think it would be reasonable to have exams be taken to obtain a firearm. Appropriate tests for appropriate firearms. Tests over general firearm safety as well as understanding what the legal uses of the gun are. For handguns, I think people should have to demonstrate the working knowledge of the legal definition of "self defense". I also think some working knowledge of how to handle the weapon should be demonstrated. If you can't hit the broad side of a barn, maybe you shouldn't be licensed to fire a weapon. Would be terrible if you go to shoot an intruder and your aim is so bad you hit grandma who is 50 feet away from the target.

We take similar tests to get a driving license. Something similar for a firearm would seem reasonable.


All that being said, did anyone have any thoughts on the OP? Just curious, because this thread was an attempt to address the socially irresponsible style of reporting that attempts to vilify people with Aspergers. I have an issue with this because I am an aspie myself and have plenty of times had access to guns when I was angry at people but never reached for those guns. Aspergers (AS is being abandoned as a separate diagnosis from autism btw) is simply not an issue associated with violence.

If the guy had been Muslim it would have fed more hatred towards Muslims, if he had been a Scientologist again, that would have fed hatred if not ridicule for them. The thing is, the article was useless and gave us no information about why the attack happened, it only gave the public seeds of speculation of blame for a relatively harmless personality trait.

Just curious, because this thread was an attempt to address the socially irresponsible style of reporting that attempts to vilify people with Aspergers.

Exactly. There's nothing about being an aspie that would lead to this kind of mass violence. There's very little in personality disorders or psychiatric conditions generally that leads in this direction. The main thing involved is what the Malaysians call 'running amok' - which can happen to an otherwise normal person 'losing it', or it can be the first psychotic episode in a developing psychiatric illness. Either way it can't be predicted or controlled. People who've already had psychotic episodes can be treated and medicated - but not those who haven't yet demonstrated this proclivity.

I am not against tougher restrictions on owning a gun in general but I wouldn't want to see a ban on any type of weapon.

This piece is from a woman who knows guns but who might have a different view. To put it briefly, she approves of shotguns for home defence. Not so keen on other weapons, neither assault rifles nor handguns. It's pretty long. You can skip the section between the photo with dogs and the strip of booth photos and still get the points she wants to make. How a Gun-Loving West Texas Girl Learned to Fear Assault Weapons | xoJane

Me, I'd think a ban on hollow point bullets wouldn't be too hard a first step.

Originally Posted by adelady

Just curious, because this thread was an attempt to address the socially irresponsible style of reporting that attempts to vilify people with Aspergers.

Exactly. There's nothing about being an aspie that would lead to this kind of mass violence. There's very little in personality disorders or psychiatric conditions generally that leads in this direction. The main thing involved is what the Malaysians call 'running amok' - which can happen to an otherwise normal person 'losing it', or it can be the first psychotic episode in a developing psychiatric illness. Either way it can't be predicted or controlled. People who've already had psychotic episodes can be treated and medicated - but not those who haven't yet demonstrated this proclivity.

I am not against tougher restrictions on owning a gun in general but I wouldn't want to see a ban on any type of weapon.

This piece is from a woman who knows guns but who might have a different view. To put it briefly, she approves of shotguns for home defence. Not so keen on other weapons, neither assault rifles nor handguns. It's pretty long. You can skip the section between the photo with dogs and the strip of booth photos and still get the points she wants to make. How a Gun-Loving West Texas Girl Learned to Fear Assault Weapons | xoJane

Me, I'd think a ban on hollow point bullets wouldn't be too hard a first step.

I wasn't considering bullets. I don't see why anyone would need hollow point bullets. I don't see why police would need them even. the general population doesn't walk around in body armor. But , and I am taking a guess here, I don't think you need a specialized gun to fire hollow points. So banning the hollow point bullets would not make any firearm unusable. I would not be against banning hollow points. But the weapons themselves, I don't think should be banned. Restrictions on who can get them and how I'd be fine with.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Believing that gangs and criminals only sell drugs and only go after drug dealers is ignorance at its best.

That's not my argument. Pro gun types excuse the horrific gun homicide rate by saying it's mostly internecine Gang squabbles, to say it's illegal gun ownership fuelling the stats. They then use the same stats to justify legal gun ownership. If non Gang members aren't the victim that often, who need a gun?

My cousin was just shot by a thug for not pulling into his own driveway fast enough. The thug even got out of his car and went after him to kill him until my cousin pulled his own gun out and fired a few rounds in his direction.

And if neither side had gun, someone probably just gets a black eye. You aren't making a good case for lax gun laws.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Back this up with said stats.

Simply compare the 'gun defense' stats published by Gary Kleck et al, and compare them to FBI crime stats. Either gun owners attract crime, or Kleck's stats are bogus.

Good question. A lot of people see burglaries and rapes as things that happen to other people, not to them-

And that is mostly true, it's doesn't happen to the vast majority of people. The question is, is having lax guns laws that contribute towards the murders of a bunch of innocent schoolkids a price worth paying to try and prevent a crime against someone that might never actually happen?

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The .223 is also a hunting round/rifle. It is the military that adopted that round from hunters and then created the m16 around it. It is a .22 caliber hunting round. Outside of a BB gun, it is hard to get a smaller round than that. As a fully automatic weapon, the AR15/M16 platform is an effective battle machine gun rifle. As a semi auto rifle, it is not effective as a soldiers battle rifle. It would not be used in the military if it was semi auto. Troops would be dead or running for the hills if they had the AR15 semi auto.

Oh dear, the .223 was specifically developed for the military.

You then mix your terminology .22 ≠ .223 the designation .22 is used for rimfire cartridges, whereas .223 denotes centrefire.

Then we get onto your 'fully auto' claims. I was taught to shoot using a L1A1 SLR, a derivative of the FN FAL battle rifle, except it had no select fire, and was single shot only. Despite being single shot semi-auto only, it was fit for purpose, and I'd happily go up against a fully auto M16 with one, if both of us had to carry our ammunition. 'Spray and pray' is all a bit Hollywood, where I expect you have gathered most of your gun 'facts' from. I'm afraid even with a fully auto, if your first shot misses, it's not reasonable to expect the second or third to hit, it just doesn't work like that. If you doubt the efficacy of single shots to kill, you should review the case of 'The DC Sniper' who used a Bushmaster.

7.62 x39
or
300 win mag(my current favorite)
or
5.56x 45
or
22
or
.38, or .45, or .44 magnum
or
7.62 x 51 (which I really enjoyed)
or a 12 guage slug
or a 50 caliber muzzle loader
all
deadly
for the correct prey

of the last 9 murders locally
5 were from knives ( a woman stabbed her doctor husband---an embezzler stabbed his wife and children, then shot himself, and a fellow in cr stabbed his neighbor)
4 from guns(of those 4, 3 were by cops)(2 in the back as the "suspect" fled)
......so, discounting the cops, you got 5 murders from knives, and one suicide via pistol

..................
the weapons don't really matter much
it is the mindset that allows someone to shuffle off the societal prohibition: "Thou shall not kill".

And, that cannot be legislated away

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I wasn't considering bullets. I don't see why anyone would need hollow point bullets. I don't see why police would need them even. the general population doesn't walk around in body armor. But , and I am taking a guess here, I don't think you need a specialized gun to fire hollow points. So banning the hollow point bullets would not make any firearm unusable. I would not be against banning hollow points. But the weapons themselves, I don't think should be banned. Restrictions on who can get them and how I'd be fine with.

I don't think you are familiar with hand gun ammunition. Hollow point bullets are usually preferred due to their designed ability to flatten out when hitting a target or body. They deliver more force to the surface area and are less penetrating. Due to it being less penetrating, it is less likely that bullet would continue through a target/body and hit another target/body. These bullets are considered more "safe" to use in a civilian environment. Therefore restricting hollow point bullets may cause more severe wounds to the primary target/body and anyone behind them.

Originally Posted by sculptor

And, that cannot be legislated away

You sure, because in the UK we have strict firearms laws, and 1/4 the murder rate. Seems we are going a long way towards exactly what you say can't be done. Maybe you need more imagination?

Originally Posted by Phlogistician

Originally Posted by sculptor

And, that cannot be legislated away

You sure, because in the UK we have strict firearms laws, and 1/4 the murder rate. Seems we are going a long way towards exactly what you say can't be done. Maybe you need more imagination?

Non seqitur.
Demonstrate the relation.
In other words; prove that strict firearms directly led to 1/4 the murder rate.

I don't think it can be said to be a case of strict firearms laws leading to a 75% reduction... it would be more a question of whether lax laws have led to a 300% increase.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I wasn't considering bullets. I don't see why anyone would need hollow point bullets. I don't see why police would need them even. the general population doesn't walk around in body armor. But , and I am taking a guess here, I don't think you need a specialized gun to fire hollow points. So banning the hollow point bullets would not make any firearm unusable. I would not be against banning hollow points. But the weapons themselves, I don't think should be banned. Restrictions on who can get them and how I'd be fine with.

I don't think you are familiar with hand gun ammunition. Hollow point bullets are usually preferred due to their designed ability to flatten out when hitting a target or body. They deliver more force to the surface area and are less penetrating. Due to it being less penetrating, it is less likely that bullet would continue through a target/body and hit another target/body. These bullets are considered more "safe" to use in a civilian environment. Therefore restricting hollow point bullets may cause more severe wounds to the primary target/body and anyone behind them.

You are right, I'm not familiar with hand gun ammunition, except to know the difference between a live round and a blank. I haven't handled a gun since I was 16. I started developing clinical depression and became suicidal. I made my mother aware and guns haven't really been near me since. When I got over the suicidal thoughts, I realized I had a really REALLY bad temper that was not openly expressed (i bottled it up), and I was in an abusive relationship. Having studied some psychology by then I realized it was a bad combination and that I would be likely to kill my abusive husband at some point if a gun was available to me. He did buy one at one point and I flat out demanded that he get it out of the house or he would be eating a bullet by the end of the month. I asked for a divorce that month and without going through the complicated details, I impressed upon him that he should leave and never come back. He left, taking his gun with him.

I know that due to my life experiences, and tendency to suppress emotions, I would be a high risk if I had a gun. That's why I don't have one. But most people are not like me and can easily control themselves. That isn't to say that I can't or don't control myself, but I do see similarities in me and the life experiences of women who have killed as a result of battered wife syndrome. (please understand that Neverfly has never been abusive, I have been referring to a previous husband).

Originally Posted by seagypsy

All that being said, did anyone have any thoughts on the OP? Just curious, because this thread was an attempt to address the socially irresponsible style of reporting that attempts to vilify people with Aspergers.

Do you know what I find socially irresponsible? Publicly reporting pretty much anything about the shooter. The general public does not need to know even his name. It serves no purpose, and at worst might inspire someone else to follow suit. Now I'm not suggesting that the publicity is the only motivation behind these types of acts, and by not giving it, we would prevent them all, but isn't some unsatisfied curiosity a small price to pay if it prevented even one?