The latest metroplitan horror

[rhubroma]

The question I always want to ask is.....

Why does anyone need a gun?

Because people in the States are convinced they will be able to "defend themselves alone" with them.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Why does anyone need a gun?

I always wondered a few things too:

Why does anyone need to eat meat? A strong argument could be made that tens of thousands of people die from heart related diseases and cancer every year, and eating meat is a contributor to that.

Why does anyone need to eat junk food? Candy, chips, soda, etc.? That stuff is very bad for you.

Why does anyone need to sun tan? Not just a tanning salon, but laying out in the sun? It's bad for you, and helps cause cancer.

Why does anyone need to drink alcohol? DUII deaths are staggering, and excessive alcohol use can kill you, and it has no real nutritional value.

Why does everyone need to have a car? Tens of thousands of people are killed in auto related accidents. But most trips people take are short. Maybe they should be taking public transportation, walking, or riding bikes (imagine that!).

You could ask even more questions about society. Why does anyone need to have a pet cat? Pet birds? Fish? Reptiles? Why should man even travel into space? Why send a manned submersible into the depths of the ocean?

 

[VeloCity]

Even by American standards, this is absurd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-weapons-internet_n_1694451.html

Oates said the shooter wore a ballistic helmet, gas mask, throat-protector, tactical vest and pants -- such complete protective gear that responding officers almost mistook him for a member of the SWAT team. He lobbed gas canisters at the crowd, then opened fire. By the time police arrived, 90 seconds later, Holmes had shot dozens of people because his rifle was modified with a high-powered drum magazine that allowed him to fire immense amounts of bullets without reloading. "It was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theater," Oates said.

The high-capacity magazine had also been prohibited under the assault weapon ban, and even though the federal law expired a few states outlaw the devices. Colorado, which has relatively permissive gun laws, does not.

Colorado State Senator John Morse, a Democrat, said he wished the state barred large-capacity magazines and guns like the AR-15, but he does not expect the attack to make that likely. "The NRA has managed to convince the country that this has to happen to protect our Second Amendment rights," Morse said. "As long as we let people buy these guns, we will bury our children."

The dead are a tragic but acceptable price. Ideological collateral damage, really.

 

[JPM London]

I always wondered a few things too:

Why does anyone need to eat meat? A strong argument could be made that tens of thousands of people die from heart related diseases and cancer every year, and eating meat is a contributor to that.

Why does anyone need to eat junk food? Candy, chips, soda, etc.?

Why does anyone need to sun tan? Not just a tanning salon, but laying out in the sun? It's bad for you, and helps cause cancer.

Why does anyone need to drink alcohol? DUII deaths are staggering, and excessive alcohol use can kill you, and it has no real nutritional value.

Why does everyone need to have a car? Tens of thousands of people are killed in auto related accidents. But most trips people take are short. Maybe they should be riding taking public transportation, walking, or riding bikes.

You could ask even more questions about society. Why does anyone need to have a pet cat? Pet birds? Fish? Reptiles? Why should man even travel into space? Why send a manned submersible into the depths of the ocean?

I often wonder the same

Maybe apart from the meat thing - if you look closer at the data there's not really shown much connection between meat consumption as such and death.
That changes when you look at processed meats or when you classify "pizza" or other generally unhealthy dishes as "meat". Or if you look at statistics you get a more varied picture - while it would be a false conclusion to make you could just as well claim eating meat makes you smoke, drink and stop exercising...

However - it still leaves the very valid question "why does anyone need to eat meat?" - there are other reasons for choosing a vegetarian/vegan/etc lifestyle than health concerns from a perfectly good steak. Even if protein is best absorbed from meats, there are ways around that as well (though you have to pack some more carbs in order to get to it).

 

[Rockets160]

The question I always want to ask is.....

Why does anyone need a gun?

The nut job could've came to my house, that's why we need guns. I can absolutely guarantee, if he comes in my house to harm me or my family, it'll be one less nut job on this planet.
My house, my experience, and my desire to protect my family is my advantage.

 

[Rockets160]

Interesting link here for some statistical data and and a good piece on "gun vs vehicle" if you care to read.
Yes I understand who wrote it may make it bias, but I found it interesting for the numbers it presented. I also understand its a few years old...

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2007/firearm-safety-in-america-2009.aspx

 

[rhubroma]

I always wondered a few things too:

Why does anyone need to eat meat? A strong argument could be made that tens of thousands of people die from heart related diseases and cancer every year, and eating meat is a contributor to that.

Why does anyone need to eat junk food? Candy, chips, soda, etc.? That stuff is very bad for you.

Why does anyone need to sun tan? Not just a tanning salon, but laying out in the sun? It's bad for you, and helps cause cancer.

Why does anyone need to drink alcohol? DUII deaths are staggering, and excessive alcohol use can kill you, and it has no real nutritional value.

Why does everyone need to have a car? Tens of thousands of people are killed in auto related accidents. But most trips people take are short. Maybe they should be taking public transportation, walking, or riding bikes (imagine that!).

You could ask even more questions about society. Why does anyone need to have a pet cat? Pet birds? Fish? Reptiles? Why should man even travel into space? Why send a manned submersible into the depths of the ocean?

You forgot why do people need SUV's? Or cars for that matter? I don't see the relationship between things, however, and the question posed.

Interesting article a read today which related some stupefying statistics of the Brady Center:

Last year 11 million new firearms were sold in the US, a staggering number, when one also considers the type of weapons being sold more these days with the successful deregulation the NRA was able to push through a majority republican judge panel, which put an end to a ban on "assault weapons" in place until 2004. They are automatic pistols and rifles, capable of firing up to 50 projectiles per second. What private citizen on earth needs a firearm like that? Has the American homeland been transformed into a guerilla warfare zone? These are the same weapons used by soldiers. Among the preferred are the various Kalashnikov versions (including those Made in China). Once again the federal prohibition of the sales of such arms to private citizens was lifted by dint of the ultra-powerful NRA lobby. The NRA even has opposed any background checks on the selling of such assault weapons, on grounds of it being an intolerable "invasion of privacy.”

Next American families who possess a weapon is down to 45% from 54% in 1977, though again the force and lethal quality of the weapons has increased dramatically. All in the name (ideological) that guns "help people defend themselves." In fact, however, statistically speaking, whoever is in possession of a firearm at home is 3 times more likely to be the author or victim of a murder. Whereas those who keep a weapon in their house are 5 times more likely to use it to commit suicide.

Lastly with 31,000 deaths by guns each year in the US and another 100,000 + more injured by them, the homicide rate in America by guns is 20 times greater than the average of all the World's other developed countries.

You can't have access to those types of weapons and be considered anything but barbaric. I mean, the US isn't anymore a would-be country made up of a citizens militia fighting for independence against Great Britain. Nor is it a nation of frontier men armed to defend their expansionist positions against natives destined to be slaughtered or else closed up on reserves once their land was stolen from them.

The sheer drive to making ever more potent and spectacular firearms accessible to the public is not a conquest of more individual freedom, but unfettered barbarism and it is appalling that there are so many US adults who glorify such "liberty" and kill capacity. Where is there any philosophical, or ethical, or civil basis for such a private arms race? What does this say about the mental and civil development of the hordes of folk (overwhelmingly male) who find it exciting to have a weapon in their possession that can spray enough bullets in one second to kill an entire classroom of children, or several lines at the supermarket or indeed a group of spectators at the cinema?

And I wonder about the mental stability of such arms seekers. Evidently to judge by recent events this kind of liberation and sensationalization of personal "force multipliers" is no civic attainment, but a horrific glorification of weaponry, by increasing the spectacular force of them, for commercial ends to make money. Of course it is also an invitation to the various Holmes to plan their next tragic slaughterhouse.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

And I wonder about the mental stability of such arms seekers.

This is the one part of your comment I agree with. That's where the bulk of the problem lies as I see it. I think it's an issue that in our society remains almost ignored. Issues like domestic violence, depression especially. We've become a society that is so self-centered that people with problems are all but ignored, or told they need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Or we just drug them with pharmaceutical prescriptions that's supposed to make them normal.

As to banning guns, again, look at other countries, some of which have as many guns per capital as the US. Then look at a country like Norway... Sure, I suppose over time we could, maybe should try to cut down on sales of assault rifles. But I still think that's ignoring the root of the problem here. It would take decades to get most of them out of society, even if we could.

 

[Bala Verde]

This is the one part of your comment I agree with. That's where the bulk of the problem lies as I see it. I think it's an issue that in our society remains almost ignored. Issues like domestic violence, depression especially. We've become a society that is so self-centered that people with problems are all but ignored, or told they need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Or we just drug them with pharmaceutical prescriptions that's supposed to make them normal.

As to banning guns, again, look at other countries, some of which have as many guns per capital as the US. Then look at a country like Norway... Sure, I suppose over time we could, maybe should try to cut down on sales of assault rifles. But I still think that's ignoring the root of the problem here. It would take decades to get most of them out of society, even if we could.

According to a survey held in 2007 by the "small arms survey" that is not true. (I don't know however if their survey is entirely accurate, because very few countries keep adequate and perhaps even comaprable records). So for what it's worth, these are, instructive (?), estimates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

The US has almost 1/3 as many guns per resident as the second country on the list. Even comparing the US to Switzerland is somewhat laughable, if measured by the amount of guns in circulation in the country.

Top 20

Country Guns per 100
residents (2007) Rank
(2007) Comments
United States 88.8 1

Serbia 58.2 2 [5]
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Finland 32 8 [6]
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13
Austria 30.4 14
Germany 30.3 15
Iceland 30.3 15
Oman 25.5 17
Bahrain 24.8 18
Kuwait 24.8 18
Macedonia 24.1 20

Also interesting perhaps for this thread:

Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in their constitutions. Guatemala's Article 38 is the only one that's as broad as our Second Amendment (it guarantees "the right of possession of arms for personal use"). Article 10 of the Mexican constitution and Article 268-1 of Haiti's constitution limit the right to the confines of the home and allow the government to pass laws significantly restricting ownership. Mexicans, for example, are supposed to get a permit, renewable every year, from the military, and all firearms must be registered. (The law is widely ignored. Only 4,300 licenses have been issued for Mexico's 105 million people.) Handguns must be .380 caliber or less, shotguns can't be greater than 12 gauge, and rifles must be .30 caliber or smaller.

A constitutional provision doesn't necessarily guarantee easy access to firearms or a country full of gun enthusiasts. While the United States has 90 guns per 100 people—the highest ownership rate in the world—Mexico has just 15, placing it 22nd among the 59 countries for which data is available. [...]

The Swiss national legislature could, theoretically, ban gun ownership tomorrow since there's no constitutional guarantee. For now, however, the famously neutral government not only permits gun ownership, but also issues an automatic rifle to every male when he becomes eligible for military service at age 20. Female volunteers are also armed. On Sundays, tourists can see the Swiss head to firing ranges on trains and buses with their rifles resting on their shoulders. The country hosts the world's largest rifle shooting competition in the world every five years. Gun ownership laws have tightened up on handguns and non-military weapons in the last 10 years, but it's still reasonably easy to get a handgun permit

 

[rhubroma]

This is the one part of your comment I agree with. That's where the bulk of the problem lies as I see it. I think it's an issue that in our society remains almost ignored. Issues like domestic violence, depression especially. We've become a society that is so self-centered that people with problems are all but ignored, or told they need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Or we just drug them with pharmaceutical prescriptions that's supposed to make them normal.

As to banning guns, again, look at other countries, some of which have as many guns per capital as the US. Then look at a country like Norway... Sure, I suppose over time we could, maybe should try to cut down on sales of assault rifles. But I still think that's ignoring the root of the problem here. It would take decades to get most of them out of society, even if we could.

Well Norway isn't exacltly an edifying analogy with Breivik.

At any rate, having lived in continental Europe for as long as I have what seems misguided to you seems obvious over here. Too many guns, too much confidence in the integrity of the individual, too much emphasis on the right "to take justice into your own hands." The murder rates and the sense of insecurity one feels in America, contradicts all of these concepts, as well as the relatively low levels of gun violence in Europe compared to the US.

 

[patricknd]

You forgot why do people need SUV's? Or cars for that matter? I don't see the relationship between things, however, and the question posed.

Interesting article a read today which related some stupefying statistics of the Brady Center:

Last year 11 million new firearms were sold in the US, a staggering number, when one also considers the type of weapons being sold more these days with the successful deregulation the NRA was able to push through a majority republican judge panel, which put an end to a ban on "assault weapons" in place until 2004. They are automatic pistols and rifles, capable of firing up to 50 projectiles per second. What private citizen on earth needs a firearm like that? Has the American homeland been transformed into a guerilla warfare zone? These are the same weapons used by soldiers. Among the preferred are the various Kalashnikov versions (including those Made in China). Once again the federal prohibition of the sales of such arms to private citizens was lifted by dint of the ultra-powerful NRA lobby. The NRA even has opposed any background checks on the selling of such assault weapons, on grounds of it being an intolerable "invasion of privacy.”

Next American families who possess a weapon is down to 45% from 54% in 1977, though again the force and lethal quality of the weapons has increased dramatically. All in the name (ideological) that guns "help people defend themselves." In fact, however, statistically speaking, whoever is in possession of a firearm at home is 3 times more likely to be the author or victim of a murder. Whereas those who keep a weapon in their house are 5 times more likely to use it to commit suicide.

Lastly with 31,000 deaths by guns each year in the US and another 100,000 + more injured by them, the homicide rate in America by guns is 20 times greater than the average of all the World's other developed countries.

You can't have access to those types of weapons and be considered anything but barbaric. I mean, the US isn't anymore a would-be country made up of a citizens militia fighting for independence against Great Britain. Nor is it a nation of frontier men armed to defend their expansionist positions against natives destined to be slaughtered or else closed up on reserves once their land was stolen from them.

The sheer drive to making ever more potent and spectacular firearms accessible to the public is not a conquest of more individual freedom, but unfettered barbarism and it is appalling that there are so many US adults who glorify such "liberty" and kill capacity. Where is there any philosophical, or ethical, or civil basis for such a private arms race? What does this say about the mental and civil development of the hordes of folk (overwhelmingly male) who find it exciting to have a weapon in their possession that can spray enough bullets in one second to kill an entire classroom of children, or several lines at the supermarket or indeed a group of spectators at the cinema?

And I wonder about the mental stability of such arms seekers. Evidently to judge by recent events this kind of liberation and sensationalization of personal "force multipliers" is no civic attainment, but a horrific glorification of weaponry, by increasing the spectacular force of them, for commercial ends to make money. Of course it is also becomes an invitation to the various Holmes to plan their next tragic slaughterhouse.

the bolded is inaccurate. these weapons are auto-loaders, or semi-automatics, not fully automatic. they fire each time you pull the trigger, but don't cycle by holding own the trigger. while fast firing, they don't fire anything like 50 rounds per second. fully automatic weapons remain illegalexcept by special permits, normally on federally licensed firearm dealers.

 

[rhubroma]

the bolded is inaccurate. these weapons are auto-loaders, or semi-automatics, not fully automatic. they fire each time you pull the trigger, but don't cycle by holding own the trigger. while fast firing, they don't fire anything like 50 rounds per second. fully automatic weapons remain illegalexcept by special permits, normally on federally licensed firearm dealers.

I can only go by what I read. At any rate, even so, it makes no difference.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

...Perhaps Holmes failure as a neuroscience student caused his folly? Perhaps. Though what American citizens should be asking themselves is: how on earth does a student acquire two assault rifles, two automatic pistols, explosives and tear gas bombs? Answer: at the store.

I know this was not the main point you were making, but I heard a psychyatrist with much experience evaluating people who commit insane acts on national news talk about Holmes "failure", although the psych did not refer to it as failure. I don't have the link now, but what he said in essence was that the common thing about people who do these kind of insane acts is that they have stopped getting strokes/recognition for successes when at some time in their past they were accustomed to getting recognition. In Holmes case, he was a smart neuroscience graduate who was not able to find a job in his field the past 4 months, and instead has been working at McDonald's.

 

[Rockets160]

I can only go by what I read. At any rate, even so, it makes no difference.

Yes, it's actually a big difference. This is the fastest fully automatic weapon I am aware of:

http://www.dillonaero.com/content/p/9/pid/1/catid/1/Standard_M134D

Note it states the firing rate of 3000 rounds a minute. That is from 6 barrels. So each barrel is only firing 500 per minute which equals 8.3 per second per barrel. That my friend, is a LARGE difference between 50 per second and 8.3 per second.
Not to mention you and I can not purchase this weapon. Even if we could, and you could carry it, it would be impossible to fire without a being mounted.
I am surprised that someone as educated as you seem to be (judging from your posts), that you would shrug this off with "it makes no difference"

 

[blutto]

....get a grip folks, this isn't even a minor bump on the road this tragicomedy rides on....this shooting represents only 15% of the daily quota for this kind of behaviour in the US of A...

...so just move on, nothing to see here, just the same old, same old....though admittedly this one does make for a very splashy headline...and think of all the free promo Batman got (so at least someone did well here and made money)....

...would be interesting if the rumours of this joker being on SSRI's is true....and if true we could invite The Clinic faithful to participate in this thread.... and with luck that could produce one wing-ding of a discussion....


Cheers

blutto

 

[rickshaw]

don't need no stinking guns

The USA should outlaw guns to stop the violence. That's how we do it in Mexico.

No, THIS is how you do in in Mexico
"The latest figures on violence in Mexico suggest that the country will not see dramatic security improvements this year. Alejandro Hope says that recent mass killings, like the beheading of 49 people near Monterrey, show that the incentives for violence remain powerful."

http://www.insightcrime.org/insight...te-inches-down-while-massacres-grab-headlines

In point of fact, the murder rate in the US has been going down since 1991.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...st-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

 

[Rouetheday]

Yes, it's actually a big difference. This is the fastest fully automatic weapon I am aware of:

http://www.dillonaero.com/content/p/9/pid/1/catid/1/Standard_M134D

Note it states the firing rate of 3000 rounds a minute. That is from 6 barrels. So each barrel is only firing 500 per minute which equals 8.3 per second per barrel. That my friend, is a LARGE difference between 50 per second and 8.3 per second.
Not to mention you and I can not purchase this weapon. Even if we could, and you could carry it, it would be impossible to fire without a being mounted.
I am surprised that someone as educated as you seem to be (judging from your posts), that you would shrug this off with "it makes no difference"

Math wasn't your strongest subject in school, was it?

 

[woodie]

I always wondered a few things too:

Why does anyone need to eat meat? A strong argument could be made that tens of thousands of people die from heart related diseases and cancer every year, and eating meat is a contributor to that.

Why does anyone need to eat junk food? Candy, chips, soda, etc.? That stuff is very bad for you.

Why does anyone need to sun tan? Not just a tanning salon, but laying out in the sun? It's bad for you, and helps cause cancer.

Why does anyone need to drink alcohol? DUII deaths are staggering, and excessive alcohol use can kill you, and it has no real nutritional value.

Why does everyone need to have a car? Tens of thousands of people are killed in auto related accidents. But most trips people take are short. Maybe they should be taking public transportation, walking, or riding bikes (imagine that!).

You could ask even more questions about society. Why does anyone need to have a pet cat? Pet birds? Fish? Reptiles? Why should man even travel into space? Why send a manned submersible into the depths of the ocean?

All those points are fair points and I understand what your saying (even though you are being unnecessarily patronising) but why does someone need a tool that's sole purpose is to kill or harm a person or animal? I mean eating meat or lying in the sun hardly hurts anyone other than the person doing it, as for the DUI point, well more needs to be done about the over consumption of alcohol and drink driving as it is.

As far as I can tell this guy had easy access to multiple weapons, all legally obtained from a gun store. Why was it so easy for this person to obtain such powerful weapons? As well as tactical gear and equipment?

In Australia we have gun stores too but they don't sell semi-automatic weapons, they pretty much only sell bolt action hunting rifles or shotguns, sure they can do as much damage but not as fast, and they are not easy to get.

I understand there is a need for guns, for farmers who need to get rid of pests (foxes, rabbits, roos is aus, etc.) and for law enforcement officers as well. What I don't understand is why it's so easy for civilians to get weapons?

I know this guy wasn't stable mentally and he probably would have done it whether guns were legal or not, I just don't understand the need for guns to be so readily available in the U.S.

What happened was a tragedy and I feel for everyone that was involved in any way, shape or form but it's hardly a one off incident in the U.S.

 

[rhubroma]

Yes, it's actually a big difference. This is the fastest fully automatic weapon I am aware of:

http://www.dillonaero.com/content/p/9/pid/1/catid/1/Standard_M134D

Note it states the firing rate of 3000 rounds a minute. That is from 6 barrels. So each barrel is only firing 500 per minute which equals 8.3 per second per barrel. That my friend, is a LARGE difference between 50 per second and 8.3 per second.
Not to mention you and I can not purchase this weapon. Even if we could, and you could carry it, it would be impossible to fire without a being mounted.
I am surprised that someone as educated as you seem to be (judging from your posts), that you would shrug this off with "it makes no difference"

No it makes no difference, to me, and here's why. And it has nothing to do with a level of education, but a principle, or if anything one's culture. For I couldn't care less whether or not it's 50 per sec. or 8.3 per sec., these are just statistical details (as if it really matters whether or not, in theory, I could extinguish 50 lives per sec. or slightly more than 8) that aren't integral to what I find so abhorant, but a call to maintaining and expanding upon a “right” I find barbarous.

In any case the information I have at my disposal states that following a 2004 supreme court decision, the acquisition of "assault weapons" was no longer prohibited.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I know this guy wasn't stable mentally and he probably would have done it whether guns were legal or not, I just don't understand the need for guns to be so readily available in the U.S.

Some states can restrict them more, some less. You do bring up a valid question. One where the answer "recreation" or "freedom" isn't an answer that will satisfy everyone. But I do wish to make a few more comments on this.

First, as known, not all weapons are able to purchase, some are limited. Automatic weapons, flame throwers, grenade launchers, etc. So an argument could be made that semi-automatic assault weapons belongs in this category. But at the same time, some argue that automatic weapons should be legalized.

Next, as I noted a few pages back, you could ban these weapons, and not only would it take a few decades to get most of them out of society, it still would not stop someone determined to kill a lot of people. Home made bombs work pretty well for that. Imagine if Holmes had locked the emergency exits in the theater, set the place on fire and blown it up.

Third, I will stress once again, this is a social issue more than anything else. we live in a society where people with problems are too often ignored and pushed aside. There's also economic issues. Blame who you wish for this, and I blame both political parties, but when a PhD student is finding no work in his field and instead working at McDonalds...

What happened was a tragedy and I feel for everyone that was involved in any way, shape or form but it's hardly a one off incident in the U.S.

This is true, sadly. But because a lot of people were shot at once, it gets a lot of press. A few here, a few there, no one takes much notice. In 2007 for example, 12,632 were shot and killed by hand guns (homicide). As you likely guessed, most of these people were impoverished, living with little social support in economically depressed areas.

The chart below is very telling. It shows gun deaths by type in the US, by year. What's most significant is that if you flip the chart upside down, it becomes a chart of economic growth and prosperity in the US for those exact same years.

 

[woodie]

Some states can restrict them more, some less. You do bring up a valid question. One where the answer "recreation" or "freedom" isn't an answer that will satisfy everyone. But I do wish to make a few more comments on this.

First, as known, not all weapons are able to purchase, some are limited. Automatic weapons, flame throwers, grenade launchers, etc. So an argument could be made that semi-automatic assault weapons belongs in this category. But at the same time, some argue that automatic weapons should be legalized.

Next, as I noted a few pages back, you could ban these weapons, and not only would it take a few decades to get most of them out of society, it still would not stop someone determined to kill a lot of people. Home made bombs work pretty well for that. Imagine if Holmes had locked the emergency exits in the theater, set the place on fire and blown it up.

Third, I will stress once again, this is a social issue more than anything else. we live in a society where people with problems are too often ignored and pushed aside. There's also economic issues. Blame who you wish for this, and I blame both political parties, but when a PhD student is finding no work in his field and instead working at McDonalds...



This is true, sadly. But because a lot of people were shot at once, it gets a lot of press. A few here, a few there, no one takes much notice. In 2007 for example, 12,632 were shot and killed by hand guns (homicide). As you likely guessed, most of these people were impoverished, living with little social support in economically depressed areas.

The chart below is very telling. It shows gun deaths by type in the US, by year. What's most significant is that if you flip the chart upside down, it becomes a chart of economic growth and prosperity in the US for those exact same years.

I agree with pretty much all of those points, the issue is obviously larger than just banning or restricting guns, I realise that is not a solution to the problem but I believe it could be a step.

Getting the guns that people already have out of civilian hands would be a mammoth task, I fully appreciate that and sadly yes, if people didn't have guns there are still plenty of ways to kill a person. This is an interesting article I just found on the change in gun laws in Australia, a little old but I think relevant. Different countries/cultures but still interesting.

Unfortunately the root of the problem is a societal one and therefore there is no quick fix, if any fix at all.

That graph is very telling, and disturbing.

 

[broken chain]

I agree with pretty much all of those points, the issue is obviously larger than just banning or restricting guns, I realise that is not a solution to the problem but I believe it could be a step.

Getting the guns that people already have out of civilian hands would be a mammoth task, I fully appreciate that and sadly yes, if people didn't have guns there are still plenty of ways to kill a person. This is an interesting article I just found on the change in gun laws in Australia, a little old but I think relevant. Different countries/cultures but still interesting.

Unfortunately the root of the problem is a societal one and therefore there is no quick fix, if any fix at all.

That graph is very telling, and disturbing.

+1
Man has owned weapons since the dawn of time.
Its the mindset.(Or lack of)

No consequence fear=disturbing behavior.

 

[Rockets160]

Math wasn't your strongest subject in school, was it?

Actually, I hated math then and always will. But where did I mess up?

 

[gustienordic]

All those points are fair points and I understand what your saying (even though you are being unnecessarily patronising) but why does someone need a tool that's sole purpose is to kill or harm a person or animal? I mean eating meat or lying in the sun hardly hurts anyone other than the person doing it, as for the DUI point, well more needs to be done about the over consumption of alcohol and drink driving as it is.

As far as I can tell this guy had easy access to multiple weapons, all legally obtained from a gun store. Why was it so easy for this person to obtain such powerful weapons? As well as tactical gear and equipment?

I understand there is a need for guns, for farmers who need to get rid of pests (foxes, rabbits, roos is aus, etc.) and for law enforcement officers as well. What I don't understand is why it's so easy for civilians to get weapons?

I agree with the points above. There SHOULD be no reason for a person to be able to obtain weapons that are only meant to kill people. I sort of see bolt rifles and shotguns alright, (even though I am personally against hunting) but what I don't see as purposeful is a semi-automatic gun or even a handgun. What is the functional purpose of a handgun? pretty much just to shoot PEOPLE.

I come from an area in which most people I went to high school with already owned 2 or 3 guns in high school, and there dads usually had 8-10. I don't understand it and something needs to be changed.

 

[rhubroma]

Barak Obama – however one thinks about the man, has earned for himself a name, at the very least – did not want to pronounce the name of the miserable assassin of Denver. He condemns him to anonymity, like a maximum punishment for one who is disposed to committing any nefarious act just to become known. Totally just. So just that it causes one to reflect, by extension, about the ruinous ambiguity that ruptures the dreams of mass, consumer society: the total confusion between fame and valor. One believes that if one is not famous, then one does not exist, isn’t worth anything, though this is a frightful falsehood. It is the father of all falsehoods. There are evident cases of worthless celebrities and famous idiots; and other cases for which the valor of the person (even great) is known to but a few, and among those few the person in question.

I saw the other day Roberto Benigni at Piazza Santa Croce, Florence, commenting on the eleventh canto of Dante’s Inferno, say that man’s work precedes from God’s. I thought of the type of work that’s “done well” by Primo Levi, of those many (always the more rare these days) examples of people satisfied with their work, creations, placing in order, displaying things in an appropriate way. Their valor is priceless and it doesn’t matter how much they know it (God knows, the poet would say). If one were able to comprehend this – that valor is something more than fame – to the anonymous billions out there, as well as to the frustrated millions, there would be at least a few less unhappy nuts and, consequently, a bit more trace of human potential.