FBI Murder Statistics

#42
I await your answer has to just how these murders were "preventable."
Well for a start they would have been a lot less preventable of there wasn't a ridiculous law built into your constitution which allows anyone to own an easy-to-use lethal weapon, with little to no terms of responsibility. That would be a good place to start.

In the UK we as HM Armed Forces have the privileged and responsible job of bearing arms and using lethal force. This is devolved down to every lunatic, wierdo, trigger happy **** in your country.

But each to their own


Sent from my GT-S5830 using ARRSE mobile app
 
#43
I presume by "murdered" the original post refered to only those identified as having died. What are the stats for injured?

Can you not see that madness of a supposedly 1st world country who's population believe they will need to revert to firearms to defend themselves from their own Gvt

USA isn't Syria, Iraq, Aghanistan, Somalia, Yemen

Why the **** is such a supposedly developed country, the cheer leader for democracy world wide still mired in throwback 1800s mentality

Your country is fucked, it just doesn't really know it yet.
 
#44
Not my point old chap. I am merely trying to keep the discussion rational which is something it is not at present among many. I do not want to see what happened in Australia in response to highly emotional incidents happen in the US.
OK: Not a member of the NRA I understand, but I would hope you are a member of one of the other gun groups say, Welcome to Democrats for Gun Ownership - Democrats for Gun Ownership, Armed with Knowledge to Protect Your Second Amendment Rights or I dunno...Pink Pistols perhaps and getting actively involved in preserving your 2nd Amendment rights (however the courts interpret them). Whatever, I don't think you'll do much for your cause complaining on a British Army forum, to people whose opinions for the most part don't count. As an occasional observer, it seems to me that American gunowners are the ones that have prevented things getting a lot worse for them than they have, not the Constitution.
 
#46
The problem might be in the egalitarianism of US society. While it has many things going for it there is one big downside that was known it the 'Old World' for ages. Ever since Plato the responsible people in society knew that giving the vote and weapons to the smelly masses was a very dangerous thing to do.

The large reeking majority often does not have the insight to make proper use of the right to use votes and weapons. The election of religious fanatics and killing of dozens of schoolchildren show this.
An American whose opinion I appreciate on this matter Fred Reed often writes about this. Check him out on Fredoneverything.net.
 
#47
The problem might be in the egalitarianism of US society. While it has many things going for it there is one big downside that was known it the 'Old World' for ages. Ever since Plato the responsible people in society knew that giving the vote and weapons to the smelly masses was a very dangerous thing to do.

The large reeking majority often does not have the insight to make proper use of the right to use votes and weapons. The election of religious fanatics and killing of dozens of schoolchildren show this.
An American whose opinion I appreciate on this matter Fred Reed often writes about this. Check him out on Fredoneverything.net.
Don't be bringing the classics into it LOL
 
#48
#49
I realize facts are largely irrelevant to many participants in the "assault rifle ban" debate but these FBI data for 2011 show that more people are murdered in the US by clubs and hammers (496) or even hands and feet (726) than by all "rifles" (323) that even include more types of long guns than just "assault rifles" such that the actual number of the evil black guns is even smaller. I suppose we should also have a ban on hammers and body parts as well.
As a proviso to what follows, I don't believe that the problem is the weapon used. So....

To debunk your stats, How many people have hands and feet, how many have hammers, how many have firearms, and how many of those are 'assault rifle' thingies? Once we get the proportions of murders to murder weapons the the figures might make more sense.

(But if I'm going to kill a load of people I will do it regardless of whether I have an assault rifle or not.)
 
#50
To throw my 2p in;
"assault weapons" is not the issue. There is nothing that defines an assault weapon other than in very broad and non-exclusive terms. The functionality of what are commonly referred to as assault weapons are frequently replicated in weapons that are not so defined. High capacity, quick change magazines, high powered cartridges (although in the school shootings the rifle could have been chambered for 9mm parabellum with no discernible difference in outcome) and semi-automatic mechanism.

In order to remove the capability used in this specific event, you would have to ban semi-automatic weapons, large magazines and the combination with high power cartridges, in that order of precedence. One cannot seek to split the issue by focussing on "assault weapons" because it is a red herring.

Likewise many of the solutions suggested are ineffective and usually impinge on the innocent without curtailing the guilty.
For example, the "1 pistol, 1 rifle, 1 shotgun" allowance would not have stopped the school shootings but would stop someone owning a .22LR rifle for plinking and a bolt-action for long-ranged target shooting, or any one of dozens of legitimate reasons for owning more than one in each class.

Ammunition restrictions - also ineffective, unless you restrict holdings to less than one round in most target disciplines. Much focus has been made of the ownership of thousands of rounds of ammunition, when each event sees the use of a couple of hundred rounds at most.

To look at the other side, JJH made a comment early in the thread;
"In America at least, I do not believe there is any effective way to stop incidents like that in Connecticut other than protecting the defenseless with immediate effective armed defense."
One way of providing the victims with "immediate and effective defense" is to remove the tool that makes them defenceless in the first place.

I doubt that the debate will ever look so far as the underlying cultural reasons behind these shootings. The media frenzy that results each time, the paranoia, disenfranchisement, violence inherent in entertainment etc. Much easier to wibble about guns that look scary.
 
#51
IC,

The argument (not mine) would be that with an 'assault rifle' type of weapon one can kill more people more quickly.
 
#52
Why not just write a new amendment saying something like 'it turns out that Britain isn't really all that interested in invading us any time soon and we've got a pretty big army, navy and air force anyway if they do decide to so no-one really needs to own enough fire-power to wipe out a small city after all'.

Then ban guns because it's constitutional...
 
#53
Because then they'll become as pathetic as the UK where a knife is banned, but not the person doing the stabbing.
 
#55
Take your carving knife out of the drawer and walk down the street with it
 
#56
So you're saying I'm not legally allowed to buy a knife in a shop and walk home with it?

Or just that I'm not allowed to wander around carrying a knife for no reason?

Why would I want to walk down the street with a knife if I didn't have a reason to?
 
#57
FFS :yawnstretch:
 
#58
Stats, eh?

I’m not (yet) an American but I’m there a lot. Most of my time has been spent in DC (Cleveland Park) and Baltimore (Federal Hill/Locust Point), cities which have had a pretty high murder rate although it has fallen in DC. As I’ve said before the fact is that in both those cities white, middle-aged, middle-class, non drug users (WMMNs) are at little more risk than I am in the small town in the Highlands where I am writing this.

This

Interactive map: Homicides in the District of Columbia - The Washington Post

from the Washington Post illustrates my point – in the period 2000-2011 covered by the stats 26 whites were shot to death (overwhelmingly the most popular means of homicide) in DC, as were 1700 blacks, 60 Hispanics and 14 others. Look at the geographic distribution – you ain’t going to get shot living off Connecticut Ave. Why not? Because it is effectively the spine of the ‘white corridor’ running NW out of DC.

As for Baltimore – there were 216 murders in 2012, again the vast majority being shootings of blacks in particular areas of the city. This a bad week in Charm City:

Tuesday, Nov. 20

8:07 P.M. Three males were shot in the 2700 block of Greenmount Avenue in Harwood. A 20-year-old African-American man and a 33-year-old African-American man were hit numerous times but survived. Daniel Pearson, a 16-year-old African-American male, was also shot repeatedly but died at an area hospital at 8:22 P.M.

Wednesday, Nov. 21

2:20 P.M. Adonay Garcia-Wilson, a 22-year-old African-American man, was shot several times in the upper body and head in the 2800 block of Boarman Avenue in the middle of the afternoon. He was taken to a local hospital, where he died at 3:26 P.M.
Thursday, Nov. 22
2:16 P.M. Antoine Ellis, a 23-year-old African-American man, was shot several times while standing by a bench at a baseball field in the 2000 block of North Forest Park Avenue. He died at a city hospital at 2:40P.M.

Saturday, Nov. 24

1:32 P.M. Police found James Johnson, a 22-year-old African-American man, lying on the ground in the 1300 block of Laurens Street in Sandtown-Winchester. He had been shot in the head, limbs, and torso. He died at an area hospital less than an hour later. This is the third fatal shooting in the middle of the afternoon this week. Johnson was also the 200th person murdered this year.

Sunday, Nov. 25

9:02 P.M. A 16-year-old African-American male was in the rear of the 2200 block of Barclay Street when he was shot repeatedly in the face. He died before he could be taken to a hospital. Police are waiting until the boy’s family has been notified of his death to release his name. He is the ninth minor murdered this year and the second this week.

9:26 P.M. Tremaine Johnson, a 34-year-old African-American man, was walking near the intersection of North Calhoun and West Franklin streets when he was shot in the head. He died at a city hospital at 9:53 P.M.
None of these are part of Baltimore I have visited, or ever will.

So if you are a WMMN living in these two cities you are very, very unlikely to ever require a firearm for personal protection. As for protecting property? Nope, housebreaking/burglary in the two areas I’ve lived in was very uncommon; although it might be different in the ‘burbs with a different housing geography. Then again I regard life in the 'burbs as living death anyway.
 
#59
But if you ban firearms wont the bad guys still have them In the uk you can get a firearm if you really want to . he could of also just of made a few nail bombs and thrown them in the classrooms .

An airplane killed thousands do we ban them no we put stricter and safer measures of using them and the method of acquiring the controls

To be honest if i was american I wouldnt want my 2nd ammendment taken away as it all seems abit of a dodgy way the us government seem to get what they want and get the people backing them is to kill a few innocent civillians in a nasty way and make claims that it was some other group of which we have to take there word for .
 
#60
Not my point old chap. I am merely trying to keep the discussion rational which is something it is not at present among many. I do not want to see what happened in Australia in response to highly emotional incidents happen in the US. If it can be proven that a given "gun control" measure will actually address the issue as intended and that it can be fairly enforced consistent with the limits of the 2d Amendment then I have no objection to it. Most of those on here clamoring for an " assault" rifle ban appear to be unaware of the previous dismal failure of the last such effort and/or are either viewing the situation through the lens of their peculiar circumstances of a different nation and culture.

i believe history is on my side in this debate that focusing on the tool used to murder rather that the murderer and the circumstances that made victims defenseless in the first place. In America at least, I do not believe there is any effective way to stop incidents like that in Connecticut other than protecting the defenseless with immediate effective armed defense.

Any mass shootings in Oz since Port Arthur
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top