US factory worker in gun rampage

[Brian]

The problem with this case is deeper then the gun issue.. if you have chosen to use a gun to kill people you have already crossed over many boundries of self-control. The problem here is people do not know how to handle their issues appropriately. They do not have an avenue of justice. Instead of removing guns and this and that.. why don't we provide justice training for individuals. It would make more sense in the long run.

[Nono]

OK, but if the gun isn't available you'll have to use a rolling pin or something and, as pointed out above, non-firearm weapons are less lethal.

There's no getting around the fact that a society awash with guns suffers way more fatalities when some nut goes postal.

And no matter what precautions you take, people will always be impulsive.

[shawmutt]

There's no getting around the fact that a society awash with guns suffers way more fatalities when some nut goes postal.

I beg to differ. Iraq is currently a society "awash with guns". How many thousands have died in suicide bombings?

I just found an interesting article:

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters

While the US is the most armed country, it is certainly not the most violent. In fact, some countries known for violence have the least per capita gun ownership!

[Brian]

Quote by: Nono OK, but if the gun isn't available you'll have to use a rolling pin or something and, as pointed out above, non-firearm weapons are less lethal. There's no getting around the fact that a society awash with guns suffers way more fatalities when some nut goes postal. And no matter what precautions you take, people will always be impulsive.

It will be worse than a rolling pin.. people would study anarchy and find ways to destroy people.. the gun is easy and stupid people use it.. take it away and people are forced to use their brains to come up with methods of destruction. Give it time, the fatalities would increase more then ever. The problem is still with education and the lack of religion and philosophy in our culture. Imagine if you were driving and saw a billboard that says Love your enemies, or treat others the way you want to be treated.. it changes the way people think.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: shawmutt I linked my source. Apparently 2005 was a better year for non-gun killers.

I'm sure NationMaster is nice for general numbers, but I prefer mine from a more reliable source, the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI.

In 2005, out of 14,965 murders, 10,158 were with firearms, or about 68%. Pick a year, the percentage doesn't change much, with the rest being divvied up between knives (about 12%), beating (about 6%), clubs (about 4%), Fire (less than 1%), Strangulation (less that 1%), poison, narcotics, asphyxiation, bombs and drowning (less than 1% combined), and "Not Determined" (about 6-7%)

Quote by: shawmutt You may want to check the definitions that go with the stats. You are incorrect. Do you have a link for the 200,000 stat?

I always have a source, shawmutt. I'm surprised you don't know that by now.

--"In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)"--

Quote by: shawmutt You get your information from ambulance chasers? Interesting. Do you have any actual numbers to go with that "information"?

If you can dispute the numbers, shawmutt, do it.

Otherwise, attempting to ridicule the source doesn't alter the facts.

Quote by: shawmutt There's always an exception to every rule. This time your appeal to emotion comes in the form of anecdote? C'mon, let's see some facts, not sniveling drivel.

I'm the one presenting facts, shawmutt, not you. You're trying to dismiss the reat affects of gun violence in order to justify your pastime, your hobby.

Oh, I forget the affects of head injuries by gunfire.

Quote by: shawmutt Who says we are more violent? Does total homicides dictate total violence? We're #24 in per capita homicides,

That's out of 62. Another source puts us 41st out of 115. And your other source has us 8th out of 42 in murder by gunfire.

So while I'm sure it's a source of great pride for you that we're less violent than South Africa, Columbia and Venezuela (both of which have active armed resistance movements), Zimbabwe, Mexico, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, Ukraine and Zambia, it bothers me that we're behind all of western Europe, Asia, the Mideast, Australia, Canada... even India.

When we brag that we're the leader of the 'Free World', the leader in murders wasn't what I had in mind.

Quote by: shawmutt ...and there are a few areas in the country that contribute a large amount to that number, including our nation's capital as mentioned in the other thread--you know, the place where handguns were banned outright.

LOL!! Gosh, what a surprise that the majority of murders in this country take place where the vast majority of the people are. What a concept!

And it's interesting that murder Washington D.C., with its ban on handguns, dropped from 1st in 1995 to 7th in 2006 having dropped steadily from a high in 1991.

Quote by: shawmutt It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and certainly has no bearing on wackos going on a rampage.

Shawmutt, it has to do with the fact that you're justifying easy access to guns and the related high rates of gun crime because it benefits your pastime, despite the fact that at least one of the major pastimes that involve firearms is declining in America.

In fact, gun ownership period is declining in the U.S.

--"According to NORC, the percentage of American households containing guns peaked in 1977 at 54% and has fallen with regularity since, to a low of 34.5% in 2006, the most recent year in the survey. Even more encouraging, the percentage of Americans reporting personal ownership of a gun has declined to less than 22%."-- January, 2008

And omigosh, violent crime has declined too!!! A coincidence?

Quote by: Brian Instead of removing guns and this and that.. why don't we provide justice training for individuals. It would make more sense in the long run.

Yeah, right... good one, Brian.

Quote by: Shawmutt While the US is the most armed country, it is certainly not the most violent. In fact, some countries known for violence have the least per capita gun ownership!

For instance...

...and preferably countries not armed insurgencies or massive poverty rates.

But here's the thing about that... you guys keep saying that America needs MORE guns to fight criminals with guns. Yet, right now we already have THE MOST guns -- that is, the highest percentage of households with guns -- than anyone, but we remain among the most violent DEVELOPED, 1st world nations on earth... worse than every nation in western Europe, Asia (except Thailand), Australia, Canada... even India.

Here, I already addressed this comparison elsewhere...

Here's some more.


.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I beg to differ. Iraq is currently a society "awash with guns". How many thousands have died in suicide bombings?

True, If I ever snapped, I'd think I'd do away with a wimpy 9mm and go for a brick of C4, gets much more attention.

[Nono]

Quote by: shawmutt Iraq is currently a society "awash with guns". How many thousands have died in suicide bombings?

I see, s. So you have to resort to Iraq to find some evidence that being gun-crazy isn't the only conceivable evil in a society. Very convincing.
(You could also have chosen Iceland, for example, where all you have to do is push someone into a volcanically hot pool of water. Yep, one is much better off in Waco.)

Quote by: Brian Give it time, the fatalities would increase more then ever.

As they have in the Netherlands, say. Correct? Gimme a break.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Sonart In 2005, out of 14,965 murders, 10,158 were with firearms, or about 68%.

32% is still a substantial amount of killing without guns. It's certainly not the "vastly easier" as you make it out to be.

Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.

The issue here is that you are trying to equate guns with violence, as in the original post of the "violent rampage". All but homicide certainly could be argued as violence, but that's not the kind of violence you are talking about.

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

This is where they get all fancy with the numbers and show their bias. There's a lot of b.s. over a couple sentences, so I'll have to break it down a bit.

• "...over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care."

No numbers are given here, but the availability heuristic goes to trauma care for many people. For me, however, I'm thinking "guy fell on his gun while hunting and broke a toe". "Many" is not "All". How many is "many"? If "some" did not require hospitalization, what is their definition of injury? Most studies like this consider brandishing a weapon "injuring" someone, or using the gun as a blunt weapon injuring someone with a firearm, leading to bloated numbers. Who's more right with this stat? Who knows?--no further numbers are given.

• cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000"

Well duh. Yes, when someone is admitted to a trauma center it typically is expensive. In fact, according to traumacare.com, "severity adjusted national norm for per patient costs in a trauma center is $14,896." What is the overwhelming reason for admittance? Motor vehicle crashes at 59%. Firearms are at a paltry 12%, losing out to falls at 13%. This is a sneaky way of getting in an impressive number without adding in any real substance.

I'm the one presenting facts, shawmutt, not you. You're trying to dismiss the reat affects of gun violence in order to justify your pastime, your hobby.

An interesting factoid further down the page from your source--

Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in this country and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing.

By your stats, it would seem as handguns are the issue, not firearms as a whole. So why try to ban all firearms? It seems by your stats that killing someone with my bare hands is "easier" than by a rifle, so should we try banning arms first?

Your hatred for all things firearms do not allow you to distinguish between the responsible gun owner and the criminal, or even between handguns and long guns. You try to paint all legal firearm owners as bumbling idiots who shoot themselves in the foot over their "love for guns" and are all powder kegs waiting to explode.

Your pet issue has blinding you to other, larger contributors to crime in this society--like population density and degree of urbanization; variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration; stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors; modes of transportation and highway system; economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability; cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics; family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness; climate; effective strength of law enforcement agencies; administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement; policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational); citizens' attitudes toward crime; crime reporting practices of the citizenry--phew, that's a mouthful--and what the FBI considers the leading causes of crime. However, those factors actually take work. It's much easier to compile stats on evil guns and legislate them out of the hands of citizens.

If you can dispute the numbers, shawmutt, do it.

They don't offer any numbers to dispute, just what seems to be an offhand statistic. See my sig to see what I think about these kinds of "stats".

Oh, I forget the affects of head injuries by gunfire.

More appeal to emotion nonsense.

That's out of 62.

It's certainly not an exhaustive list, and there are plenty of countries on both sides of the US.

In fact, gun ownership period is declining in the U.S.

Does that really make sense to you? More guns than ever are being produced, but gun ownership is going down? U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters

When we brag that we're the leader of the 'Free World', the leader in murders wasn't what I had in mind.

Perhaps we are the "leader of the Free World" due to our violent tendencies

And omigosh, violent crime has declined too!!! A coincidence?

Your premise is misleading. While the number of people that own guns may be going down, the supply of guns is going up. What is really happening is that the supply of guns is going up while violence is going down.
Guncite: Gun Supply

But here's the thing about that... you guys keep saying that America needs MORE guns to fight criminals with guns.

"We" aren't saying we need more guns, or that we need to put on our capes and fight criminals with them. We are saying that we need to stop being treating like criminals in the wings, or walking accidents, or disgruntled workers ready to go on a rampage, because we own them.

but we remain among the most violent DEVELOPED, 1st world nations on earth

GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates

"Gun death" statistics are frequently cited, in the manner above, to strongly suggest that guns are the cause behind the high violent death rate in the U.S. As in the case of the Los Angeles Times article, no mention is made that over half of those violent deaths are suicides. The CNN article mentions gun homicides and gun suicides, but fails to show us the total violent death rate of other countries, not just gun deaths. For example, in Japan, where gun ownership is rare, its total suicide rate is higher than our total suicide rate. Combining gun suicide and homicide deaths creates a sensational comparison with other countries, but only clouds and distorts the many factors actually behind violent death rates. Looking at only gun deaths, it is easy to get the false impression that, because of guns, the United States is the most violent country on earth.

Quote by: nono As they have in the Netherlands, say. Correct? Gimme a break.

The Netherlands is a different society. Put a village of Statsians in your midst and you'd be in for a world of crap, guns or no guns

[Nono]

Quote by: shawmutt The Netherlands is a different society. Put a village of Statsians in your midst and you'd be in for a world of crap, guns or no guns.

The Netherlands is just an off-the-cuff example. I think cause and effect are all rolled up into one. Take people's bangbangs away from them and let them resort to baseball bats if they really have to get it out of their wee systems.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Nono The Netherlands is just an off-the-cuff example. I think cause and effect are all rolled up into one. Take people's bangbangs away from them and let them resort to baseball bats if they really have to get it out of their wee systems.

Baseball bats are not equivalent to guns.

For one thing, they're a poor tool for suicide. For another, using them for homocide requires a different level of motivation. Guns are a point and click interface for killing. You can use them from a distance, without even getting blood all over you. They don't require strength, they can't be blocked with a forearm or taken out of your hands. In short, they make killing easy, and that encourages killing.

So, while it's true that guns don't kill people, they sure make it easy for people with guns kill people.

TC

[shawmutt]

Quote by: TC ...

I think you need to look back a few pages. All your arguments have been addressed.

I think cause and effect are all rolled up into one.

I think you are confusing association with causation, as displayed in the guncite links above.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: shawmutt I think you need to look back a few pages. All your arguments have been addressed.

Link #?

TC

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: shawmutt I think you need to look back a few pages. All your arguments have been addressed.

LOLOL!! Addressed indeed, although not to shawmutts liking.
Shawmutts the one who insists that bats, barbells and brass knuckles are as deadly as firearms, not Nono, TC.


.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Baseball bats are not equivalent to guns. So, while it's true that guns don't kill people, they sure make it easy for people with guns kill people. TC

So true, and I don't think I've ever read a single news story about a young child finding his dad's baseball bat and accidentally bludgeoning his younger sister to death!?!?

[shawmutt]

So true, and I don't think I've ever read a single news story about a young child finding his dad's baseball bat and accidentally bludgeoning his younger sister to death!?!?

And yet more availability heuristic and appeal to emotion nonsense?!?!?!

GunCite-Gun Accidents

A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated. The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent. Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents. (Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So true, and I don't think I've ever read a single news story about a young child finding his dad's baseball bat and accidentally bludgeoning his younger sister to death!?!?

It was right next to the one about the man who mistook his son for a burglar in the dark and stabbed him 86 times.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Link #? TC

Shawmutt, you have responded to other people, but you have not provided any link numbers that prove your claim that my arguments have already been addressed and refuted. If you do not do so, then you are effectively conceding that no such refutations exist in this forum.

TC

[shawmutt]

If you do not do so, then you are effectively conceding that no such refutations exist in this forum.

I don't do bait. If you cannot read, then I guess you win your own argument with yourself.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: shawmutt I don't do bait. If you cannot read, then I guess you win your own argument with yourself.

You do bait, but then you switch. If you can't find even a single example, then I've called your bluff.

TC

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: shawmutt I don't do bait. If you cannot read, then I guess you win your own argument with yourself.

"Your Honor, I don't do bait. If you can not read the case law for yourself, then I guess you win your own argument with yourself."

Fail- client is convicted.