Another school shooting

[slang]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What the fuck would make you happy?

My own class M planet. Planet Slangun.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

You're missing the point again. It's over there, off to your right, about ten feet away.
...

The problem is that your point is constantly moving. You address one aspect of the debate, which conflicts with other aspects of your point. You talk about easy access to guns. An armed society is a polite society. Keep the guns away from criminals. Punish those who misuse guns. Legal gun owners have to go through a rigorous process to get licensed and don't want to loose that license. You can't have all of these things - many are in conflict with each other.

Now, describe the system that you'd like in place. Don't address a specific of my post, describe your all-encompassing plan where there is easy access to guns without abuse by non-licensed gun riff-raff. Where you can protect your life and property, but not shoot your neighbor, whether on purpose or by accident. Let's hear how you can accomplish all of these things.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

The movie gunslinger hairtrigger shoot a varmint fer lookin' atcha funny Old West is, as far as I know, the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, although, based on recent news reports, that's what owners of illegal firearms are doing in our urban settings.

Guns were almost non-existent in the old west. This for numerous reasons. Some obvious ones. First, guns were manufactured in only two places in America - Harper's Ferry VA and Springfield MA. Hunting parties traveled in large numbers so that among twenty might be three guns. Furthermore, those hunting parties had to carefully arrange who would shoot and who would withhold fire - so that a loaded gun always remained.

Second, a gun cost something like two years salary. Most could not afford a gun. The wild west gunslinger was extremely rare. Few had guns. Therefore violent murders were few. In fact most murders were among the rich because only the rich had guns.

Along comes something called a civil war. Early armies were equipped with European weapons because America had so few. But the civil war meant massive gun manufacturing AND so many guns. After the war, soldiers returned home with their weapons. Next ten years were the most violent. America had never seen so many violent murders – if I remember on the order of tens of times higher. Violent murder rate increased with more guns. That fact was and is not just in America. The same trend is repeated in most every country.

Does not matter that another country may have 1.8 times more guns per person and less violent deaths. The fact is that when numbers of guns increase in any country, the violent death rate also increases.

Reality - more guns mean increased murder rates. No way around that reality.

[warch]

More guns= more gun deaths. Guns that shoot more = more things are efficiently killed.

Ask your local Emergency room personnel. Accidents happen. Guns make killing efficient and easy.

Would gun control have impacted the Amish girl murders? no.

Would it have spared the life of the Wisconsin principal. Maybe.

As Spex points out you gun owners are too idealistic. get real. Its about gun sales,volume, not personal or public safety. If your theory is so sound, why dont we solve the Iraq crisis through manditory arming? That would make them much more polite.

[Elspode]

That would be redundant as most of them are already armed.

Originally Posted by tw

Along comes something called a civil war. Early armies were equipped with European weapons because America had so few. But the civil war meant massive gun manufacturing AND so many guns. After the war, soldiers returned home with their weapons. Next ten years were the most violent. America had never seen so many violent murders – if I remember on the order of tens of times higher.

On this one, I gotta disagree with you, tw. Sure the 10 years or so after the Civil War were more violent. That's because alot of people were, in effect, still fighting it. To this day, in areas of the deep South, people are STILL mistrustful of Northerners. You're right about the "wild West," though. Most of the violence out here was perpetuated against Native Americans who then retaliated in turn.

Originally Posted by tw

Does not matter that another country may have 1.8 times more guns per person and less violent deaths. The fact is that when numbers of guns increase in any country, the violent death rate also increases.

Could you give us a cite for this, please?

[morethanpretty]

Many of you seem to argue that stricter gun control laws would cut down on the amount of violent crime. And I do agree with this. But I do not thing that it will solve any of the real problems that we have with violent crime. Most violent criminals come from places that have poor education systems, and little economic stability. Almost half of the violent criminals (not necessarily gun users) released from prison will return within 3 years, 1/3 of the non-violent criminals. This shows that our system of punishment is not working. Our country needs to concentrate on socially benificial programs (and I'm not talking welfare) so that the cause of crime and criminal behavior can be treated. This will prevent people from wanting to commit a crime, not just prevent them from being able too.

[WabUfvot5]

Originally Posted by marichiko

US society has some deep problems, in case no one has noticed.

Michael Moore did but people would rather focus on his weight or liberal bias

[WabUfvot5]

Originally Posted by wolf

The United States problems include the drug trade, lack of family structure, and unlike Finland, we do not have a homogenous population.

I do wonder what the homicide statistics would look like if you removed all drug-related shootings ... probably a lot closer to Finland's number.

There are some interesting stats gleaned from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:

Drug offences:
Norway = 987.1 per 100,000 people
United States = 560.1 per 100,000 people
Finland = 259.7 per 100,000 people
United Kingdom = 214.3 per 100,000 people

I can't imagine Norway or Finland more adept and providing their own drugs than the USA. So the drugs have to be getting there somehow.

Now look at murders with firearms per capita:

Colombia = 0.509801 per 1,000 people (it's safe to say that's largely drug related)
United States = 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
Canada = 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

Finland does not even make the list. Either it's statistically insignificant or they don't differentiate by murder tool. They do however have 0.0283362 murders per 1,000 people. Yes, their total murders per capita is only slightly higher than the firearm murders per capita of the USA. Total murders per capita in USA is 0.042802 per 1,000 people. Norway 0.0106684 per 1,000 people. Drugs trade looks a very unspecioius claim in light of those facts.

Canada certainly isn't more homogenous. From the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development we learn that in the year 2000 the USA ranks #6 in immigration with 10.4% its populations immigrants. Canada has 17.4%.

[Hippikos]

Drug offences:
Norway = 987.1 per 100,000 people
United States = 560.1 per 100,000 people
Finland = 259.7 per 100,000 people
United Kingdom = 214.3 per 100,000 people

Interesting stats indeed. Never realised that Norway was on top of the list.

Interesting also to see that our little "drug liberal" country (or narcotic state as Mr.Chirac once claimed) is #20 on the list with 47 per 100,000 people. Less than a 10th of the US, which is always lecturing us how to deal with drugs...

PS and what about Switzerland!!

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

On this one, I gotta disagree with you, tw. Sure the 10 years or so after the Civil War were more violent. That's because alot of people were, in effect, still fighting it.

The charts and data were posted many years ago. Older dwellers may confirm those trends.

Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.

If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased? According to claims made here by others, then more guns should mean decreased violent deaths. That trend was not only demonstrated in America. Same trend was demonstrated in other nations.

Also noted was why murder in old west towns such as Tombstone were so low. These cattle towns required all to surrender weapons before entering. In that time, most murders were in big cities where the rich had more guns and where more guns were carried in public.

[wolf]

Spexx, I'm trying to figure out the best way to respond to you. First off, I think you're confusing some things that I said with things that Maggie said.

I actually don't think there is a need for any type of firearms 'licensing' or 'permit'. Both imply that I don't have a right to keep and bear arms. I think that the model for the way things should be is what's commonly called "Vermont Carry". In Vermont and Alaska you can carry a firearm concealed. You don't need a permission slip from the state government telling you that you can do so. I would like to see this in all 50 U.S. states. I would like to be able to cross the borders of other states without having to check a book to see what I have to do next to be legal in that state ... secured in the trunk, disassembled, in a locked container, ammunition in a separate locked container, doesn't do me much good when I make a wrong turn in Camden.

As I stated before, I would like to see criminals actually treated as criminals, going to jail, with sentence extensions for committing crimes with guns. Parollees and Probationers should go back to jail with a sentence extension if they are found to be in possession of a firearm, give a hot urine, or violate their probation/parole in some other way.

Background checks/instacheck is okay ... criminals should not be buying guns from legal dealers, but the records of those checks are supposed to be destroyed. Registration is the first step on the road to confiscation, as we have learned from the British and the Australians.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.

If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased?

I, for one, would like to see those numbers, along with other crime statistics at the same time ... was this an urban effect, or was it also seen in rural areas. Were the perpetrator and victim, as is often the case today, both engaging in other illegal activities?

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

I, for one, would like to see those numbers, along with other crime statistics at the same time ...

You were hear when those numbers and charts were posted. You had posted in that discussion. When all that information was posted, suddenly, those who advocated more guns went silent.

[Happy Monkey]

What thread?