A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Vince wrote:Stop avoiding the point that common items can cause mass murder even if you banned all guns.
That's a complete distraction to the issue at hand. Anything can be used to kill someone, if the murderer is motivated enough. BUT there is only ONE weapon that can be used on the spur of the moment to kill someone *instantaneously* before giving them a chance to react (without taking out the person using it). And all you have to do it point it at them, and you don't even have to be near them to do it. Most explosives, chemical, biological, or even radiological weapons can't do that.
Vince wrote:A little perspective, number of murders in the US in 2010 approx. 16000. and 60% to 70% caused by firearms. Deaths by Motor Vehicles in 2010 were approx 33000 in the US..... suicides in the US in 2009 were approx. 37000.
60% to 70% is an overwhelming majority, so you've undermined your entire argument with that statistic. As for the other numbers, they are irrelevant comparisons.
First of all, stick to the topic which was mass murder like Aurora. There are many ways a lunatic Doctoral student could have carried out that madness and gun control wouldn't stop it.
Regarding your second statement, I wasn't making any argument at all with those facts, you cobbled it together with the first one to make your illogical grandiose pronouncement.
Vince wrote:First of all, stick to the topic which was mass murder like Aurora. There are many ways a lunatic Doctoral student could have carried out that madness and gun control wouldn't stop it.
Here's the topic: he used a GUN to kill 12 people and injure 58. There is no other weapon he could have done that with in the time allotted, short of a hand-grenade or improvised explosive device (which are illegal). What topic am I not sticking to? Exactly what kind of ingenious weapon do you think a neuroscience Ph.D. student going to come up with?
Vince wrote:
JRM wrote:
Vince wrote:A little perspective, number of murders in the US in 2010 approx. 16000. and 60% to 70% caused by firearms. Deaths by Motor Vehicles in 2010 were approx 33000 in the US..... suicides in the US in 2009 were approx. 37000.
60% to 70% is an overwhelming majority, so you've undermined your entire argument with that statistic. As for the other numbers, they are irrelevant comparisons.
Regarding your second statement, I wasn't making any argument at all with those facts, you cobbled it together with the first one to make your illogical grandiose pronouncement.
I see. You were quoting random statistics for fun. No problem, then.
mump boy wrote:We don't have the need to defend ourselves because we have very few murders, because we have very few guns.
You don't have many gun crimes but you still have murders.
as i previously posted 550 in a year compared to US 16,000 !! adjusted for population that approx 6 times more murders than usm, mainly driven by guns, you have 3 times as many gun murders than we have murders in general !! *
What ever 'freedoms' this affords you glady free from them
*mump boys maths skills are not what they should be
JRM wrote: Here's the topic: he used a GUN to kill 12 people and injure 58. There is no other weapon he could have done that with in the time allotted, short of a hand-grenade or improvised explosive device (which are illegal). What topic am I not sticking to? Exactly what kind of ingenious weapon do you think a neuroscience Ph.D. student going to come up with?
A match, balloons filled with oil/gas, a blocked exit in a crowded theater.
JRM wrote:
I see. You were quoting random statistics for fun. No problem, then.
jazzcyclist wrote: #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.
The NRA went on a "drum up the paranoia" campaign when Obama was elected. There was a huge spike on gun buys after it. The message was clear: "He'll ban guns so buy more." The NRA has done more to encourage the growth of gun buying than any other group and done more to quash sensible weapons bans and restrictions. Whether you like it or not more available guns makes for more violence. States with stricter gun laws have less gun violence, it's a fact. And Alaska is #1. Why? My guess is they hunt a lot so when violence occurs they have ready access.
What??? California has stricter gun laws and is in no way less violent.
mump boy wrote:We don't have the need to defend ourselves because we have very few murders, because we have very few guns.
You don't have many gun crimes but you still have murders.
as i previously posted 550 in a year compared to US 16,000 !! adjusted for population that approx 6 times more murders than usm, mainly driven by guns, you have 3 times as many gun murders than we have murders in general !! *
What ever 'freedoms' this affords you glady free from them
*mump boys maths skills are not what they should be
Based on the stats I've seen, of 16,000 murders in the U.S., only 9000 were with guns. That's barely half, and hardly what I would describe as "mainly driven by guns". Apparently, even the non-gun murder rate in the U.S. is considerably higher than the overall murder rate in the U.K. And if guns were taken out of circulation in the U.S., it's a good bet that the non-gun murder rate would be greater than 7000 as people sought out other means to kill.
jazzcyclist wrote: #4 makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the NRA's media campaign is making people more trigger happy? However, I do think #1 (urbanization of America) and #2 (media violence) seem very plausible. #2 has been discussed before, but I had never thought of #1 which makes a lot of sense.
The NRA went on a "drum up the paranoia" campaign when Obama was elected. There was a huge spike on gun buys after it. The message was clear: "He'll ban guns so buy more." The NRA has done more to encourage the growth of gun buying than any other group and done more to quash sensible weapons bans and restrictions. Whether you like it or not more available guns makes for more violence. States with stricter gun laws have less gun violence, it's a fact. And Alaska is #1. Why? My guess is they hunt a lot so when violence occurs they have ready access.
What??? California has stricter gun laws and is in no way less violent.
mump boy wrote:We don't have the need to defend ourselves because we have very few murders, because we have very few guns.
You don't have many gun crimes but you still have murders.
as i previously posted 550 in a year compared to US 16,000 !! adjusted for population that approx 6 times more murders than usm, mainly driven by guns, you have 3 times as many gun murders than we have murders in general !! *
What ever 'freedoms' this affords you glady free from them
*mump boys maths skills are not what they should be
Based on the stats I've seen, of 16,000 murders in the U.S., only 9000 were with guns. That's barely half, and hardly what I would describe as "mainly driven by guns". Apparently, even the non-gun murder rate in the U.S. is considerably higher than the overall murder rate in the U.K. And if guns were taken out of circulation in the U.S., it's a good bet that the non-gun murder rate would be greater than 7000 as people sought out other means to kill.
It would be better to say that the US has a more murderess society, the cause of which seems to be drugs and gangs.
My chart focused on gun deaths. Yours on murder per se. Although I'm never sure if per capita surveys are useful as the larger the population the more diluted the results. It's more useful to look at Large cities across the world. I'll try to see if I can get figures. Here's a sobering statistic from 2006-2007:
People living in 50 of the largest U.S. cities accounted for 67% of all firearm homicides, and most involved children and teens aged 10 to 19
It is reported that a semi-automatic rifle jammed during the Aurora attack and the gunman switched to a weapon with less firepower, possibly saving some lives.
My chart focused on gun deaths. Yours on murder per se. Although I'm never sure if per capita surveys are useful as the larger the population the more diluted the results. It's more useful to look at Large cities across the world. I'll try to see if I can get figures. Here's a sobering statistic from 2006-2007:
People living in 50 of the largest U.S. cities accounted for 67% of all firearm homicides, and most involved children and teens aged 10 to 19
Our minority children are killing off our minority children.
The US also has a 3100 km border with a 3rd world country. My friend, a larger statistical population increases accuracy, but also comparing apples to apples is more accurate.
Vince wrote: The US also has a 3100 km border with a 3rd world country. My friend, a larger statistical population increases accuracy, but also comparing apples to apples is more accurate.
As to larger statistical populations and accuracy there is the issue of large states being large due to large cities and gun violence increases in urban areas and especially inner cities. So comparing Alaska to California on a per capita basis doesn't necessarily tell an accurate picture. While we deplore the mass shootings that seem to often be non minority on non minority the media largely ignores the daily inner city killings that probably exceed the Aurora shooting by 2x.
JRM wrote: Exactly what kind of ingenious weapon do you think a neuroscience Ph.D. student going to come up with?
A match, balloons filled with oil/gas, a blocked exit in a crowded theater.
How heavy do you think the balloons would be in order to have enough gas to have a significant impact (besides setting off panic)? Also, as I mentioned before, after the first balloon or two are lobbed, people will react: some will say "Stop it!", some will flee, and some are quite likely to storm him (because he doesn't present a bodily threat if he's just throwing balloons).
Vince wrote:
JRM wrote:I see. You were quoting random statistics for fun. No problem, then.
PS: Look up the meaning of perspective.
Please explain what "perspective" you were trying to demonstrate, because it's unclear to me. And also, what do motor vehicle-related deaths and suicides have to do with gun-related murders?
By the way, would you mind doing one more bit of research: can you find the number of murders by gasoline-filled-balloon dousing that occur in the US each year? That would provide some additional perspective for us.
I have a friend who moved to Centennial, Col. circa 2008, who was in the theatre when the mayhem occurred. She's interviewed in an online podcast for local radio:
Legislators will do no more to ban or restrict (non-hunting) firearms from easy access and street use, than they did when their fellow lawmakers and staff JFK, RFK, Presidents Ford and Reagan, James Brady, and Rep. Gabi Gifford were victim to them.
Well, here's some depressing news for gun-control advocates courtesy a Gallup poll just referenced on MSNBC's Hardball.. According to this poll, attitudes of Americans have steadily become more pro-gun and less pro-gun control over the last 20 years, and young people today are more pro-gun than their parents and grandparents. On just about every other major issue (eg. gay rights, race, healthcare, drugs, etc .), liberals are winning the hearts and minds of young people, but on the issue of guns, it is the NRA that is winning the hearts and minds of young people. Perhaps this is why American politicians are loathe to touch the third rail of gun control.
Meanwhile, in another part of the country... The next worst thing about mass shootings is the copy-cat mentality.
==== ... A trooper stopped Timothy Courtois, 49, for doing 112 mph on the Maine Turnpike Sunday morning, police said. Motorists had reported seeing a speeding Mustang with its flashers on.
Upon pulling him over, police found an assault rifle, four handguns and several boxes of ammunition, they said. Also found inside his car were recent news clippings of the mass shooting at the Colorado movie theater, police said.
Police said Courtois then admitted to police he had attended the Batman movie at the Cinemagic Theater in Saco Saturday night with a loaded gun in his backpack. He also told authorities that he was on his way to Derry, N.H. to shoot a former employer.
jazzcyclist wrote:it is the NRA that is winning the hearts and minds of young people.
No doubt, they have a well coordinated campaign. Look how well Joe Camel did for cancer sticks.
One observation that someone made yesterday is that the NRA isn't winning over all these young people by themselves, rather they are getting a lot of help from the video game industry and Hollywood's action movie industry.
Very cool to see that Christian Bale has been in Colorado visiting the victims - privately and with no media notice(news got out when victim posted photo)
Congressman Carolyn McCarthy, a.k.a. "The Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. Eveidently, she had the same civics teacher as Sarah Palin if she thinks a President can use executives order to repeal constitutional amendments, but even an attempt to do such a thing would be the greatest gift he could give Romney.
jazzcyclist wrote:Congressman Carolyn McCarthy, a.k.a. "The Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. Eveidently, she had the same civics teacher as Sarah Palin if she thinks a President can use executives order to repeal constitutional amendments, but even an attempt to do such a thing would be the greatest gift he could give Romney.
Which is why it was so idiotic and ignorant of the masses to rush out and buy guns because the NRA said Obama would ban guns. They (the NRA) knew he couldn't; the arms industry knew he couldn't; but the sheeple bought it hook line and sinker. More billions for the gun folks.
jazzcyclist wrote:Congressman Carolyn McCarthy, a.k.a. "The Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. Eveidently, she had the same civics teacher as Sarah Palin if she thinks a President can use executives order to repeal constitutional amendments, but even an attempt to do such a thing would be the greatest gift he could give Romney.
Which is why it was so idiotic and ignorant of the masses to rush out and buy guns because the NRA said Obama would ban guns. They (the NRA) knew he couldn't; the arms industry knew he couldn't; but the sheeple bought it hook line and sinker. More billions for the gun folks.
Perhaps she's getting money under the table from the NRA to say carzy stuff like this.
Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program? The fact that he was mediocre and struggled may indicate a motive. Failure attempting notoriety.
Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program? The fact that he was mediocre and struggled may indicate a motive. Failure attempting notoriety.
I guess so, but the guy is a nutter no matter what. School is not going well, geez I think I will spend thousands of dollars on guns and ammo. He should have spent more time on his studies and less time, and money, on planning a massacre.
Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program? The fact that he was mediocre and struggled may indicate a motive. Failure attempting notoriety.
I guess so, but the guy is a nutter no matter what. School is not going well, geez I think I will spend thousands of dollars on guns and ammo. He should have spent more time on his studies and less time, and money, on planning a massacre.
Most of these shooters are either insane or have deeply rooted inferiority complexes, or both. The most dangerous human in society is not the nutter but the depressed/suicidal individual who wants to take out others (projecting his own hatred of their "normalcy") before killing himself. The number of men taking out their families, and then killing themselves, is astounding.
jeremyp wrote:Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program?
The best in the lab are not always the ones with the high GPA. Sounds like they took a risk on a student that appeared to be motivated. Obviously they realised their mistake and were about to ask him to leave. That normally means writing a thesis towards a masters or, in his case, withdrawing from the program.
Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program? The fact that he was mediocre and struggled may indicate a motive. Failure attempting notoriety.
I guess so, but the guy is a nutter no matter what. School is not going well, geez I think I will spend thousands of dollars on guns and ammo. He should have spent more time on his studies and less time, and money, on planning a massacre.
Most of these shooters are either insane or have deeply rooted inferiority complexes, or both. The most dangerous human in society is not the nutter but the depressed/suicidal individual who wants to take out others (projecting his own hatred of their "normalcy") before killing himself. The number of men taking out their families, and then killing themselves, is astounding.
Thank god he's got the freedom to buy guns and make his dream come true
I heard this quote from Romney, about the Colorado gunmen, this morning.
Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't.
Has he moved the bar on gun control? What illegal 'things' was Romney referring to?
Daisy wrote:I heard this quote from Romney, about the Colorado gunmen, this morning.
Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't.
Has he moved the bar on gun control? What illegal 'things' was Romney referring to?
Who knows?
Despite Mitt Romney’s Claims, Aurora Suspect’s Gun Purchases Were Legal
Mitt Romney brushed off suggestions that the Aurora, Colo. theater shooting should renew a national conversation on gun control Wednesday, saying that it “was illegal” for accused Aurora shooter James Holmes to have the “kind of weapons and bombs and other devices” he used in his deadly attack.
Not exactly. Holmes legally purchased the weapons used in the attack, and legally bought thousands of rounds of ammunition online. One of the guns would have been illegal under the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
I think European-style gun laws would reduce spontaneous gun murders (eg. crimes of passion, bar room brawls, etc.), IF you could get guns out of circulation, but they wouldn't stop determined nutjobs who are willing to put a lot of time and thought into carrying their acts. They might effect what weapons the nutjob uses, but that's about it.
jazzcyclist wrote:I think European-style gun laws would reduce spontaneous gun murders (eg. crimes of passion, bar room brawls, etc.), IF you could get guns out of circulation, but they wouldn't stop determined nutjobs who are willing to put a lot of time and thought into carrying their acts. They might effect what weapons the nutjob uses, but that's about it.
And Norway was a case in point. I believe he got his weapons through the internet.
