Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Another Shooting In America?

1235753

Comments

  • Perhaps it's time the US took a leaf out of us Brits' book and introduced school uniforms.

    image
  • That is exactly why I would go for head shots when going on a shooting spree.

    that or the hands, to prevent the 5th graders shooting back at me.
  • Shouldn't some middle East Country invade the US of A and try to win the Heart and Minds of the simple folk and try to educate them ?

    They would have to be Armed of course.
  • That piece highlights perfectly why the NRA and it's supporters are so wrong. The statistics there are mind boggling - for every one shooting that avoids a 'justified' gun death (ie one where a 'bad guy' gets taken out before they kill someone) there are something like 40 other deaths (murders, collateral damage, bystanders etc). For fucks sake - twice as many are the result of accidents!!!

    America is largely a barbaric place - most of their problems are the result of rampant, unchecked conservatism, their lack of gun control laws (or even a realistic debate about them) is an extension of that. It's the most uncivilised civilised country on the planet
  • That's some quite very scary facts and stats there. I'm now waiting for limeygent to come back with some opinion piece from a conservative outlet that makes Fox News look like the Guardian and claim that this backs up whatever insane bullshit he's spouting.
  • That piece highlights perfectly why the NRA and it's supporters are so wrong. The statistics there are mind boggling - for every one shooting that avoids a 'justified' gun death (ie one where a 'bad guy' gets taken out before they kill someone) there are something like 40 other deaths (murders, collateral damage, bystanders etc). For fucks sake - twice as many are the result of accidents!!!

    America is largely a barbaric place - most of their problems are the result of rampant, unchecked conservatism, their lack of gun control laws (or even a realistic debate about them) is an extension of that. It's the most uncivilised civilised country on the planet
    Maybe they need their guns to defend themselves from all your hyperbole.


  • That piece highlights perfectly why the NRA and it's supporters are so wrong. The statistics there are mind boggling - for every one shooting that avoids a 'justified' gun death (ie one where a 'bad guy' gets taken out before they kill someone) there are something like 40 other deaths (murders, collateral damage, bystanders etc). For fucks sake - twice as many are the result of accidents!!!

    America is largely a barbaric place - most of their problems are the result of rampant, unchecked conservatism, their lack of gun control laws (or even a realistic debate about them) is an extension of that. It's the most uncivilised civilised country on the planet
    Maybe they need their guns to defend themselves from all your hyperbole.
    For the millionth time ?
    Why don't Folk take Antibiotics to clear up their Hyperbole ?

  • Sponsored links:


  • An even more terrifying stat: In 2013 27 policer officers where shot and killed in the US. In the same period 87 preschoolers were shot and killed in the same period. Just think on that for a minute. The police who face dangerous criminals, mostly armed, every single day, have a gun related death rate a third of that suffered by small children.

    At this stage the good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun argument is dead. Its hard to see how the majority of the 87 won't be accidental (of course some will be the result of sick individuals, but the vast majority will either be complete accidents, or at least collateral damage in crossfire, rather than actual targets), the good guys with guns are killing far more people than the bad guys can.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/t31.0-8/12139995_1169653116382976_3327564443391091477_o.jpg
  • Just came across a piece on the BBC about US parents asking other parents if they have guns in the house before letting their children play there. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34384757

    A statistic in that article was "one in three Americans own firearms - and there are more guns than people" would seem to imply that each gun owner in America owns, on average, 3 or more guns. Why? How many guns can you fire to "protect" yourself?
  • Jim Jefferies gun control.

    Search for that on YouTube. That's all.
  • Yeah, I saw that. Pretty spot on as far as I'm concerned.


  • That piece highlights perfectly why the NRA and it's supporters are so wrong. The statistics there are mind boggling - for every one shooting that avoids a 'justified' gun death (ie one where a 'bad guy' gets taken out before they kill someone) there are something like 40 other deaths (murders, collateral damage, bystanders etc). For fucks sake - twice as many are the result of accidents!!!

    America is largely a barbaric place - most of their problems are the result of rampant, unchecked conservatism, their lack of gun control laws (or even a realistic debate about them) is an extension of that. It's the most uncivilised civilised country on the planet
    Maybe they need their guns to defend themselves from all your hyperbole.
    Where is the hyperbole in that statement? It's a statement of fact, not opinion.
  • An even more terrifying stat: In 2013 27 policer officers where shot and killed in the US. In the same period 87 preschoolers were shot and killed in the same period. Just think on that for a minute. The police who face dangerous criminals, mostly armed, every single day, have a gun related death rate a third of that suffered by small children.

    At this stage the good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun argument is dead. Its hard to see how the majority of the 87 won't be accidental (of course some will be the result of sick individuals, but the vast majority will either be complete accidents, or at least collateral damage in crossfire, rather than actual targets), the good guys with guns are killing far more people than the bad guys can.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/t31.0-8/12139995_1169653116382976_3327564443391091477_o.jpg

    Saw that stat on Twitter. All the comments in response just said "yeah but there's 20m preschoolers and only 1m police officers, so that statistic is bogus" or "lots of preschoolers die in house fires, should we ban fire?"

    Which missed the point.

    It's tempting to legislate based on the high-profile massacres, but America really needs to look at the tens (hundreds?) of gun deaths every day and ask if there's a better way.
  • An even more terrifying stat: In 2013 27 policer officers where shot and killed in the US. In the same period 87 preschoolers were shot and killed in the same period. Just think on that for a minute. The police who face dangerous criminals, mostly armed, every single day, have a gun related death rate a third of that suffered by small children.

    At this stage the good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun argument is dead. Its hard to see how the majority of the 87 won't be accidental (of course some will be the result of sick individuals, but the vast majority will either be complete accidents, or at least collateral damage in crossfire, rather than actual targets), the good guys with guns are killing far more people than the bad guys can.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/t31.0-8/12139995_1169653116382976_3327564443391091477_o.jpg

    There is, of course a fatal flaw in your stats here.

    There are 20 million aged 0-4 in the US and around 900k sworn police officers. So the police death rate is 30 per million - the pre-schoolers death rate is 4.35 per million. So a copper is seven times more likely to be killed.

    These are still brutally shocking figures but it doesn't help any argument when stats are interpreted incorrectly.
  • Rizzo said:

    Just came across a piece on the BBC about US parents asking other parents if they have guns in the house before letting their children play there. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34384757

    A statistic in that article was "one in three Americans own firearms - and there are more guns than people" would seem to imply that each gun owner in America owns, on average, 3 or more guns. Why? How many guns can you fire to "protect" yourself?

    I suspect that these stats are skewed by those that own, literally, dozens of guns. I'm sure we have people here that own multiples of items when, strictly speaking, only one is necessary - one quick look at my wife's shoe cupboard will confirm this.

    There is a shooting club close to where I live and the members often own as many guns as they can afford (taking into account income, commitments and the family's needs). I wouldn't be surprised if in America, where the standard of living is higher, there will be enthusiasts that have a whole array of guns; hand guns, automatics, hunting rifles, assault weapons (honestly), shotguns, and others that I've never heard of.

    Having said that the worst purchase of them all is the first one - having twenty guns makes killing someone no easier than having one, as you pointed out.
  • But you also have to take into account the number of times a police officer is likely to find himself in a situation in which shots are fired compared to the number of times that a pre-schooler will.
  • That piece highlights perfectly why the NRA and it's supporters are so wrong. The statistics there are mind boggling - for every one shooting that avoids a 'justified' gun death (ie one where a 'bad guy' gets taken out before they kill someone) there are something like 40 other deaths (murders, collateral damage, bystanders etc). For fucks sake - twice as many are the result of accidents!!!

    America is largely a barbaric place - most of their problems are the result of rampant, unchecked conservatism, their lack of gun control laws (or even a realistic debate about them) is an extension of that. It's the most uncivilised civilised country on the planet
    Leroy, even though I agree with your position on this subject is there not an argument that some of those other 40 deaths might have been prevented if more people had been there with a gun to shoot the bad guy?

    I'm not, in any way, agreeing with arming the population, but those stats to seem to lend themselves to the other side's position as well.
  • Sponsored links:


  • bobmunro said:

    An even more terrifying stat: In 2013 27 policer officers where shot and killed in the US. In the same period 87 preschoolers were shot and killed in the same period. Just think on that for a minute. The police who face dangerous criminals, mostly armed, every single day, have a gun related death rate a third of that suffered by small children.

    At this stage the good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun argument is dead. Its hard to see how the majority of the 87 won't be accidental (of course some will be the result of sick individuals, but the vast majority will either be complete accidents, or at least collateral damage in crossfire, rather than actual targets), the good guys with guns are killing far more people than the bad guys can.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/t31.0-8/12139995_1169653116382976_3327564443391091477_o.jpg

    There is, of course a fatal flaw in your stats here.

    There are 20 million aged 0-4 in the US and around 900k sworn police officers. So the police death rate is 30 per million - the pre-schoolers death rate is 4.35 per million. So a copper is seven times more likely to be killed.

    These are still brutally shocking figures but it doesn't help any argument when stats are interpreted incorrectly.
    There is no fatal flaw as it were. Police officers are active targets of shootings, whilst pre-schoolers shouldn't be. A police officer will deal with armed criminals on a regular basis, whilst a pre-schooler ideally would never have to. It's clearly not a like for like comparison, so all we can do is state raw figures and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. Death rates per million is meaningless when one group is actively putting itself in harms way and the other group isn't.

  • That's statistics for you, if you torture numbers enough they will tell you anything!

    Having said that, the death by firearm rate for pre-schoolers should be zero. If Sandy Hook didn't force the US government into action on gun control, nothing ever will.
  • bobmunro said:

    An even more terrifying stat: In 2013 27 policer officers where shot and killed in the US. In the same period 87 preschoolers were shot and killed in the same period. Just think on that for a minute. The police who face dangerous criminals, mostly armed, every single day, have a gun related death rate a third of that suffered by small children.

    At this stage the good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun argument is dead. Its hard to see how the majority of the 87 won't be accidental (of course some will be the result of sick individuals, but the vast majority will either be complete accidents, or at least collateral damage in crossfire, rather than actual targets), the good guys with guns are killing far more people than the bad guys can.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/t31.0-8/12139995_1169653116382976_3327564443391091477_o.jpg

    There is, of course a fatal flaw in your stats here.

    There are 20 million aged 0-4 in the US and around 900k sworn police officers. So the police death rate is 30 per million - the pre-schoolers death rate is 4.35 per million. So a copper is seven times more likely to be killed.

    These are still brutally shocking figures but it doesn't help any argument when stats are interpreted incorrectly.
    There is no fatal flaw as it were. Police officers are active targets of shootings, whilst pre-schoolers shouldn't be. A police officer will deal with armed criminals on a regular basis, whilst a pre-schooler ideally would never have to. It's clearly not a like for like comparison, so all we can do is state raw figures and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. Death rates per million is meaningless when one group is actively putting itself in harms way and the other group isn't.

    percentage of armed police in US - 100
    percentage of armed pre-schoolers in US - 0 (I hope)
  • bobmunro said:

    An even more terrifying stat: In 2013 27 policer officers where shot and killed in the US. In the same period 87 preschoolers were shot and killed in the same period. Just think on that for a minute. The police who face dangerous criminals, mostly armed, every single day, have a gun related death rate a third of that suffered by small children.

    At this stage the good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun argument is dead. Its hard to see how the majority of the 87 won't be accidental (of course some will be the result of sick individuals, but the vast majority will either be complete accidents, or at least collateral damage in crossfire, rather than actual targets), the good guys with guns are killing far more people than the bad guys can.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/t31.0-8/12139995_1169653116382976_3327564443391091477_o.jpg

    There is, of course a fatal flaw in your stats here.

    There are 20 million aged 0-4 in the US and around 900k sworn police officers. So the police death rate is 30 per million - the pre-schoolers death rate is 4.35 per million. So a copper is seven times more likely to be killed.

    These are still brutally shocking figures but it doesn't help any argument when stats are interpreted incorrectly.
    There is no fatal flaw as it were. Police officers are active targets of shootings, whilst pre-schoolers shouldn't be. A police officer will deal with armed criminals on a regular basis, whilst a pre-schooler ideally would never have to. It's clearly not a like for like comparison, so all we can do is state raw figures and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. Death rates per million is meaningless when one group is actively putting itself in harms way and the other group isn't.

    100% agree with every word you say.

    My point was that you said gun related death rates were three times more for pre-schoolers than for police. This is clearly not true. Yes three times as many children die than police officers but that's not a rate.

    It may sound semantic but in this case it isn't. The NRA will I'm sure use stats to their advantage so it makes sense to get them right. In fact the police versus pre-school children argument actually could be used to support the NRA argument that carrying a gun acts as a deterrent - most people know that pre-school children don't.

    It's a tragic situation but the majority of Americans want to be able to carry guns - pure and simple. The good old US of A is a wonderful, vibrant, fucked up country.


  • That piece highlights perfectly why the NRA and it's supporters are so wrong. The statistics there are mind boggling - for every one shooting that avoids a 'justified' gun death (ie one where a 'bad guy' gets taken out before they kill someone) there are something like 40 other deaths (murders, collateral damage, bystanders etc). For fucks sake - twice as many are the result of accidents!!!

    America is largely a barbaric place - most of their problems are the result of rampant, unchecked conservatism, their lack of gun control laws (or even a realistic debate about them) is an extension of that. It's the most uncivilised civilised country on the planet
    Maybe they need their guns to defend themselves from all your hyperbole.
    Where is the hyperbole in that statement? It's a statement of fact, not opinion.
    Leroy calling America a 'largely barbaric place' is hyperbole. You made fair points up to then.


  • That piece highlights perfectly why the NRA and it's supporters are so wrong. The statistics there are mind boggling - for every one shooting that avoids a 'justified' gun death (ie one where a 'bad guy' gets taken out before they kill someone) there are something like 40 other deaths (murders, collateral damage, bystanders etc). For fucks sake - twice as many are the result of accidents!!!

    America is largely a barbaric place - most of their problems are the result of rampant, unchecked conservatism, their lack of gun control laws (or even a realistic debate about them) is an extension of that. It's the most uncivilised civilised country on the planet
    Maybe they need their guns to defend themselves from all your hyperbole.
    Where is the hyperbole in that statement? It's a statement of fact, not opinion.
    Leroy calling America a 'largely barbaric place' is hyperbole. You made fair points up to then.
    I think Leroy is right on the money.

  • I notice in light of recent comments and statistics Limeygent has gone quieter than Colin on the Jacko thread after Sunday...
  • bobmunro said:

    An even more terrifying stat: In 2013 27 policer officers where shot and killed in the US. In the same period 87 preschoolers were shot and killed in the same period. Just think on that for a minute. The police who face dangerous criminals, mostly armed, every single day, have a gun related death rate a third of that suffered by small children.

    At this stage the good guy with a gun vs the bad guy with a gun argument is dead. Its hard to see how the majority of the 87 won't be accidental (of course some will be the result of sick individuals, but the vast majority will either be complete accidents, or at least collateral damage in crossfire, rather than actual targets), the good guys with guns are killing far more people than the bad guys can.

    https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/t31.0-8/12139995_1169653116382976_3327564443391091477_o.jpg

    There is, of course a fatal flaw in your stats here.

    There are 20 million aged 0-4 in the US and around 900k sworn police officers. So the police death rate is 30 per million - the pre-schoolers death rate is 4.35 per million. So a copper is seven times more likely to be killed.

    These are still brutally shocking figures but it doesn't help any argument when stats are interpreted incorrectly.
    There is no fatal flaw as it were. Police officers are active targets of shootings, whilst pre-schoolers shouldn't be. A police officer will deal with armed criminals on a regular basis, whilst a pre-schooler ideally would never have to. It's clearly not a like for like comparison, so all we can do is state raw figures and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. Death rates per million is meaningless when one group is actively putting itself in harms way and the other group isn't.

    percentage of armed police in US - 100
    percentage of armed pre-schoolers in US - 0 (I hope)
    And its all the pre schoolers getting shot, seems simple, arm the kids and they will be as safe as the police.

    Limey was right all along, we just couldn't see it.
  • edited October 2015
    Can you imagine a day without a shooting in the States?

    Yes, a day with more than one shooting: today.

    SkyNewsBreak: One person has been killed and three other people have been injured in a shooting at Northern Arizona University


    SkyNewsBreak: AP: Texas Southern University is on lockdown and a gunman is being sought after two shot at student housing


  • IAIA
    edited October 2015
    .
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!