[Closed] "guns in schools will prevent mass shootings" crazy 'murica content

Used to be friended with an intelligent US mx journo, smart feller, pleasing dry humour, but he had this same belief, couldn't work it out and had to unfriend him in the end. That taught him!

I just don't see how they think it makes sense, it's just because they don't look outside their own little bubble and see that other parts of the world manage just fine without guns.

In a new interview, the actor claims American citizens should own guns to ‘resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government’

I just don't see how they think it makes sense, it's just because they don't look outside their own little bubble and see that other parts of the world manage just fine without guns.

Just like lazy stereotyping of entire countries?

I've never met an American who suppourted the current gun laws (and i work with a lot of Americans).

“Take mass shootings,” he said. “They’ve only happened in places that don’t allow guns.

For a second there I thought he had forgotten all the mass shootings in the USA, then realised he meant schools.

It's kinda the opposite of the drugs thread. It seems to me that by making illegal drugs legal you help solve the drug problem. I can see the logic, but don't think it holds up having the same argument for guns.

I'd also be skeptical of the argument that mass shootings happen in schools because there's no guns there, rather than that place tends to be the place where the gunman has spent an awful lot of time, has strong emotions towards etc.

you can kind of see the logic
However if every single childs in america was armed I assume there would be more deaths not fewer but individual v individual rather than a few massacres every couple of years. Personally I would not want to test it*.
FFS though who wants to live in a country where your kid has to go to school armed 😯
I mean really who. To then say its a right like free speech and its to stop the state is frankly an argument only an american make and understand.

*Probably not want to start a food fight as well....just in case like

Watch "Team America" ....nuff said.

Just like lazy stereotyping of entire countries?

I've never met an American who suppourted the current gun laws (and i work with a lot of Americans).

Not lazy, just based on my observations. Lazy would be me just assuming all Americans think that because Vince said it. I often read articles on this subject and theme of comments is always the same with so many having this kind of thinking on the matter, I'm not claiming this is in anyway official research but I wouldn't say it was lazy.

Maybe you work with all the intelligent ones while the rest are at home commenting on articles I read? 😛

If I were to live in Merica I would have guns ... plenty of it.

I would probably carry a Glock 29 with me all the time.

If you want to shoot me at least give me a chance to shoot back.

You don't shoot me I don't shoot you.

Guns don't kill people do. 🙄

FFS though who wants to live in a country where your kid has to go to school armed

That sort of thing would just pop you on the list of countries that need a regime change.

On the day a guy took the hostages in Sydney (Terrorist) more people died from americans shooting americans (not terrorism just what happens) the culture of the gun is the problem, off to Utah in the autume, apparently you can carry a semi auto in public so long as there isn't a bullet in the chamber, you know just in case aliens land or something while your out for Macdonalds.

you can kind of see the logic

In theory I agree.

Anyone who can actually shoot: How many hours of range time would someone need to spend per month to make simply carrying a loaded handgun everywhere a viable defensive strategy against someone who had arrived in McDonald's armed and intending to kill people indiscriminately.

And is range time even a useful predictor of someone's ability to win a gun-fight anyway?

Talked about this a lot with an American friend (who is an anthropology professor) - it's connected to the growing libertarian movement/attitude in the US.

In a nutshell: I am responsible for me, and me only. If I want healthcare, I will buy healthcare. If I need a house, I will buy a house. If I am at risk of crime, I will buy a gun to defend myself.

If you try to take my gun away, YOU are putting me at risk of a crime.

The concept of social behavior is completely alien to these people, even though it runs (unseen) though everything they do - their private health insurance is inherently "socialist".

The argument is (obviously) enormously flawed - but voters are suckers for oversimplification. But it shows how deep this belief is held - they are actually considering arming children.

Anyone who can actually shoot: How many hours of range time would someone need to spend per month to make simply carrying a loaded handgun everywhere a viable defensive strategy against someone who had arrived in McDonald's armed and intending to kill people indiscriminately.

And is range time even a useful predictor of someone's ability to win a gun-fight anyway?

I have no idea but I know 2 things about guns 1) I'm awful with a shotgun. Those clay pigeons should hold no fear when I'm shooting. 2) It's scary how little recoil and how easy it is to shoot a semi automatic 22 rifle.

1 telling thing is that even the hunters I know here in Canada will usually go for the bear spray before going for a gun if threaten by say a bear or a cougar. And these are guys that are good shots and have appropriate weapon for hunting bears. I'm not really sure how that translate to guns in schools, but I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere...

You can own guns here. I've absolutely no interest in owning one. Having a fired a few I've no interest in doing so again. Scary ****ing things.

You can't really compare the American situation with ours in the UK. There are no doubt a fair few illegal firearms in the UK but armed criminals are the exception not the norm. If the yanks tried banning guns then only the most law obiding citizens would hand theirs in and thus the vast majority of criminals would still be armed and I think that's the point the pro gun lobby are making. They made a decision to let every Tom, Dick and Billy-Joe-Jimbob wander around armed many moons ago and now they can't go back.

Stop the sale of ammunition and make it a automatic 10yr year sentance to be in posession of it.

Hollywoods obsession with guns in movies doesnt help. Historically movies focused on fear, break in, zombies, attacks, etc etc etc. No wonder Yanks can be paranoid.

It's the Bears I'm more worried about.
I can't believe they already have a "right to arm bears"

Hollywoods obsession with guns in movies doesnt help. Historically movies focused on fear, break in, zombies, attacks, etc etc etc. No wonder Yanks can be paranoid.

[i]You can't really compare the American situation with ours in the UK. There are no doubt a fair few illegal firearms in the UK but armed criminals are the exception not the norm. If the yanks tried banning guns then only the most law obiding citizens would hand theirs in and thus the vast majority of criminals would still be armed and I think that's the point the pro gun lobby are making. They made a decision to let every Tom, Dick and Billy-Joe-Jimbob wander around armed many moons ago and now they can't go back. [/i]

only took the first page...

Legal guns also equals greater risk of successful suicide and accidental deaths.

USA at 10.3 and UK at 0.25 - - 40 times more likely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Maybe you work with all the intelligent ones while the rest are at home commenting on articles I read?

That's probably true, as long as you realise that's about as good as learning the highway code and driver attitudes from the Daily Mail comments section.

Interestingly there's been a steady trend downhill in the number of people who would like to see stricter laws (down from 3/4 in 1990 to about 1/2 now).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[i]The concept of social behavior is completely alien to these people[/i]

It isn't, the founding "principles" of America are built on stories about individual freedoms and liberties. The "creation myths" that a largely white largely middle class part of the population tell themselves is one of throwing off the shackles of oppressive govt interference, be that of the Mayflower Landings, the Boston Tea Party, the "taming" and movement West, the Civil war and right up to Isolationism of the early 20th century all follow the same principles.

Americans are happy to come together for a common purpose, but largely they have a short history that's built around self reliance (however mythic that might be).

2 shootings in Colorado, 2012.

First, guy rams car into cars into car park of a crowded church , heads inside shooting. One killed before one of congregation (off duty policeman) draws his weapon and returns fire. Attacker killed.

Few weeks later, in the same town, guy attacks cinema, which bans guns for cimemagoers, 12 dead, dozens injured.

I'm not arguing for or against, though I do wish the guns weren't there, but pointing out how some incidents influence the thinking.

You can't really compare the American situation with ours in the UK. There are no doubt a fair few illegal firearms in the UK
...
I've never met an American who suppourted the current gun laws (and i work with a lot of Americans).

I have, and

You can't really compare the American situation with ours in the UK.

I think perhaps Geography plays a part; attitudes change depending on the environment they've grown up in. A mate and I once stayed with a family in the US, the son would've been late teens / early 20s. We got around to talking about guns and his eyes lit up, "would you like to see my collection?!" He had a chest literally full of the bloody things.

I used to work with a pro-gun Texan bloke. He was a ... character. His attitude was that either no-one had guns or everyone had them. It's a bit like the nuclear deterrent; the argument is that if you know everyone is armed, no-one will ever use them. But the passion is incredible, it's like not wanting kids and talking to someone who has them, it's that ingrained.

Interestingly, I think I read once that statistically, most Americans are likely to be shot by their own guns, either accidentally or due to it being taken from them by an assailant. Make of that what you will.

[img] [/img]

Legal guns also equals greater risk of successful suicide

UK Suicide rate 11.9/100k
US 12.6/100k
Canada 11.5/100k

only took the first page...

Legal guns also equals greater risk of successful suicide and accidental deaths.

USA at 10.3 and UK at 0.25 - - 40 times more likely

Not sure that's got anything to do with my point that, in a self defence context, as was being discussed in the linked article, the UKs situation with Guns and that in the US are not a like for like comparison.

Don't get me wrong, I am quite happy I live in a country where the gun controls are as strict as they are. If, however, I lived in the US I would have to make a very difficult decision on whether I ought to own one to defend myself and my family given the prevalence of guns in many crimes. On balance I probably wouldn't but I would have to have a long hard think about it as it wouldn't be a cut and dry decision.

BTW Your point about accidental shootings is, for me, one of the strongest arguments for not owning a gun.

The self defence argument for owning a gun is delusional at best and deadly at worst. The accuracy of the average hit ratio of an NYPD officer (who are some of the best trained in the US) is 30% when the subject isn't shooting back and 18% when they are. No private individual is going to receive the training and practice of a serving police officer so anyone who thinks they can "take out" someone who is shooting at them has probably watched die hard a few too many times.

If, however, I lived in the US I would have to make a very difficult decision on whether I ought to own one to defend myself and my family given the prevalence of guns in many crimes.

Edit Some interesting reading
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

He needs to take advice from his character in his own movie

(Sweary)

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ]Intentional Homocide Rate[/url]:

UK: 1.0 per 100,000 inhabitants per year.

US: 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants per year.

(I'm not sure if that is an argument for or against guns)

The debate is about a lot of things,
Can anyone justify owning an assault rifle for self defense?
10 hand guns?
Taking a gun into a school? Really? Bit of a shifty looking guy at the door and 6 kids put him down cause it's safer?

If you have a problem with weapons (in a lot of cases legally owned ones) the best thing simply isn't to hand more out to people who then make split second decisions with massive consequences.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Im still unclear as to how much safer the average UK citizen is because this:

[IMG] [/IMG]

baffled metal tube is illegal to own without a firearms certificate, indeed better than that, if I wanted to change it for an identical one, I would have to fill in a form, send it to the police along with my certificate, wait anything up to a couple of months for the police to OK it, buy it, then write to the police telling them I had bought it, and that I had given my old one to the dealer, who would in turn have to record that he had sold one to me, and that he had destroyed the old one, and he would have to keep those records for twenty years.

Alternatively, I can buy an utterly identical baffled metal tube from the same dealer for an air rifle with no paperwork at all...

(Edit: please remember this next time you hear some propaganda about the cost of firearms licencing)

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
br />

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country shows gun ownership per 100. 89 US and 6.6 UK.

Make whatever comparisons you will. I would be interested to see what percentage of the poulation own a gun or guns rather than how many guns per 100 of the population (which isn't the same thing at all). I've seen an estimate of 35% of Americans own a gun or guns compared to something under 0.5% in the UK for firearms excluding shotguns and 1.5% including shotguns.

NYPD officers are not well-trained and a private individual could easily surpass their skill and training level with token effort. One of the issues that emerged after the shooting of Sean Bell and the hopelessly inaccurate shooting that the four undercover officers engaged in was that NYPD officers were only required to go shooting twice a year, and most of those involved hadn't even qualified to that. Most NYPD officers never fire their weapon (except at practice) across their entire career.

In that light, any adult that practiced once a week at a range (which is not unusual among enthusiasts where you can find gun ranges as easily as golf driving ranges) could quite easily be better - which is to say, less awful - than currently serving officers.

That doesn't, of course, mean that having more inept gun carriers would improve anyone's safety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/nyregion/new-york-police-recruits-need-more-gun-training-in-real-life-scenarios-critics-say.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Most NYPD officers never fire their weapon (except at practice) across their entire career.

Either I'm reading these wrong or they are contradictory.

You're reading them wrong.

The first gives the FIREARM homicide rate as 2.83 US and 0.04 UK

The second gives overall homicide rate (by any means) as 4.7 US and 1.0 UK.

In other words you are 4.7 times more likely to be murdered in the US, and if you are then it is about 70 times more likely that the murder weapon will be a firearm.

Ah thanks. That explains it. I'll clean my specs.

If they are as rubbish as you say, surely that's a good thing?

a) a lot of people think "I could do better myself than rely exclusively than them" (and some of them might even be right);

b) a lot of people won't call the cops;

c) some people feel that it would be great if - should the cops actually be called, show up and really have to use their gun - they were properly trained to do so.

Tough one this.

On the one hand I really respect the American stance of individual freedom and non interference from the state (but strange how that doesn't extend to drug laws and allowing citizens to choose what they put into their own bodies). On the other; it's clearly not working having everybody armed to the teeth. I guess the culture has to change.

Like many things if you keep treating the symptom, in this case fear and the fact everyone else has guns then you end up with more guns and the problem gets worse. Treat the problem that is gun use and ownership has got out of control and maybe you can fix the issue.

How much is the firearms industry worth to the US tax pot?

In that light, any adult that practiced once a week at a range (which is not unusual among enthusiasts where you can find gun ranges as easily as golf driving ranges) could quite easily be better - which is to say, less awful - than currently serving officers.

The problem with those trained and accurate gun owners isn't the ability to hit a paper target on a range. The problem is the real world situations where they might be tempted to use that gun isn't a paper target on a range. They might be good at plinking bullseyes all day long, but the complexities of a shooting / hostage / robbery scenario are way beyond their abilities.

For those looking at statistics for American gun death / crime, have a look at age and race. ISTR that a lot of gun deaths are
a) Old white rural men killing themselves
b) Young black urban males killing each other

They might be good at plinking bullseyes all day long, but the complexities of a shooting / hostage / robbery scenario are way beyond their abilities.

and such a high rate of distrust and people thinking they could do better.

Some forces are working hard at conflict resolution training and giving their officers the tools to de-escalate situations without more violence; these are obviously a minority. It's hard not to escalate a situation when the next step after 'shouting' is 'shooting' and nothing else to call upon.

My own feelings is that the USA is a strange place. They will allow you to own a weapon with minimal checks, but require you to pass a test to drive a car and you have to be 21 before you can buy an alcoholic drink! To try to compare that to the UK is almost impossible. We share more common social traits with our European neighbours than the USA, but for some reason people think that we are closer to the US because we speak a similar language!

I'm now into my 3rd year of living in the USA and some of the headline stuff is easier to understand after a while. However, most of it does still baffle me!

Hollywoods obsession with guns in movies doesnt help.

It's not just that. It's the positive portrayal of righteous violence - in everything from thrillers to rom coms. Not all films do it though, and the difference is quite stark when you start looking out for it.

The problem of course with righteous violence is disagreement as to what constitutes right.

TooTall - Member

The problem with those trained and accurate gun owners isn't the ability to hit a paper target on a range. The problem is the real world situations where they might be tempted to use that gun isn't a paper target on a range. They might be good at plinking bullseyes all day long, but the complexities of a shooting / hostage / robbery scenario are way beyond their abilities.

Aye. I've known some concealed carryists, and the truth is they were all deep in the western fantasy of quickdrawing and shooting down a bad guy. The reality is, if some dude comes up to you with a gun and the willingness to use it, and you try and use your own, most times you are going to get shot. It doesn't matter how good you are- you're surprised, you're thinking about something else, and even in perfect conditions all the odds were against you. The circumstances where it's useful are way less common than the circumstances where it's dangerous.

The motorbikers were especially weird- lots of plans of how to carry on a bike, "access is key man, no point carrying if you can't use it immediately". Yeah, but you're wearing leather gloves that make using a firearm impossible. So they end up strapping lumps of metal to their hips or their chests or their lower spines, which they'll never ever be able to use if they wish to, but which they're really pretty likely to fall on in a crash and mangle themselves. And all the time, they're on a machine that can take them a quarter mile away in 10 seconds.

I'm just going to leave this here

[url= http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun ]Sam Harris[/url]

I just read that. What an awful article that comes up with a really awful conclusion.

Stop the sale of ammunition and make it a automatic 10yr year sentance to be in posession of

Have you seen how many Americans are already locked up? They could never afford to lock up every American found with ammo. Then there are all the excuses 1) I didn't know I had it, it's from the 1950's etc 2) The fact that most yanks would end up just making their own powder and reloading brass.

Aye. I've known some concealed carryists, and the truth is they were all deep in the western fantasy of quickdrawing and shooting down a bad guy. The reality is, if some dude comes up to you with a gun and the willingness to use it, and you try and use your own, most times you are going to get shot. It doesn't matter how good you are- you're surprised, you're thinking about something else, and even in perfect conditions all the odds were against you. The circumstances where it's useful are way less common than the circumstances where it's dangerous.

The point of concealed carry though, not that I particularly agree with it is that the attacker then gets shot by another citizen who was not the target. It's a variation on MAD - and I believe those states that have introduced concealed carry laws have seen a reduced rate of violent crime.

Going back to those graphs on page 1, I see that NYC's death rate isn't so good - especially considering NYC has almost totally outlawed guns.

It's a whole genie out of the bottle thing isn't it? They've let it out, we've kept the lid on and battened it down a bit for good measure.

My own feelings is that the USA is a strange place. They will allow you to own a weapon with minimal checks,