Another US shooting: 9 dead in SC church

[Xordium]

There is absolutely no need for your average civilian to own a gun. They may want to own a gun but they don't need to own one.

The simple fact is that guns are very dangerous when used. Like many things are dangerous when used or misused. When there is no need for people to own or use something that is dangerous then it makes sense to curtail the ownership of them.

Some of the practices in the USA are just stupid and an awful lot of these deaths wholly preventable.

 

[spudbynight]

America will never stop these gun crimes until it realises the solution isn't "more guns"

 

[Vulcan]

It matters because it determines what you're charged with, and may be used in court to determine whether or not you're likely to re-offend.

But why does it determine what he will be charged with? It's murder.

Identifying if someone may re-offend is done case by case, using hate crime laws doesn't show that they are likely or unlikely to re-offend.

What matters is how he killed the individuals, and was it premeditated. I fail to see why extra laws should be thrown in because he hates a certain group of people.

<alex jones>

Welcome to world of bitmap graphics, pal.

 

[Orionaut]

There is absolutely no need for your average civilian to own a gun. They may want to own a gun but they don't need to own one.

The simple fact is that guns are very dangerous when used. Like many things are dangerous when used or misused. When there is no need for people to own or use something that is dangerous then it makes sense to curtail the ownership of them.

Some of the practices in the USA are just stupid and an awful lot of these deaths wholly preventable.

There is absolutely no need for the average citizen to own a lot of things. The US has a cultural thing about Gun ownership. Live with it.

I strongly suspect that even if every citizen owned Gun is the USA was magically teleported away the actual impact on violent crime would only be marginal at best. (Yes, many of the "Murders" might well be switched to "Seriously Injured" but that doesn't mean the problem has gone away!)

Violent crime is a cultural thing too (And it is certainly an issue that the US has to confront, one way or another). merely removing one of the tools will not impact its incidence very much

 

[mid_gen]

Indeed. It is entirely ridiculous that US citizens are able to stroll around with murder tools in their handbags, but at this stage, removing them won't help. It's not a problem with too many guns, it's a problem with the fetish of the firearm in American culture.

You're about as likely to remove guns from American culture as you are to break the Republican/Democract stranglehold on politics. Not going to happen.

 

[estebanrey]

Oh look, that old misdirection Gun control.

The point I was attempting to make is that the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime/murder in the USA is actually very poor. And yet the gun control activists always argue in the light of events like this that stricter gun control will make violent crime and this sort of spree killing magically disappear. (Which is actually pretty rare, that's why it is global news. If it was commonplace it wouldn't be newsworthy)

As pointed out by Jim Jefferies there were 10 mass shooting in the decade prior to Port Arthur when strict gun controls were brought in, since then there have been none so at least in Australia's case the controls did make "these kinds of events" magically disappear.

Only there is nothing 'magic' about it, it's common sense. Don't make guns so easy to buy that a young unstable man can go into a Wall Mart one with few checks and it makes it far less likely this kind of thing happen.

Again, as Jefferies says it's not like a mentally ill kid can just rock up at the docks shouting "Guns, guns, who wanna sell me a gun!" and get one.

You're making the stupid "we can't prevent all murders so therefore there is no point even trying to minimise the risk" argument. Should we abolish speed limits and allow drink driving because people still get run over everyday?

Indeed, many of the states with the highest levels of gun ownership actually have the lowest levels of violent crime. there are plenty of areas in the states that are as safe as SW Surrey despite Guns being more common than i-phones. (You just have to keep away from the obvious stupidly "High Risk" neighbourhoods)

Yet you started your post of with...

"the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime/murder in the USA is actually very poor"

So I guess the correlation is only poor when it doesn't suit your argument and strong when it does?

There are other stats that correlate very well with the incidence of violent crime in the USA, they are available on Wiki too and they bare little relationship with levels of gun ownership.

But surely even if there are 'other factors' which contribute the US's overall high level of violent crime, isn't it sensible to restrict a tool solely designed to kill and maim people. In fact if you have a country that has a violent nature doesn't it make gun control MORE necessary.

 

[estebanrey]

I strongly suspect that even if every citizen owned Gun is the USA was magically teleported away the actual impact on violent crime would only be marginal at best. (Yes, many of the "Murders" might well be switched to "Seriously Injured" but that doesn't mean the problem has gone away!)

Violent crime is a cultural thing too (And it is certainly an issue that the US has to confront, one way or another). merely removing one of the tools will not impact its incidence very much

Cart before horse.

If you had a kid who was a pyromaniac would you buy him a can of petrol and a box of matches, then when he uses them to burn down the house justify it by saying "well his problem is his pyromania, if we took the petrol away he could still rub a stick against a rock"?

 

[Xordium]

There is absolutely no need for the average citizen to own a lot of things. The US has a cultural thing about Gun ownership. Live with it.

And North Africa has a thing about female genital mutilation. Shall we live with that too?

The Islamic world has a cultural thing about treating women as chattel. Shall we live with that too?

The Far East has cultural thing about killing little girls so they only have boys. Shall we live with that too?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

There is absolutely no need for your average civilian to own a gun. They may want to own a gun but they don't need to own one.

The simple fact is that guns are very dangerous when used. Like many things are dangerous when used or misused. When there is no need for people to own or use something that is dangerous then it makes sense to curtail the ownership of them.

Some of the practices in the USA are just stupid and an awful lot of these deaths wholly preventable.

I see I have some more posts to read but just wanted to jump in, boots on, and agree 100% with this post.

 

[Xordium]

White people just end up moving out of mixed estates anyway.

Hmm not so sure on this at all I live in a very ethnically diverse area even if white is the predominate "code" that would get ticked on a form. The schools are described as above average for "diversity". However, all those people from different backgrounds want to get on with life etc and people are happy here and the area is affluent.

I think you are mistaking the effect of poverty and the need for some people who would be categorised as being in the lower levels of affluence to apportion external factors for their situation rather than their own actions and choices.

Blaming someone else for you lack of perceived entitlement to success is a common but lazy approach. Whether that be them people coming over here stealing our jobs or a redneck moaning about what black people have done. Sometimes such concerns may be justified but often it's a mechanic used to excuse self-responsibility.

 

[Orionaut]

As pointed out by Jim Jefferies there were 10 mass shooting in the decade prior to Port Arthur when strict gun controls were brought in, since then there have been none so at least in Australia's case the controls did make "these kinds of events" magically disappear.

"Sigh" Spree killings are only a very small part of the picture. I have only done a brief search but it would suggest that less than one half of one percent of all US Murders are committed as a result of spree killings

Even if stricter gun control did stop spree killings it would be extraordinary to declare job done while tens (Hundreds!) of thousands of people each year would still continue to suffer the consequences of violent crime.

And yet I am sure that the Gun control activists would still declare victory while ignoring the devastation caused by violent crime generally. What would you ban next, the Knives that the criminals would turn to? Or even newspapers (You can make a devastatingly lethal weapon out of a newspaper, not least because the victim never sees it coming!)

Yet you started your post of with...

"the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime/murder in the USA is actually very poor"

So I guess the correlation is only poor when it doesn't suit your argument and strong when it does?

Now you are being silly!

You know Damn well that I meant a "Positive correlation" (IE More Guns=More violent crime)

But surely even if there are 'other factors' which contribute the US's overall high level of violent crime, isn't it sensible to restrict a tool solely designed to kill and maim people. In fact if you have a country that has a violent nature doesn't it make gun control MORE necessary.

A tempting argument, but nevertheless the wrong one! Canada has similar levels of gun ownership to the US but with low levels of Gun related crime.

It is violent crime that is the problem, not guns. Violent criminals will still be violent criminals and as I said earlier, Gun restrictions might translate some deaths into serious injuries but that doen't mean you have solved the problem.

The US needs to solve its fundamental problems (Somehow*). If it manages to do this the Gun issue will no longer be an issue.

* (And that is the problem. Nobody wants to even investigate the real issues. It is much easier to cry "Gun control")

 

[Xordium]

And yet I am sure that the Gun control activists would still declare victory while ignoring the devastation caused by violent crime generally. What would you ban next, the Knives that the criminals would turn to? Or even newspapers (You can make a devastatingly lethal weapon out of a newspaper, not least because the victim never sees it coming!)

I think even Jason Bourne would have a problem killing a significant number of people with a newspaper before being stopped don't you?

Following on your train of logic you may aswell make nuclear weapons legal for all to own because let's face it if people didn't use them they'd just kill each other with guns wouldn't they.

 

[Orionaut]

I think even Jason Bourne would have a problem killing a significant number of people with a newspaper before being stopped don't you?

Following on your train of logic you may aswell make nuclear weapons legal for all to own because let's face it if people didn't use them they'd just kill each other with guns wouldn't they.

I could kill just as many people (if I wanted too) as Bourne did using a fire extinguisher.

(And no I am not going to tell you how)

True, it would be a bit more cumbersome than a gun, but the victims still wouldn't see it coming.

There is an old legal saying "Hard cases make bad law"

Spree killing falls into the category of a "Hard Case"

Spree killings are certainly tragic, spectacular and politically challenging, but they really are not particularly relevant to the big picture.

Even with really strict levels of gun control, in the USA potential Spree killers would still be able to get hold of a firearm if they wanted to.

Like in the UK where banning private ownership of handguns really stopped people being shot didnt it.

Following on your train of logic you may aswell make nuclear weapons legal for all to own because let's face it if people didn't use them they'd just kill each other with guns wouldn't they.

We are moving towards a world where "everybopdy" might well have access to Nuclear weapons. "Banning" them will not protect us. Only removing the reasons why people might want to use them will!

 

[gettothechopper]

I could kill just as many people (if I wanted too) as Bourne did using a fire extinguisher.

(And no I am not going to tell you how)

ahahahahahah

amazing

 

[Zethor]

A tempting argument, but nevertheless the wrong one! Canada has similar levels of gun ownership to the US but with low levels of Gun related crime.

It is violent crime that is the problem, not guns. Violent criminals will still be violent criminals and as I said earlier, Gun restrictions might translate some deaths into serious injuries but that doen't mean you have solved the problem.

Similar levels of gun ownership? Guns per capita is 3 times higher in the US, compared to Canada, what are you smoking? It's the guns and you know it, stop talking ****.

I could kill just as many people (if I wanted too) as Bourne did using a fire extinguisher.

Lol.

 

[Xordium]

(And no I am not going to tell you how)

I bet you know what colour the boathouse is at Hereford don't you.

I am SO IN AWE!

 

[gettothechopper]

I bet you know what colour the boathouse is at Hereford don't you.

I am SO IN AWE!

also was the second man on the balcony

 

[Orionaut]

Similar levels of gun ownership? Guns per capita is 3 times higher in the US, compared to Canada, what are you smoking? It's the guns and you know it, stop talking ****.



Lol.

That is still a lot of Guns!

And the issue is not the number of Guns per se.

It is the number of households with guns.

Now, I admit I do not know the answer to this. But I would expect that rather more households in the US have multiple guns than they do in Canada. so this massively skews the satatistics.

Me (say) owning 4 Guns doesn't make me four times as likely to commit a violent crime as Me owning one.

I bet you know what colour the boathouse is at Hereford don't you.

I am SO IN AWE!

It wasn't that long ago when quite a lot of people were killed (and many more seriously injured) by somebody using a "Saucepan"

So laugh all you like!

 

[Xordium]

So laugh all you like!

Thanks - I still am.

 

[estebanrey]

"Sigh" Spree killings are only a very small part of the picture. I have only done a brief search but it would suggest that less than one half of one percent of all US Murders are committed as a result of spree killings

Your argument was that strict controls would not make "these kinds of incidents" disappear. It was you who singled out this type of gun related crime not me.

The UK and Australia have shown that strict gun controls do make 'these types' of events disappear or extremely rare at worst.

Even if stricter gun control did stop spree killings it would be extraordinary to declare job done while tens (Hundreds!) of thousands of people each year would still continue to suffer the consequences of violent crime.

And yet I am sure that the Gun control activists would still declare victory while ignoring the devastation caused by violent crime generally. What would you ban next, the Knives that the criminals would turn to? Or even newspapers (You can make a devastatingly lethal weapon out of a newspaper, not least because the victim never sees it coming!)

What don't you understand harm reduction? This ridiculous idea that because you can't completely eradicate all forms of violent crime then you might as well not bother trying to reduce it is just asinine.

Should we abolish speed limits because it's not "job done" on road deaths?Should we abolish the age of consent because it's not "job done" on child abuse?

You can also turn your logic around and suggest that people violent crime will still be prevalent anyway, citizens should be allowed to own rocket launchers, mustard gas and (if they can afford it) nuclear weapons. I mean why not? It's not like banning them prevents people being killed by criminal does it?