Connecticut School Shooting

[EL PRESIDENTE]

So in 30 years, there's been less than 75 mass shootings?

 

[Denny Crane]

You mean I have a second amendment right to own a cannon? Where are the licensed cannon dealers? I demand
(a) the right to concealed carry a cannon
(b) a fucking huge coat big enough to conceal a cannon.

Shit, the NRA has really dropped the (cannon) ball on this one!



Because the Supreme Court is always in the right, right? Boy, when it overrules itself your head must explode.



Because 20 dead kids doesn't count as "mass destruction". I guess it's "acceptable collateral damage for the greater glory of gun ownership".



Maybe it's just me but a whole lot of dead kids kinda seems like "compelling interest."

20 dead kids is a tragedy and a mass killing. It was not done with weapons of mass destruction.

And no, 20 dead kids is not a compelling interest. It may be a social interest or your personal pet interest. It's not a STATE interest, nor is it compelling.

A cannon isn't a weapon of mass destruction either. If you want to understand what a WMD is, read the FAQ on the FBI site: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs

And if you want to understand what "compelling state interest" means: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/compelling-state-interest-test/

 

[RoyToy]

So in 30 years, there's been less than 75 mass shootings?

How do you think that number compares to other countries?

 

[Denny Crane]

Look at what Canada does. They have a lot of guns and comparable culture and demographics. Follow their lead.

Just wow.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/17/toronto-shooting-victims.html

(On July 17, 25 people were shot and 2 killed at a block party in TORONTO. Toronto is in Canada.)

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

How do you think that number compares to other countries?

as a percentage of total gun shootings, probably pretty similar....somewhere close to being statistically insignificant and/or near zero.

 

[Denny Crane]

How do you think that number compares to other countries?

A lot less than Rwanda, Iraq, Somalia, and probably a few dozen other countries.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

A lot less than Rwanda, Iraq, Somalia, and probably a few dozen other countries.

Please, no jokes in poor taste. This is a tragedy.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Rob Delaney:

If your response to calls for gun control is “Should we get rid of cars too?” the answer is, for you, yes. You should not have a gun or car.

 

[porkchopexpress]

A lot less than Rwanda, Iraq, Somalia, and probably a few dozen other countries.

Yay, we're doing better than countries with genocide! Take that gun haters!

 

[Denny Crane]

Please, no jokes in poor taste. This is a tragedy.

That is no joke. Are those places not countries?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

That is no joke. Are those places not countries?

Only in that they have boundaries decided by the British.

 

[porkchopexpress]

That is no joke. Are those places not countries?

Yes they are. And like every other stat you've posted in this thread, mentioning them is unrelated and 100% pointless.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Just wow.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/17/toronto-shooting-victims.html

(On July 17, 25 people were shot and 2 killed at a block party in TORONTO. Toronto is in Canada.)

Are you seriously using a single example and acting like it shows something? Are you seriously trying to claim that Canada doesn't have a MINISCULE gun-death per capita rate compared with the US?

Actually, you're not serious, are you? You've been trolling all along. It's the only answer.

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/300000-violent-gun-crimes-a-year-in-the-us-poster.html

I’m not sure why you keep holding up the incredibly violent UK as a model. Yes the UK weapon bans reduces gun violence, but non gun violence has skyrocketed. It has over 4x the per capita violent crime as the US.

“2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

UK is actually considered one the most violent countries in Europe. They banned the right to carry firearms too.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/300000-violent-gun-crimes-a-year-in-the-us-poster.html



UK is actually considered one the most violent countries in Europe. They banned the right to carry firearms too.

EDIT: fucked up the stat... my bad.

Let's try again. Intentional Homicide rate per 100,000:

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

UK - 1.2 per 100K
US - 4.2 per 100K

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i guess at the end of the day, im more concerned with murder than guns

for instance russia has a much higher murder rate, and a much smaller percentage are gun related

oregon has a similar murder rate to canada, what is oregon doing right that the rest of the country can emulate?

 

[Denny Crane]

Are you seriously using a single example and acting like it shows something? Are you seriously trying to claim that Canada doesn't have a MINISCULE gun-death per capita rate compared with the US?

Actually, you're not serious, are you? You've been trolling all along. It's the only answer.

Canada has about 1/2 the per capita gun death rate we do.

It's not "minuscule compared to ours," by any rational definition.

You point to Canada as if it's some panacea. It's not.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

EDIT: fucked up the stat... my bad.

that link says oregon has 298 violent crimes/100,000

 

[BlazerCaravan]

that link says oregon has 298 violent crimes/100,000

The intentional homicide rate was what I was really after, and I put it in my post above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[Denny Crane]

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

 

[RR7]

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/300000-violent-gun-crimes-a-year-in-the-us-poster.html



UK is actually considered one the most violent countries in Europe. They banned the right to carry firearms too.

The violent crimes rate might be higher, but their murder rate is lower, we're at 4.2 per 100,000, they're at 1.2. Maybe if they didn't ban guns, their rate would be higher with the increase in violence. And really, why would the rate be affected, because as we all know, if you take guns away, only the criminal would have them, I would think then the criminals would become more brazen with their guns, knowing it is unlikely the person they are attacking isn't armed.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

The intentional homicide rate was what I was really after, and I put it in my post above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

i am currently perusing that same wiki page, some interesting stuff there

 

[magnifier661]

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

Here is another article on Britain that has a strict gun law.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England's low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

 

[magnifier661]

The violent crimes rate might be higher, but their murder rate is lower, we're at 4.2 per 100,000, they're at 1.2. Maybe if they didn't ban guns, their rate would be higher with the increase in violence. And really, why would the rate be affected, because as we all know, if you take guns away, only the criminal would have them, I would think then the criminals would become more brazen with their guns, knowing it is unlikely the person they are attacking isn't armed.

You should read the other article. The reports are conflicting to your statement.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

The violent crimes rate might be higher, but their murder rate is lower, we're at 4.2 per 100,000, they're at 1.2. Maybe if they didn't ban guns, their rate would be higher with the increase in violence. And really, why would the rate be affected, because as we all know, if you take guns away, only the criminal would have them, I would think then the criminals would become more brazen with their guns, knowing it is unlikely the person they are attacking isn't armed.

its interesting to think about the correlation between violent crimes and gun ownership

maybe more people assault each other because they know nobody is going to pull a gun out? so more people get attacked, but less people killed...

 

[BigGameDamian]

It's way to easy to get guns these days. Just about anybody can get them. Ammunition's not hard to get either.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/20/mass-shootings-list.html

MASS SHOOTINGS
1. Oslo Norway, 80 people killed
2. Baku Azerbaijan, 12 people killed
3. rural Alabama, 10 people killed
4. Kauhojoki Finland, 10 people killed
5. Tuusula Finland, 8 people killed
6. Blacksburg Va, 32 people killed
7. Erfurt Germany, 13 teachers, 2 students, 1 policeman killed
8. Columbine, 12 students, 1 teacher killed
9. Tasmania Australia, 20 people killed, 15 more as he drove away.
10. Dunblane Scotland, 16 kindergarten children killed, and the teacher
11. Killeen Texas, 23 people killed
12. Jacksonville Fla, 10 people killed
13. Montreal, 14 women killed
14. Hungerford England, 16 people killed
15. Edmond Okla, 14 people killed
16. San Ysidro CA, 21 people killed

 

[BlazerCaravan]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/20/mass-shootings-list.html

MASS SHOOTINGS
1. Oslo Norway, 80 people killed
2. Baku Azerbaijan, 12 people killed
3. rural Alabama, 10 people killed
4. Kauhojoki Finland, 10 people killed
5. Tuusula Finland, 8 people killed
6. Blacksburg Va, 32 people killed
7. Erfurt Germany, 13 teachers, 2 students, 1 policeman killed
8. Columbine, 12 students, 1 teacher killed
9. Tasmania Australia, 20 people killed, 15 more as he drove away.
10. Dunblane Scotland, 16 kindergarten children killed, and the teacher
11. Killeen Texas, 23 people killed
12. Jacksonville Fla, 10 people killed
13. Montreal, 14 women killed
14. Hungerford England, 16 people killed
15. Edmond Okla, 14 people killed
16. San Ysidro CA, 21 people killed

7 out of 16 are in the US, though.

 

[RR7]

You should read the other article. The reports are conflicting to your statement.

not conflicting. When talking striclty of people being murdered. UK has their lowest homicide total in 30 years currently. Is it JUST because of gun laws? Very likely no. Does it help? You're linking to an article written 10 years ago.

 

[Denny Crane]

7 out of 16 are in the US, though.

We have a really big population. 4x the size of Germany or 5x Brittain. 60x the size of Finland.