8 yr old girl shot dead by 11yr old boy

[rushmc 18]

RMK

***When you want to post a link that is clicky

Click the "url" button at the bottom of the text window, paste your link, click the button a second time

The second one will have a / slash in front

...or just highlight your link and click "url"; it puts the quote markers at beginning and end in one single click.

I think I've done that one by accident before

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jbscout2002 1]

One student, Army veteran Chris Mintz, was in the classroom when the shooting started and charged the gunman in an attempt to stop the attack. Mintz was shot 7 times, but is expected to live. His his aunt Sheila Brown told NBC News in a telephone interview. “We were told he did heroic things to protect some people.”

Wonder how many people would have been killed if this vet was armed instead of the guy in the other building.

[jbscout2002 1]

jakee

Quote

I just don't believe the numbers you are throwing around to be any more "factual" than mine.

And yet they are. The interpretation's better too.

Quote

then I tend to believe gun control is counter productive.

You believe gun control is ineffective because you invented a hypothetical scenario that shows one part of gun control to be ineffective?

Solid facts:

According to the number of NICS checks completed (the most accurate way of tracking gun sales), gun sales increased steadily from approximately 8.5 million in 2004 to approximately 16.5 million in 2011.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data

According to the FBI uniform crime report for 2013, from 2004 to 2013, the was a 18.3% decrease in murder/non negligent manslaughter, a 22.1% decrease in rape, 20.2% decrease in robbery, and a 20.6% decrease in agrivated assault.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls

These two credible sources show that over about a decade, as the number of gun sales in the U.S nearly doubled, all violent crime in the U.S. dropped by about 20%.

I might just be completely missing something here, but I really don't see how those figures can be interpreted better. Number of guns went up while the number of crimes went down.

Maybe you can't credit the guns with reducing crime, but you certainly can't honestly think that more guns caused more crime.

You can say I made the numbers up, lied, twisted, manipulated, falsified, misinterpreted, or whatever else. The numbers came from the FBI UCR and the FBIs data showing numbers of NICS check processed via The Guardian. Sources are linked.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

You can say I made the numbers up, lied, twisted, manipulated, falsified,

I could, but I didn't and I haven't, so once again I wonder why you're making these silly comments?

Quote

misinterpreted, or whatever else.

Not sure if it counts as misinterpretation, but it certainly has only a tenuous link to your invented hypothetical scenario.

Quote

I might just be completely missing something here, but I really don't see how those figures can be interpreted better. Number of guns went up while the number of crimes went down.

Actually there's a far stronger correlation to be made from those numbers. First, from 2004 to 2007 homicides went up. So if guns are the reason for less crime then there's a serious lag.

Second, from 1994 to 2000, homicides went down (a lot). From 2001 to 2007 homicides went up. From 2008 to 2013 homicides went back down. So if you want fewer murders, vote Democrat

But seriously though, the US is already saturated with guns, and 'gun control' covers far more than trying to reduce numbers of firearms.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jbscout2002 1]

jakee

Actually there's a far stronger correlation to be made from those numbers. First, from 2004 to 2007 homicides went up. So if guns are the reason for less crime then there's a serious lag.

Second, from 1994 to 2000, homicides went down (a lot). From 2001 to 2007 homicides went up. From 2008 to 2013 homicides went back down. So if you want fewer murders, vote Democrat

Now you are just making stuff up. You can simply look at the crime tables on the link I provided to the FBI UCR and you will see that violent crime decreased year by year from 713.6 in 1994 to 463.2 in 2004. This 10 year streak was broken when there was a slight rise to 479.3 from 2005-2006. Then from 2007 to 2013 crime continued on its downward trend to 367.9.

What could have happened in 05-06 to affect crime? Hurricane Katrina.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls

Knowledge is power.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I just think my odds are a little better that I won't be cornered with a room with my family while we each wait for our turn to be executed.

What are the odds of that actually happening in the first place?

I mean you can build a boat in the desert so you don't drown in a flood.....

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

billvon

>But it is a means of defense against them.

Yes, it is. However, owning and carrying a gun means that you are more likely to be harmed or killed. There are several studies that demonstrate this, and no studies that I have ever seen that show otherwise.

Does that mean that it's wrong to carry a gun? No, it's just a risk you take. The only person who can decide if that risk is worthwhile is the person carrying it. Indeed, even if you could prove to everyone's satisfaction that carrying a gun increased the odds that you and your family would be killed, I am sure many would still carry them, simply because they like them.

The problem with those studies are twofold.

One - Most are conducted by people with an anti-gun agenda. One of the few I know of that shows any different is the Lott study on defensive gun use. It has issues, as does the author. Professor Kallend will quickly point them out. But Lott started out thinking he'd find low numbers for DGU. He was very surprised to find the opposite.

Two - I have yet to see any study on the danger of "guns in the home" that takes into account the huge numbers of homes with guns that don't have any incidents. There are hundreds of millions of guns in tens of millions of homes. Somewhere in excess of 99% of them have no accidents at all. The "Bumper Sticker" mantra that "Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than all my guns combined" applies to the vast majority of gun owners.

I won't argue that a gun in the home adds danger. A chain saw in the garage adds danger (it's kinda hard to have an accident with one if you don't own one). The Amish have very low rates of accidental electrocution too.

But if the added danger was all that great, wouldn't we see it?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jbscout2002 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

I just think my odds are a little better that I won't be cornered with a room with my family while we each wait for our turn to be executed.

What are the odds of that actually happening in the first place?

I mean you can build a boat in the desert so you don't drown in a flood.....

Exactly. What are the odds. Why are we even debating gun control? Odds that any gun purchased legally with or without a background check, new tax, mandatory insurance, magazine capacity limits, and so forth will never be used in a mass shooting of innocent people.

I watched a movie last night where only the police and military had guns. I think many of you would find that a model society. It was called "Schindler's List"

[gowlerk 1,903]

Quote

Why are we even debating gun control?

Because of the 20,000 plus suicides and the 10,000 plus homicides annually in the USA. A rate that is 5 times higher than next door in Canada. ( a country that does not ban guns, but has reasonable controls on them ) Many people find the cost of treating guns as toys too high, others are willing to pay that price. That is why you are having a debate.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,254]

jbscout2002

***
Actually there's a far stronger correlation to be made from those numbers. First, from 2004 to 2007 homicides went up. So if guns are the reason for less crime then there's a serious lag.

Second, from 1994 to 2000, homicides went down (a lot). From 2001 to 2007 homicides went up. From 2008 to 2013 homicides went back down. So if you want fewer murders, vote Democrat

Now you are just making stuff up. You can simply look at the crime tables on the link I provided to the FBI UCR and you will see that violent crime...

Do you know what the word homicide means?

I assume that you do, so my next question is why are you intent on carrying on this discussion in such a dishonest manner?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Anvilbrother 0]

wolfriverjoe

***>But it is a means of defense against them.

Yes, it is. However, owning and carrying a gun means that you are more likely to be harmed or killed. There are several studies that demonstrate this, and no studies that I have ever seen that show otherwise.

Does that mean that it's wrong to carry a gun? No, it's just a risk you take. The only person who can decide if that risk is worthwhile is the person carrying it. Indeed, even if you could prove to everyone's satisfaction that carrying a gun increased the odds that you and your family would be killed, I am sure many would still carry them, simply because they like them.

The problem with those studies are twofold.

One - Most are conducted by people with an anti-gun agenda. One of the few I know of that shows any different is the Lott study on defensive gun use. It has issues, as does the author. Professor Kallend will quickly point them out. But Lott started out thinking he'd find low numbers for DGU. He was very surprised to find the opposite.

Two - I have yet to see any study on the danger of "guns in the home" that takes into account the huge numbers of homes with guns that don't have any incidents. There are hundreds of millions of guns in tens of millions of homes. Somewhere in excess of 99% of them have no accidents at all. The "Bumper Sticker" mantra that "Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than all my guns combined" applies to the vast majority of gun owners.

I won't argue that a gun in the home adds danger. A chain saw in the garage adds danger (it's kinda hard to have an accident with one if you don't own one). The Amish have very low rates of accidental electrocution too.

But if the added danger was all that great, wouldn't we see it?

Exactly!! thank you!

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jbscout2002 1]

gowlerk

Quote

Why are we even debating gun control?

Because of the 20,000 plus suicides and the 10,000 plus homicides annually in the USA. A rate that is 5 times higher than next door in Canada. ( a country that does not ban guns, but has reasonable controls on them ) Many people find the cost of treating guns as toys too high, others are willing to pay that price. That is why you are having a debate.

To quote you:

Quote

What are the odds of that actually happening in the first place?

I mean you can build a boat in the desert so you don't drown in a flood.....

The 20,000 people who commit suicide made a decision to end their lives. If not by a gun, they could have just as easily used some of the other common methods; overdose, hanging, poisoning, carbon monoxide inhalation, suffocation with inert gasses, jumping, exsanguination, or electric shock.

Who many suicides happen each year at Niagara Falls or he Golden Gate Bridge?

10,000+ homicides per year and how many are mass shootings? According to USA Today (December 2013), "There have been 934 victims of mass shootings in the past seven years."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/

That would mean an average of about 133 per year, or roughly 1.3%, of these murders being committed by someone who should not have had access to a firearm, but was able to secure one either through a legal purchase or by having access to one that was legally purchased by someone else.

So if we tighten up background checks, add additional financial barriers and inconveniences in an effort to dissuade people's interest in purchasing firearms, limit the number of bullets a magazine can hold, restrict which cosmetic features are allowed on a firearm, require training, and even implement full registration......

How does any of this address the remaining 98.7% of gun murders that happen as a result of domestic disputes, love triangles, and various other crimes of passion? Or how will it address the more common problem of career criminals who are banned from legally owning firearms as is, but continue to obtain hem from a black market or straw purchase and proceed to use them in robberies, home invasions, drive by shootings, revenge killings, and even murder of a random person for gang initiation?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I watched a movie last night where only the police and military had guns. I think many of you would find that a model society. It was called "Schindler's List"

So I guess when the Americans banned guns as the first order of business in Iraq, you were taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. Couldn't come up with something better than the Germans?

[jbscout2002 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

I watched a movie last night where only the police and military had guns. I think many of you would find that a model society. It was called "Schindler's List"

So I guess when the Americans banned guns as the first order of business in Iraq, you were taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. Couldn't come up with something better than the Germans?

Actually we didn't ban guns in Iraq. Do to sectarian violence, it was a vital necessity that they be able to defend themselves. We allowed one weapon per adult male, per household. No sniper riffles, nothing belt fed, and no RPGs.

[jbscout2002 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

I watched a movie last night where only the police and military had guns. I think many of you would find that a model society. It was called "Schindler's List"

So I guess when the Americans banned guns as the first order of business in Iraq, you were taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. Couldn't come up with something better than the Germans?

We also issued permits to prominent people such as mayors and sheiks who had private personal security teams which did allow belt fed and RPGs. After watching several buddies get shot in the throat, we still frowned on the SVDs and Draganovs.

[pbwing 0]

jbscout2002

***

Quote

I just think my odds are a little better that I won't be cornered with a room with my family while we each wait for our turn to be executed.

What are the odds of that actually happening in the first place?

I mean you can build a boat in the desert so you don't drown in a flood.....

Exactly. What are the odds. Why are we even debating gun control? Odds that any gun purchased legally with or without a background check, new tax, mandatory insurance, magazine capacity limits, and so forth will never be used in a mass shooting of innocent people.

I watched a movie last night where only the police and military had guns. I think many of you would find that a model society. It was called "Schindler's List"

Not quite. In 1938, the Nazi government eased the restrictions on firearms. Your comment regarding only the police and military had guns is incorrect. As long as you weren't Jewish (it became a crime in 1938 for Jews to have most weapons, let alone guns), it was easier to all other Germans to own and carry firearms.

[jbscout2002 1]

pbwing

******

Quote

I just think my odds are a little better that I won't be cornered with a room with my family while we each wait for our turn to be executed.

What are the odds of that actually happening in the first place?

I mean you can build a boat in the desert so you don't drown in a flood.....

Exactly. What are the odds. Why are we even debating gun control? Odds that any gun purchased legally with or without a background check, new tax, mandatory insurance, magazine capacity limits, and so forth will never be used in a mass shooting of innocent people.

I watched a movie last night where only the police and military had guns. I think many of you would find that a model society. It was called "Schindler's List"

Not quite. In 1938, the Nazi government eased the restrictions on firearms. Your comment regarding only the police and military had guns is incorrect. As long as you weren't Jewish (it became a crime in 1938 for Jews to have most weapons, let alone guns), it was easier to all other Germans to own and carry firearms.

"Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings."

Ottoman Turkey
- 1866 Law was passed requiring permits
- 1911 Government began maintaining list of owners (registration)
- 1915 Government banned possession
- 1915-1917 Between 1-1.5 million Armenians were murdered

Soviet Union
- 1918 Began mandatory firearms registration
- 1920 Banned possession
- 1926 Imposed severe penalties for firearm possession
- 1929-1945 Approximately 20 million Russians murdered

Nazi Germany
- 1928 Registration and licensing
- 1938 Stricter handgun laws
- 1938 Jews, Gypsies, Jahovas Witnesses, political opponents banned from possession
- 1938-1945 Approximately 20 million people in occupied Europe murdered

China, Nationalist
- 1914 Government permit system
- 1935 Ban on private ownership
- 1948-1952 Approximately 20 million Chinese people murdered

Guatemala
- 1932 Licensing with high fees, registration of all guns and owners
- 1947 Prohibit carrying of firearms
- 1964 Banned all firearms and sharp tools
- 1964-1981 Approximately 100,000-200,000 Mayans

Uganda
- 1955 Registration of all firearms and owners, license required for all transactions
- 1970 Confiscation aided by warrantless searches
- 1971-1979 Approximately 300,000 "political enemies" murdered

Cambodia
- 1938 Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition, and translations, Photo I.D. with fingerprints, licenses inspected quarterly
- 1975-1979 Approximately 2 million "educated persons" and "political enemies" were murdered

Rwanda
- 1979 Register all guns, owners, and ammunition, owners must justify need, all concealable guns banned, confiscating powers
- 1994 Approximately 800,000 Tutsi people murdered

Gun control = people control

[champu 1]

billvon

This argument parallels two common arguments in skydiving - the camera and the small canopy. I have found that facts really don't matter. The person wants to jump with the camera at 50 jumps, or wants to jump the Velocity at 100 jumps, and will ignore any statistical information about the dangers - because they are certain that they are exceptional, the statistics do not apply to them, they are not an idiot, they have mad skillz, they ride motorcycles so are used to high speed sports, their father was a pilot so they understand more than most skydivers, their instructors all say they are doing great, some guy said he was ready for a camera and besides, how hard can it be? What's the worst that can happen? They see people landing small parachutes all the time without dying.

I don't decide what I can and can't afford to spend money on based solely on the median household income in the United States.

I started jumping a camera when I had about 450 jumps and I started jumping a Velocity when I had 1800 jumps. (and, obviously, I started jumping when I had zero jumps.) When I jump with a camera or with a Velocity or at all I am not simply rolling the dice against the injury and fatality statistics of all jumps made with a camera, Velocity, or at all. Likewise, when I keep firearms in my house I am not simply rolling the dice against injury and fatality statistics of every house with a firearm in it.

[jbscout2002 1]

jakee

******
Actually there's a far stronger correlation to be made from those numbers. First, from 2004 to 2007 homicides went up. So if guns are the reason for less crime then there's a serious lag.

Second, from 1994 to 2000, homicides went down (a lot). From 2001 to 2007 homicides went up. From 2008 to 2013 homicides went back down. So if you want fewer murders, vote Democrat

Now you are just making stuff up. You can simply look at the crime tables on the link I provided to the FBI UCR and you will see that violent crime...

Do you know what the word homicide means?

I assume that you do, so my next question is why are you intent on carrying on this discussion in such a dishonest manner?

Again. Click on the link. Look at the table.

Table 1A. Crime In The United States.

Percent Change in Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants for 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years.

Murder and non negligent manslaughter rate.

2013 - 2012 (-5.1%)

2013 - 2009 (-10.5%)

2013 - 2004 (-18.3%)

I don't know if you have trouble with your numbers, if you are disillusioned, being the dishonest one, or if you are doing this on purpose in the name of sarcasm, but there are the numbers, again.

[pbwing 0]

jbscout2002

Nazi Germany
- 1928 Registration and licensing
- 1938 Stricter handgun laws
- 1938 Jews, Gypsies, Jahovas Witnesses, political opponents banned from possession
- 1938-1945 Approximately 20 million people in occupied Europe murdered

Yeah, I can't let that one pass...that's not the way it happened...let me attempt to set the record straight...

1919 - Weimar government dictates that "all firearms are to be surrendered immediately". Primarily due to the fact that they have agreed to crushing financial term under the Treaty of Versailles that they know will cause another revolution.
1928 - Easing of restrictions from 1919 law - all firearms to be registered
1938 - Jews prohibited from owning weapons - most already were prevented from owning firearms from provisions of the 1928 law that said that people who were deemed "untrustworthy" could not own firearms
1939 - Nazi government further easing of restrictions - no restrictions long guns, permit validity extended from 1 to 3 years, minimum age lowered to 18

Under Nazi government, there was an easing of gun laws for the general population (79 million), not a restriction. The Jewish population that time was approximately 200,000. I've read many arguments that seem to indicate that if the Jewish population weren't 'disarmed' by these laws, there would not have been a Holocaust - which is of course complete rubbish.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Murder and non negligent manslaughter rate.

So you do know the difference between murder and violent crime? Then why were you being so dishonest in your last reply?

Quote

2013 - 2012 (-5.1%)

2013 - 2009 (-10.5%)

2013 - 2004 (-18.3%)

I don't know if you have trouble with your numbers, if you are disillusioned, being the dishonest one, or if you are doing this on purpose in the name of sarcasm, but there are the numbers, again.

And do those years tally with the correlation I gave in my last post? No they do not. So what are you trying to prove with your irrelevant numbers and your dishonest argument?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreeece 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

How about comparing to Europe then, with all the EU's praised gun control?

Homicide rate per 100,000 residents according to most recent UNODC reports:

Greenland 19.4
Russia 9.2
Lithuania 6.7
Moldova 6.5
Belarus 5.7
Estonia 5.0
Latvia 4.7
USA 4.7
Ukraine 4.3

LMAO.....with comments like this, please don't expect to be taken seriously.

Moldova.....lol...yeah that is who you want to be compared to?

I think it's a great comparison...when was the last time you visited the inner city slums of America? Not all of us are so privileged to live in the utopia known as Toronto...

But seriously, if we can help change the culture and improve the quality of life for those in the inner cities, then a large part of the problem is eliminated - and personally I think that would be more practical then any gun control law.

The sad thing is that these young gang members are not crazy - it's just their cultural upbringing...they can be influenced...they can change. But everybody rather focus on the white suburban nutcases that come around twice a year instead of addressing the same issues that have plagued the african-american community ever since gaining their freedom and being corralled into the corners of the country.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>But it is a means of defense against them.

Yes, it is. However, owning and carrying a gun means that you are more likely to be harmed or killed. There are several studies that demonstrate this, and no studies that I have ever seen that show otherwise.

Does that mean that it's wrong to carry a gun? No, it's just a risk you take. The only person who can decide if that risk is worthwhile is the person carrying it. Indeed, even if you could prove to everyone's satisfaction that carrying a gun increased the odds that you and your family would be killed, I am sure many would still carry them, simply because they like them.

You don't really have to prove anything if you have the ability to explain why. Your post simply implies that owing a gun increases risk in and of itself, but there are certainly other factors involved.

A gun owner with a ccw may be more inclined to put himself in a situation where he's more likely to be killed, but gun control advocates aren't concerned about the truth behind the facts as much as they are concerned about using those facts to control the behavior of others.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

jbscout2002

***>But it is a means of defense against them.

Yes, it is. However, owning and carrying a gun means that you are more likely to be harmed or killed. There are several studies that demonstrate this, and no studies that I have ever seen that show otherwise.

Does that mean that it's wrong to carry a gun? No, it's just a risk you take. The only person who can decide if that risk is worthwhile is the person carrying it. Indeed, even if you could prove to everyone's satisfaction that carrying a gun increased the odds that you and your family would be killed, I am sure many would still carry them, simply because they like them.

I'm not a philosopher, nor do I have any scientific data to back this up, but I feel like if you and I stopped at Taco Bell, and someone whips out a street sweeper because his burrito was folded wrong, that the odds of survival would be slightly in my favor.

Not necessarily...if someone walked out of the bathroom and saw this "street sweeper," they may be more inclined to run back into the bathroom and lock the door, where as you may put yourself at risk by engaging the street sweeper...neither option is wrong or right - fight or flight.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Croc 0]

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy