48 people killed in less than a month

[Harry Dresden]

I don't know what can be done, but since i have been here, right outside of the Ocala area of florida, the news has reported several murders, one right after the other, in just this region...news comes from Orlando, who are people that have lost their jobs..., many bank robberies as well....all unemployed people...losing their minds!!!!!!!!!

It's scary as can be down here....I would much rather live in a rural area than deal with this crap...though my parents area is safe, (so we hope it stays that way) the surrounding areas is a crap shoot of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

People packed in to sardine cans ready to burst could be part of it as well...and guns in that type of situation in my humble opinion has been not so good.

Not one of these murders were stopped by the good people that hold guns as some people proclaim it would.

I am not certain the gun ownership itself is causing this because where I live, everyone owns a gun or two or three, yet Maine still ranks 48th or 49th in crime, out of all states.

try living 40 miles from S.Central LA......wonderful part of the south land....

 

[Gunny]

OK, fellows, we have a problem. Another couple of months like that, and you will see some pretty strict gun control laws. Laws approved of by the majority of the people of the nation.

So you really need to come up with some answers other than foaming at the mouth rants about your freedoms.

Why do we need to come up with some answers about our freedoms. They are guaranteed by the Constitution. But let's break your statement down:

Why do I, a responsible gun owner who has never committed a crime with a firearm, have to explain lunatics that do?

What I would like for YOU to explain is just how that gun committed a crime. Let me help you out since you seem a little slow on this topic ... the gun didn't do anything until a PERSON picked it up and used it. The PERSON is the criminal, not the tool he used to commit the crime.

 

[KittenKoder]

In 1998 we averaged more than 1000 gun deaths a month ... 48 is nothing.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms and Crime Statistics

Actual gun violence is down, but the number of reported cases by the media is up, again all this proves is that the media is sensationalizing again.

Here's an interesting statistic, in spite of the right tilt to it it's very feasible:

Doctors kill more people per year than guns

Face it, gun violence isn't the issue, violence in general is. The media is focusing on gun violence right now because it's a "hot button" ... basically it attracts viewers but does not mean they are reporting the whole story, statistics, or even facts, they are seeking to increase their viewers, listeners and readers in a time when the media giants are falling one by one due to a lack of interest. To not see this is to deny what media needs in order to stay in business.

 

[Gunny]

In 1998 we averaged more than 1000 gun deaths a month ... 48 is nothing.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms and Crime Statistics

Actual gun violence is down, but the number of reported cases by the media is up, again all this proves is that the media is sensationalizing again.

Here's an interesting statistic, in spite of the right tilt to it it's very feasible:

Doctors kill more people per year than guns

Face it, gun violence isn't the issue, violence in general is. The media is focusing on gun violence right now because it's a "hot button" ... basically it attracts viewers but does not mean they are reporting the whole story, statistics, or even facts, they are seeking to increase their viewers, listeners and readers in a time when the media giants are falling one by one due to a lack of interest. To not see this is to deny what media needs in order to stay in business.

I think 48 is something. It's 48 bodies. I don't agree with people like old rocks who want to blame the gun and think that's going to stop crime or criminals. It's naive.

At the same time, we should not ignore the crimes nor criminals due to desensitization.

In that regard, I have always supported mandatory minimums just for using the gun to commit a crime. And I mean like 10-20 years mandatory minimums. Add punishment for the crime itself on top of that.

It wouldn't stop all criminals. Not anymore than outlawing guns altogether would. However, my idea is a deterrent to criminals while the anti-gun folks would just embolden criminals by ensuring they know their prey is disarmed.

But no law is going to stop an idiot like this. He'll just dig out his Louisville Slugger.

 

[KittenKoder]

In 1998 we averaged more than 1000 gun deaths a month ... 48 is nothing.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms and Crime Statistics

Actual gun violence is down, but the number of reported cases by the media is up, again all this proves is that the media is sensationalizing again.

Here's an interesting statistic, in spite of the right tilt to it it's very feasible:

Doctors kill more people per year than guns

Face it, gun violence isn't the issue, violence in general is. The media is focusing on gun violence right now because it's a "hot button" ... basically it attracts viewers but does not mean they are reporting the whole story, statistics, or even facts, they are seeking to increase their viewers, listeners and readers in a time when the media giants are falling one by one due to a lack of interest. To not see this is to deny what media needs in order to stay in business.

I think 48 is something. It's 48 bodies. I don't agree with people like old rocks who want to blame the gun and think that's going to stop crime or criminals. It's naive.

At the same time, we should not ignore the crimes nor criminals due to desensitization.

In that regard, I have always supported mandatory minimums just for using the gun to commit a crime. And I mean like 10-20 years mandatory minimums. Add punishment for the crime itself on top of that.

It wouldn't stop all criminals. Not anymore than outlawing guns altogether would. However, my idea is a deterrent to criminals while the anti-gun folks would just embolden criminals by ensuring they know their prey is disarmed.

But no law is going to stop an idiot like this. He'll just dig out his Louisville Slugger.

True, but take my posts about death with a grain of salt, remember, no one on here is desensitized more than me ... at least I would hope I am the exception to the rule.

 

[Gunny]

In 1998 we averaged more than 1000 gun deaths a month ... 48 is nothing.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms and Crime Statistics

Actual gun violence is down, but the number of reported cases by the media is up, again all this proves is that the media is sensationalizing again.

Here's an interesting statistic, in spite of the right tilt to it it's very feasible:

Doctors kill more people per year than guns

Face it, gun violence isn't the issue, violence in general is. The media is focusing on gun violence right now because it's a "hot button" ... basically it attracts viewers but does not mean they are reporting the whole story, statistics, or even facts, they are seeking to increase their viewers, listeners and readers in a time when the media giants are falling one by one due to a lack of interest. To not see this is to deny what media needs in order to stay in business.

I think 48 is something. It's 48 bodies. I don't agree with people like old rocks who want to blame the gun and think that's going to stop crime or criminals. It's naive.

At the same time, we should not ignore the crimes nor criminals due to desensitization.

In that regard, I have always supported mandatory minimums just for using the gun to commit a crime. And I mean like 10-20 years mandatory minimums. Add punishment for the crime itself on top of that.

It wouldn't stop all criminals. Not anymore than outlawing guns altogether would. However, my idea is a deterrent to criminals while the anti-gun folks would just embolden criminals by ensuring they know their prey is disarmed.

But no law is going to stop an idiot like this. He'll just dig out his Louisville Slugger.

True, but take my posts about death with a grain of salt, remember, no one on here is desensitized more than me ... at least I would hope I am the exception to the rule.

My point was not to insult about desensitization. As a society, we are probably the most desensitized in the world. I merely wanted to point out that we can't forget those 48 people were live human beings and another human being deprived them of that life.

BUT, most importantly, it was a another human being, not a tool that committed the crime.

 

[Dr Grump]

As a society, we are probably the most desensitized in the world.

I would say in the western world. Societies such as Liberia, Sierra Leone, Iraq etc are pretty desensitised IMO....

 

[jillian]

Jeez three thousand people died in one day and what do you want to do about that? Nada! Quit with the fear mongering already.. Hypocrite!

which has nothing whatsoever to do with what he said.....

unless of course you think a gun stops a terrorist attack.

One in the cockpit of each of those planes would have done so very effectively.

If you don't see the relevance of the comparison, by the way, you're probably the only one who doesn't.

no. it wouldn't have. same as every Israeli being miliary and having arms doesn't prevent terrorism there.

i'm not anti-gun. i just think they're useess when someone uses a truck bomb to blow up people.

 

[neurosport]

if weed and prostitution was legal, health care was universal, and college education was free hardly anybody would be getting shot regardless of who had how many guns

people kill when they are not happy or when they can't get something they need

make people happy, make sure everybody is provided for and you're good

i know somebody's gonna call me a lib now ... well ... i would rather feed some useless people with my tax dollar than live in a police state where the police think they own us

and as far as crazy people go - they should be given disability insurance and sent to Florida then they can kill each other for all i care.

 

[editec]

How about a psychological test to prevent gun queers from owning guns?

oh, wait! That would mean the only people with guns would be sane people, wouldn't it?

Can't have that, now, can we?

The NRA would evaporate due to a lack of members.

so you feel that a presumption of insanity is an appropriate response to someone who wants to own a gun?

So you feel that someone obsessed by guns is sane?

 

[editec]

But no law is going to stop an idiot like this. He'll just dig out his Louisville Slugger.

I rather doubt that.

Most gun queers are physical cowards.

 

[Diuretic]

For those that trot out the tired argument about cars killing people.

Cars – to get a driver’s licence people are tested, right? If they transgress the laws they lose the privilege to drive, right?

Just be thankful there isn’t an amendment about the right to drive.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, fellows, we have a problem. Another couple of months like that, and you will see some pretty strict gun control laws. Laws approved of by the majority of the people of the nation.

So you really need to come up with some answers other than foaming at the mouth rants about your freedoms.

Well, I really got what I expected. Rants.

In the above, there was no recomendation for gun control, just the statement of fact that the majority of voters in this nation are becoming irate at the continued drum roll of senselss killings. Killings committed with the easiest tool to use for such insanity, a gun.

Yes, there are nations where guns are as common or more so, than here in the States. Switzerland and Canada come to mind. But neither country has the amount of insane killings that we see in our nation.

So you who value the 2nd Amendment so highly need to give some thought as to why there should be that kind of disparity. It actually confirms your arguement that it is not just the prevelance of the weopon. But then you leave it at that. Not enough. Either we address the problem, or we see some strict gun laws enacted here.

When the vote comes on these laws, I will not vote for them. Nor will I vote against them. You Johnny One Notes have created a situation where my ownership of guns will be compromised.

 

[del]

How about a psychological test to prevent gun queers from owning guns?

oh, wait! That would mean the only people with guns would be sane people, wouldn't it?

Can't have that, now, can we?

The NRA would evaporate due to a lack of members.

so you feel that a presumption of insanity is an appropriate response to someone who wants to own a gun?

So you feel that someone obsessed by guns is sane?

obsessed by guns?
the only one in this thread that seems obsessed by guns is the poster with "gun queers" on the brain. get a grip. it's obvious you think *anyone* who wants to own a gun is a "gun queer".

 

[del]

OK, fellows, we have a problem. Another couple of months like that, and you will see some pretty strict gun control laws. Laws approved of by the majority of the people of the nation.

So you really need to come up with some answers other than foaming at the mouth rants about your freedoms.

Well, I really got what I expected. Rants.

In the above, there was no recomendation for gun control, just the statement of fact that the majority of voters in this nation are becoming irate at the continued drum roll of senselss killings. Killings committed with the easiest tool to use for such insanity, a gun.

Yes, there are nations where guns are as common or more so, than here in the States. Switzerland and Canada come to mind. But neither country has the amount of insane killings that we see in our nation.

So you who value the 2nd Amendment so highly need to give some thought as to why there should be that kind of disparity. It actually confirms your arguement that it is not just the prevelance of the weopon. But then you leave it at that. Not enough. Either we address the problem, or we see some strict gun laws enacted here.

When the vote comes on these laws, I will not vote for them. Nor will I vote against them. You Johnny One Notes have created a situation where my ownership of guns will be compromised.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For those that trot out the tired argument about cars killing people.

Cars – to get a driver’s licence people are tested, right? If they transgress the laws they lose the privilege to drive, right?

Just be thankful there isn’t an amendment about the right to drive.

Oh, would that people regulated guns the way they regulate cars. You don't need any sort of license or background check to own a car. Anyone can do it if they have the money. A license doesn't give you the right to drive a car; it gives you the right to operate one ON PUBLIC STREETS. Otherwise, you can drive your car as much as you want on private property. Underage kids who live on farms drive their parents' vehicles perfectly legally all the time, so long as they stay off of public streets. And let's face it, the exam to gain the privilege of taking your car onto public streets is so pathetically easy, anyone could pass it.

 

[Agnapostate]

If it's the guns that kill folks, is it pencils that are responsible for spelling errors?

Overly crude analysis. Of course "guns" don't kill people, but an increase in the prevalence of guns does seem to cause an increase in the lethality of crime. For instance, we can analyze the effects of increased gun ownership on lethality as with Duggan's More Guns, More Crime, which focuses on the homicide rate.

This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one‐third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993.

As I've said previously, this is due to the existence of a secondary market in the U.S. which circumvents licensing procedure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

which has nothing whatsoever to do with what he said.....

unless of course you think a gun stops a terrorist attack.

One in the cockpit of each of those planes would have done so very effectively.

If you don't see the relevance of the comparison, by the way, you're probably the only one who doesn't.

no. it wouldn't have. same as every Israeli being miliary and having arms doesn't prevent terrorism there.

i'm not anti-gun. i just think they're useess when someone uses a truck bomb to blow up people.

God, you're really obtuse, aren't you? NOTHING prevents crime, violence, and terrorism entirely. However, anyone with two brain cells can see that the extensive arming of Israeli citizens DOES prevent certain kinds of terrorism and violence. It is, for example, the main reason why you hear a lot about suicide bombers in marketplaces over there, rather than people shooting the place up with a gun.

So while hijackers might have been able to bring the planes down with a bomb in the face of armed crew and passengers, they would NOT have been able to take control of it and fly it into buildings.

 

[editec]

so you feel that a presumption of insanity is an appropriate response to someone who wants to own a gun?

So you feel that someone obsessed by guns is sane?

obsessed by guns?
the only one in this thread that seems obsessed by guns is the poster with "gun queers" on the brain. get a grip. it's obvious you think *anyone* who wants to own a gun is a "gun queer".

It's only obvious to you, sport.

Most of my friends own guns and I've not no problem with that.

 

[elvis]

OK, fellows, we have a problem. Another couple of months like that, and you will see some pretty strict gun control laws. Laws approved of by the majority of the people of the nation.

So you really need to come up with some answers other than foaming at the mouth rants about your freedoms.

Well, I really got what I expected. Rants.

In the above, there was no recomendation for gun control, just the statement of fact that the majority of voters in this nation are becoming irate at the continued drum roll of senselss killings. Killings committed with the easiest tool to use for such insanity, a gun.

Yes, there are nations where guns are as common or more so, than here in the States. Switzerland and Canada come to mind. But neither country has the amount of insane killings that we see in our nation.

So you who value the 2nd Amendment so highly need to give some thought as to why there should be that kind of disparity. It actually confirms your arguement that it is not just the prevelance of the weopon. But then you leave it at that. Not enough. Either we address the problem, or we see some strict gun laws enacted here.

When the vote comes on these laws, I will not vote for them. Nor will I vote against them. You Johnny One Notes have created a situation where my ownership of guns will be compromised.

Again, fuckhead, WE haven't created anything. you keep saying people who BELIEVE a certain way are responsible for this violence. WE didn't pull the goddamned trigger, now did we?