ID - 2 year boy accidentally shoots and kills mother in walmart in ths US

[sonjay]

Bam!!

In case anyone needs proof:

 

[sonjay]

Yeah, and third world countries that have virtually NO swimming pools have almost no pool drowning deaths!

But hey if folks want to make another STRONG push for harsher federal gun control laws and bans on certain weapons by all means go for it!

We all know there was a strong attempt in 2013 which lead to MASSIVE firearm sales! The threat of banning AR style weapons was huge and a whole lot of people bought ARs just for that reason (I did!). Those weapons are grandfathered in now, folks will vote to keep them and it would not even be possible for the government to confiscate them at this point (no gun registration in most states means no way to prove who owns what).

The more weapons there are the harder it is to ban them so by all means if folks want to start another buying panic by trying to pass federal laws to for it. If it didn't work in 2013 (right after Sandy Hook with a strong push by the top office holders) good luck trying that again anytime soon.

And even then, people like gun-control supporter Leland Yee and Shrimp Boy Chow would continue to import illegal weapons by the ship load. The criminals would continue to have no problems getting all the guns they wanted. Leland's activities make me wonder A) how many deaths he's been responsible for through his firearm trafficking, and B) how much more money he would make if guns were illegal.

 

[CoolJ]

So wait, first you accuse me of cherry picking, then you want to start cherry picking to make your own point.

Anyway, since we're apparently allowed to use populations of our own preference for comparison, I'll go next: If you take the inner-city gangbangers out of the equation -- those who commit as much as 80% of all violent crime in the U.S. -- the U.S. rates are better than most of Europe. Those inner-city hellholes are our own third-world countries. The rest of the country, where legal gun ownership is high, has respectably low crime rates and firearm crime rates. The large cities where strict gun control laws are in effect and few people own guns legally, have the highest violent crime and homicide rates.

Hmmmm..... Did you know that knife crime has skyrocketed in both England and Australia since they enacted their gun bans? To the extent that both countries are now officially concerned about knife crime, and are enacting knife-control laws to try to get it under control?

That's because overall homicide rates and other crime rates are not affected by gun bans. Criminals who want to kill people or hurt people continue to do so at the same rates as always, they simply use different weapons. Are 100 people killed by knife crime somehow better, or more acceptable, than 100 people killed by gun crime?
View attachment 66880

1) where do you suppose those folks in the "inner city hellholes" are getting their guns?
2) are you suggesting guns are not more inherently dangerous than knives?

Me choosing to show a chart that represents developed countries as opposed to your chart which was comparing America to Honduras and the like is not cherry picking. I am just showing how their is a correlation between amount of guns and homicides. The stats are indisputable. There is an overwhelming amount of stats and research to show this to be true. Period

However, if you wish to speak of causative factors, we can at least debate that. But the correlation is there no matter how you slice it.

Why so defensive of this issue? Nobody is going to take your guns away in your lifetime. You have a constitutional right. I am just suggesting that maybe the reason there are so many gun deaths in America is because there are so many guns. It is pretty straight forward to me.

If on the other hand, what you are saying is true, that the amount of guns and ready availability of them are actually making citizens in America safer. Then why the high homicide rate? That would imply that if the guns were taken away, there would be more homicides?

I am not condemning you for owning a gun. I don't think that Gun owners are crazy wack jobs waiting to blow someone away. I am just suggesting and backing it up with relevant evidence, that a country with more guns is more dangerous. Disagree with me all you want. But stop telling me and everyone else who don't like guns, that we are wrong.

 

[sonjay]

1) where do you suppose those folks in the "inner city hellholes" are getting their guns?

From people like gun-control advocate Leland Yee, who as a California state senator constantly pushed for more gun control even while engaging in illegal firearms trafficking.

I tell you you're wrong because you are wrong. The correlation is not there. You can narrowly select cities, states or countries that do show the correlation that you wish existed, but for every comparison you make, I can make one that shows the opposite.

If on the other hand, what you are saying is true, that the amount of guns and ready availability of them are actually making citizens in America safer. Then why the high homicide rate? That would imply that if the guns were taken away, there would be more homicides?

I have not made that claim. I have claimed that the overall statistics show that there is not a positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates, or between gun ownership and violent crime rates. I have provided much data that disproves your theory that more guns = more crime.

It's sort of like if you claim that all horses are brown. You show me a pasture full of brown horses and say "See? all horses are brown!"

I show you a pasture with all black horses. You say I'm cherry picking.

I show you a pasture with all white horses. You say I'm cherry picking.

I show you a pasture with all dapple horses. You say I'm cherry picking.

I show you a pasture with all paint horses (my personal favorites). You say I'm cherry picking.

I'm not trying to prove that all horses are white, or that no horses are brown. I have, however, disproved your theory that all horses are brown. No matter how much you would like it to be so, it is not so.

 

[CoolJ]

Yeah, and third world countries that have virtually NO swimming pools have almost no pool drowning deaths!

But hey if folks want to make another STRONG push for harsher federal gun control laws and bans on certain weapons by all means go for it!

We all know there was a strong attempt in 2013 which lead to MASSIVE firearm sales! The threat of banning AR style weapons was huge and a whole lot of people bought ARs just for that reason (I did!). Those weapons are grandfathered in now, folks will vote to keep them and it would not even be possible for the government to confiscate them at this point (no gun registration in most states means no way to prove who owns what).

The more weapons there are the harder it is to ban them so by all means if folks want to start another buying panic by trying to pass federal laws to for it. If it didn't work in 2013 (right after Sandy Hook with a strong push by the top office holders) good luck trying that again anytime soon.

BTW England may not have many firearm deaths but their overall violent crime stats are more than double of the US.

BBM - this is exactly what I mean. It is common sense isn't it? You can do that for just about anything. If there are no cars in a country then there are going to be no car deaths in that country. If there are no peanuts in a country then there won't be anyone dying from peanut allergies.
The difference is all of those examples are ACCIDENTS. Cars are not made for killing people, peanuts are not made for killing people, swimming pools are not made for killing people. We don't ban those things because we decide to live with the inherent risks of accidents. But guns are made for lethal force and the majority of deaths are not accidents. Pretty massive difference, you see?

 

[sonjay]

BBM - this is exactly what I mean. It is common sense isn't it? You can do that for just about anything. If there are no cars in a country then there are going to be no car deaths in that country. If there are no peanuts in a country then there won't be anyone dying from peanut allergies.
The difference is all of those examples are ACCIDENTS.

Well, exactly. Most car-related deaths are accidents, so if you take away all the cars, there will be no car-related deaths.

However, murder, rape, robbery and assault are not accidents. If you take away all the guns, criminals will continue to murder, rape, rob and assault. They will just use different weapons. Or, they'll contact former Sen. Yee and place an order for their weapon of choice.

 

[SStarr33]

Did you guys hear about the latest episode of "workplace violence" in "gun-free" France?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...harlie-Hebdo-kills-11&p=11368213#post11368213

I wonder if any of the survivors or families of those who were murdered are rethinking gun laws in France.

 

[CoolJ]

From people like gun-control advocate Leland Yee, who as a California state senator constantly pushed for more gun control even while engaging in illegal firearms trafficking.

I tell you you're wrong because you are wrong. The correlation is not there. You can narrowly select cities, states or countries that do show the correlation that you wish existed, but for every comparison you make, I can make one that shows the opposite.



I have not made that claim. I have claimed that the overall statistics show that there is not a positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates, or between gun ownership and violent crime rates. I have provided much data that disproves your theory that more guns = more crime.

It's sort of like if you claim that all horses are brown. You show me a pasture full of brown horses and say "See? all horses are brown!"

I show you a pasture with all black horses. You say I'm cherry picking.

I show you a pasture with all white horses. You say I'm cherry picking.

I show you a pasture with all dapple horses. You say I'm cherry picking.

I show you a pasture with all paint horses (my personal favorites). You say I'm cherry picking.

I'm not trying to prove that all horses are white, or that no horses are brown. I have, however, disproved your theory that all horses are brown. No matter how much you would like it to be so, it is not so.

No, actually you haven't shown anything that disputes or disproves my theory. Because it is not my theory, I just looked up the statistics. There are literally dozens of research articles that show this. It is as clear as day for me. But no worries, I am quite content and feel very safe in a country with virtually no handguns. If I lived in America maybe I would feel differently.

 

[CoolJ]

Well, exactly. Most car-related deaths are accidents, so if you take away all the cars, there will be no car-related deaths.

However, murder, rape, robbery and assault are not accidents. If you take away all the guns, criminals will continue to murder, rape, rob and assault. They will just use different weapons. Or, they'll contact former Sen. Yee and place an order for their weapon of choice.

Of course criminals will do what they do. I would just rather they don't have lethal weapons when they are doing their thing?.. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anybody?

 

[sonjay]

Of course criminals will do what they do. I would just rather they don't have lethal weapons when they are doing their thing?.. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anybody?

I'm a 53-year-old woman. A male 20-year-old criminal, young, healthy and strong, who attacks me is quite capable of killing me regardless of whether or not he has a firearm. So no, I don't really care if he has a gun. I would rather have an effective way to defend myself.

As statistics show, and as you admit, criminals continue their criminal ways regardless of gun control. Did you miss my earlier post where I showed that criminals are now using knives to kill people in Australia and England? Gun control does not reduce crime. Not one single iota. It does two things: It shifts the weapon of choice to other weapons, and it disarms law-abiding citizens so that they cannot effectively defend themselves.

 

[daisy7]

That's a very good point, and anyone considering acquiring a gun for self-defense should know their answer to that question.

Years ago, I didn't have any guns. I wasn't against them, I just didn't particularly want one, or see any need for one. And with a young daughter, I thought it was safer to not have one in the house.

Until a man came into the house one evening when I was at home alone with my daughter.

At that moment, when I was desperately positioning myself between him and my daughter, and trying to figure out how to keep him from harming or killing both of us, I knew that if I had a gun I'd not hesitate to use it to protect my little one. The next day I bought my first gun. I knew the answer to the question of whether I could shoot someone. Yes, I could, I can, and I will, if necessary. I have no desire to, but I will.

Others may not have the same answer to that question. It should factor strongly into anyone's decision of whether or not to have a gun for self-defense.

I'm very sorry you had this experience

Kind of OT for this thread, but then you get into the question of whether or not killing someone is legal or not and we've seen many cases where people shoot to kill whether or not it's warranted based on the state laws. Some are found guilty and some are not. JMO and I don't want to de-rail this thread.

 

[CoolJ]

Yeah, and third world countries that have virtually NO swimming pools have almost no pool drowning deaths!

But hey if folks want to make another STRONG push for harsher federal gun control laws and bans on certain weapons by all means go for it!

We all know there was a strong attempt in 2013 which lead to MASSIVE firearm sales! The threat of banning AR style weapons was huge and a whole lot of people bought ARs just for that reason (I did!). Those weapons are grandfathered in now, folks will vote to keep them and it would not even be possible for the government to confiscate them at this point (no gun registration in most states means no way to prove who owns what).

The more weapons there are the harder it is to ban them so by all means if folks want to start another buying panic by trying to pass federal laws to for it. If it didn't work in 2013 (right after Sandy Hook with a strong push by the top office holders) good luck trying that again anytime soon.

BTW England may not have many firearm deaths but their overall violent crime stats are more than double of the US.

BBM - not sure where you found this information. But I would suggest looking at the definition of "violent crime" from the US and the UK. The definitions are very different.

 

[sonjay]

BBM - not sure where you found this information. But I would suggest looking at the definition of "violent crime" from the US and the UK. The definitions are very different.

Yes, true. The UK counts sexual assault differently, for example.

They also count homicides differently:

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

I guess it's a good thing that although people are still committing murder in England, they're using knives instead of guns. I guess that makes it okay.

 

[rob]

Because of inadequate regulation, and the sheer volume of guns in the US. The US is about 5% of the world population, but owns 50% of the world's guns.
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/12/guns-in-america-statistics/60071/

But isn't it true, with the US having 5% of the population, we own probably 50% of all mdse in the world, in every catagory? We are heavy consumption in everything.

 

[sonjay]

Another possible effect of strict gun control is the rate of "hot" burglaries, in which the criminal enters the home while the occupants are there -- a home invasion, essentially. These are the types of burglaries that are most likely to go wrong and result in injury or death to the innocent.

Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries.... But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html

In areas where the criminal knows the homeowner doesn't have a gun, the criminal is much more willing to break in while the homeowner is home.

Personally, if I'm going to be burgled, I'd rather be burgled when I'm not at home. Much less chance of getting hurt that way.

 

[sonjay]

But isn't it true, with the US having 5% of the population, we own probably 50% of all mdse in the world, in every catagory? We are heavy consumption in everything.

Heh heh... Yeah, we pretty much do the most of almost everything. We're a pretty extreme country in most things, good and bad. It has nothing to do with our gun ownership.

 

[sonjay]

We are heavy consumption in everything.

And we don't just consume; we produce as well. China (with its billions of people) has recently overtaken us, but we're 2nd after China in manufacturing output, and until recently we were first.

https://www.aei.org/publication/charts-of-the-day-world-manufacturing-output-2012/

 

[BritsKate]

BBM - not sure where you found this information. But I would suggest looking at the definition of "violent crime" from the US and the UK. The definitions are very different.

Correct. The UK has a much stricter definition of violent crime than the US when it comes to statistics - especially rape. And recently the UK has actually changed how crime is recorded. I'd also point out that the UK population is also 1/5 that of America. It would seem impossible that just 60 million can double the crime rate of 300 million.

A good example is this - recently, controlling and coercive behavior - very common in abusive relationships, was made illegal. Obviously, as a result, convictions for domestic violence are going to rise here while stateside they will likely remain static until a similar law is passed. I can say after living here 7 years I have never been a victim of crime and have only had good interactions with our gunless police force.

As our friends from Oz have so rightly pointed out, it's extremely difficult to compare the US and the UK, point by point on practically anything.

If anyone is looking for current UK statistics, they're available here, with the disclaimer they cannot be extrapolated to compare with another country easily - as nearly every country records crime differently:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/crime-outcomes-in-england-and-wales-2013-to-2014

 

[TrackerSam]

Well, as long as we're discussing general questions arising from this incident, can someone explain why it is necessary that gun owners have a right to CONCEAL the weapons they carry?

Shouldn't I have a right to know who is armed and who is not? Then I can choose to leave Walmart if I find myself surrounded by guns.

Yes. A law should be passed requiring gang bangers and thugs to annonce they are packing. I think we have a right to know, don't you?
Do you think they'll obey it?

 

[sonjay]

Correct. The UK has a much stricter definition of violent crime than the US when it comes to statistics - especially rape. And recently the UK has actually changed how crime is recorded. I'd also point out that the UK population is also 1/5 that of America. It would seem impossible that just 60 million can double the crime rate of 300 million.

A good example is this - recently, controlling and coercive behavior - very common in abusive relationships, was made illegal. Obviously, as a result, convictions for domestic violence are going to rise here while stateside they will likely remain static until a similar law is passed. I can say after living here 7 years I have never been a victim of crime and have only had good interactions with our gunless police force.

As our friends from Oz have so rightly pointed out, it's extremely difficult to compare the US and the UK, point by point on practically anything.

If anyone is looking for current UK statistics, they're available here, with the disclaimer they cannot be extrapolated to compare with another country easily - as nearly every country records crime differently:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/crime-outcomes-in-england-and-wales-2013-to-2014

Yep, look at page 8 of that pdf. Look at all the crimes that have never previously even been counted! No suspect identified, suspect identified but not prosecuted.... Many of England's serious crimes have never even been counted in the statistics.

Oh, and BTW, you probably need to brush up on how crime rates are calculated. It's very easy for a population of 60 million to have double the crime rate of a population of 300 million.