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

[al66pine]

Let's take the third world, underdeveloped and war torn countries out of the equation. Is that really what you want to compare America to?

Here is a more accurate picture of the correlation between gun ownership and homicide:
View attachment 66876

Can you pls link source for above?
I'm curious about why South Africa was excluded. Maybe you know or the linked source will tell us? Thx in adv.

 

[sonjay]

So didn't you say earlier that you respect someone's right to decline to own a gun or to not want to keep one in their home as long as they aren't trying to take YOURS away from you? Or was it someone else? Because these baiting posts really belie the earlier statement.

It's a serious question. If you're so against guns that you refuse to have one in your presence, what happens when you call the police?

 

[CoolJ]

It's a serious question. If you're so against guns that you refuse to have one in your presence, what happens when you call the police?

C'mon, you know it is not the same thing. I don't want anything to do with guns, but it doesn't mean I don't want police around when in need. It is their job to carry guns. And it is their job to use them responsibly.

 

[nrdsb4]

It's a serious question. If you're so against guns that you refuse to have one in your presence, what happens when you call the police?

I disagree. In fact, I think it's pretty disingenuous.

 

[sonjay]

I understand what you are saying. I am not saying I feel safer without a gun. I am saying I feel safer in a nation with relatively, very few guns.

Canada, right?

I just looked at Toronto's crime statistics. Toronto, which is considered one of the safest large cities in North America.

According to government statistics, in 2012, Toronto had a violent crime rate of 1,190 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11854-eng.htm#a5

In the county where I live in Florida, in 2012 we had a violent crime rate of 244 per 100,000 population.

I used the county rather than the nearest city because the county actually had a higher crime rate and I'm attempting to provide a reasonable comparison. The city (such as it is) had zero murders, zero forcible rapes, 1 robbery, and 3 agg assaults in the first half of 2012. (Those were the most recent stats I could find for the city ... double them for the year and you get zero murders, zero forcible rapes, 2 robberies and 6 agg assaults.)

In the 15 years I've been living in this county, I think I've met one person who I know for sure doesn't own any guns. Any time the subject of guns comes up in conversation (which is frequently), it turns out that everyone present has multiple guns. Florida was the first state in the U.S. to pass a shall-issue conceal-carry law; lots and lots of us carry daily. We just don't have a crime problem, nor do we have a gun problem, despite an extreme prevalence of guns.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not the guns.

 

[sonjay]

C'mon, you know it is not the same thing. I don't want anything to do with guns, but it doesn't mean I don't want police around when in need. It is their job to carry guns. And it is their job to use them responsibly.

You want men with guns to do violence on your behalf?

 

[sonjay]

Canada, right?

I just looked at Toronto's crime statistics. Toronto, which is considered one of the safest large cities in North America.

According to government statistics, in 2012, Toronto had a violent crime rate of 1,190 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11854-eng.htm#a5

In the county where I live in Florida, in 2012 we had a violent crime rate of 244 per 100,000 population.

For the sake of comparison, I also checked Vermont. The 19th-highest state in terms of gun ownership -- so plenty of guns. In 2012, Vermont had 142 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm

Hmmm...... 1,190 vs. 244 vs. 142 per 100,000. I know where I'd feel safer: In the places with lots of guns. They sure do have a lot less violent crime.

 

[CoolJ]

Canada, right?

I just looked at Toronto's crime statistics. Toronto, which is considered one of the safest large cities in North America.

According to government statistics, in 2012, Toronto had a violent crime rate of 1,190 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11854-eng.htm#a5

In the county where I live in Florida, in 2012 we had a violent crime rate of 244 per 100,000 population.

I used the county rather than the nearest city because the county actually had a higher crime rate and I'm attempting to provide a reasonable comparison. The city (such as it is) had zero murders, zero forcible rapes, 1 robbery, and 3 agg assaults in the first half of 2012. (Those were the most recent stats I could find for the city ... double them for the year and you get zero murders, zero forcible rapes, 2 robberies and 6 agg assaults.)

In the 15 years I've been living in this county, I think I've met one person who I know for sure doesn't own any guns. Any time the subject of guns comes up in conversation (which is frequently), it turns out that everyone present has multiple guns. Florida was the first state in the U.S. to pass a shall-issue conceal-carry law; lots and lots of us carry daily. We just don't have a crime problem, nor do we have a gun problem, despite an extreme prevalence of guns.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not the guns.

What does comparing Toronto to a county in FLA have to do with anything. There are going to be higher and lower crime rates in different cities everywhere. Look up the homicide stats comparing Canada to America. More people are being killed by guns the in the US. A lot more. I feel infinitely more safe here than when I lived in Boston. Nothing you say can change that.

 

[sonjay]

What does comparing Toronto to a county in FLA have to do with anything. There are going to be higher and lower crime rates in different cities everywhere. Look up the homicide stats comparing Canada to America. More people are being killed by guns the in the US. A lot more. I feel infinitely more safe here than when I lived in Boston. Nothing you say can change that.

Okay, I got it now. Any comparison that disproves your "guns = crime" theory is to be disregarded. Well, that certainly makes it easy.

 

[CoolJ]

Okay, I got it now. Any comparison that disproves your "guns = crime" theory is to be disregarded. Well, that certainly makes it easy.

Comparing Toronto to Vermont and a county in FLA... LOL. You have never been to Toronto have you?


For comparisons to various cities in North America, in 2012 for example, the homicide rate for the city of Toronto was 2.0 per 100,000 people,[2] yet for Detroit (54.6), Atlanta (19.0), Chicago (18.5), Boston (9.0), San Francisco (8.6), New York City (5.1), and San Jose (4.6) it was higher, while it was significantly lower in Vancouver (1.2).[3][4] In 2007, Toronto's robbery rate also ranked low, with 207.1 robberies per 100,000 people, compared to Detroit (675.1), Chicago (588.6), Los Angeles (348.5), Vancouver (266.2), New York City (265.9), Montreal (235.3) and San Diego (158.8).[5][6][7][8][9][10]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto

 

[CoolJ]

I can post all day long showing stats of how safer it is in Canada compared to the US if you wish. And I won't have to compare New York City to Medicine Hat, Alberta to do it. LOL

 

[CoolJ]

I'm done here. Not getting into this discussion of my country is better then yours. I like the US. I just don't feel as safe there.

 

[sonjay]

Comparing Toronto to Vermont and a county in FLA... LOL. You have never been to Toronto have you?


For comparisons to various cities in North America, in 2012 for example, the homicide rate for the city of Toronto was 2.0 per 100,000 people,[2] yet for Detroit (54.6), Atlanta (19.0), Chicago (18.5), Boston (9.0), San Francisco (8.6), New York City (5.1), and San Jose (4.6) it was higher, while it was significantly lower in Vancouver (1.2).[3][4] In 2007, Toronto's robbery rate also ranked low, with 207.1 robberies per 100,000 people, compared to Detroit (675.1), Chicago (588.6), Los Angeles (348.5), Vancouver (266.2), New York City (265.9), Montreal (235.3) and San Diego (158.8).[5][6][7][8][9][10]

Right, you're missing the point.

We've got lots of guns, and very little crime.
Vermont has lots of guns, and very little crime.

Toronto has not as many guns, and a lot more crime.

It's the big inner-city hellholes that have lots of crime, regardless of the gun laws.

Some big cities have more crime than others, but they all have more crime than Vermont, and they all have more crime than my county. And that's crime rates, not raw numbers.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not the guns.

Maybe, just maybe, it's other things that are responsible for violent crime.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Sometimes, the only answer to violence is more violence.

If a breaks into my home intent on rape or murder (with or without a firearm), I'm not interested in discussing his miserable childhood. I'm interesting in stopping him, as quickly and as effectively as possible.

So you call this freedom then, living in fear of thugs breaking into your house with weapons, feeling the need to carry a piece into Walmart, sleeping with a gun within easy reach, just in case, with one eye open, and a finger on the trigger at all times.

I call it living in fear.

Ironic no, that people think having the right to bear arms is an expression of freedom, when it is in fact the opposite.

 

[sonjay]

I'm done here. Not getting into this discussion of my country is better then yours. I like the US. I just don't feel as safe there.

I'm not getting into that discussion either, and I never meant to imply or suggest that either country is "better."

Parts of Canada have lower crime rates than parts of the U.S.
Parts of the U.S. have lower crime rates than parts of Canada.

It's not the presence or absence of guns that's responsible for the differences. It's the presence or absence of criminals, whether or not they have guns.

 

[sonjay]

So you call this freedom then, living in fear of thugs breaking into your house with weapons, feeling the need to carry a piece into Walmart, sleeping with a gun within easy reach, just in case, with one eye open, and a finger on the trigger at all times.

I call it living in fear.

Ironic no, that people think having the right to bear arms is an expression of freedom, when it is in fact the opposite.

You can call it whatever you want. I call it peace of mind.

I wear a seat belt whenever I go anywhere in a car. I'm not living in fear of a traffic accident.

I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, and I have smoke alarms throughout my house. I'm not living in fear of a house fire.

I watch my grandson like a hawk when he's visiting, to make sure he doesn't fall into the pond and drown. But I don't live in fear of him drowning.

I have my important computer files backed up to an offsite backup location. I'm not living in fear of an unrecoverable computer crash.

I keep a fire extinguisher, a horn, and a VHF radio on my boat. I'm not living in fear of a serious boating accident.

On the contrary, I have peace of mind because I take prudent measures to increase my safety.

Do you not do any of those things?

 

[sonjay]

Ironic no, that people think having the right to bear arms is an expression of freedom, when it is in fact the opposite.

Oh, and this.

Free people have the right to bear arms. Conquered people do not.

Did you know that gun control has its roots in slavery and racism? Yep, it's true. They didn't want black men to go about armed as if they had the same rights as white people.

 

[LinasK]

The NRA only wants legal gun sales.

Gun-grabbers like California Sen. Leland Yee want illegal gun sales. Yee, and people like him, are the ones putting guns in the hands of criminals. And the ATF. They have a pretty dismal record with their storefront stings.

Then why doesn't Australia have the same problem with illegal, black market gun sales???
P.S. Leland Yee is now out of office due to the scandal.

 

[CoolJ]

I'm not getting into that discussion either, and I never meant to imply or suggest that either country is "better."

Parts of Canada have lower crime rates than parts of the U.S.
Parts of the U.S. have lower crime rates than parts of Canada.

It's not the presence or absence of guns that's responsible for the differences. It's the presence or absence of criminals, whether or not they have guns.

Ok I will come out of hiding to answer this one. My view has never been that guns increase crime. Just that it sure doesn't limit crime either. As you stated in the above BBM

My view is that guns increase deaths. Which I wouldn't think most people need to see research or stats to prove it, but I cited it numerous times anyway.
You may feel safer having a gun, and you personally may even actually BE safer having a gun. But, whether looking at comparable cities or comparable nations, 99% of the time, where there are more guns, there are more deaths in total, there are more suicides by gun, there are more murders by gun and there are more homicides in total.
Crime is crime. But when the criminal has much easier access to guns, the chances of someone dying go way up.

 

[waitin'4thewrld2chg]

Well, I tend to come more from emotion and hunches than statistics, so I should be easy to knock down lol, but….

If I take a notion today to dye my hair blue and copy Marge Simpson’s do but there is no blue dye in my house, the probability that I will be doing this today goes way down. I might think of asking my friends if they have Marge dye; I might think of stealing some from my neighbors; I might think of trying to buy some blue dye online or in some store. But because it’s a whim or impulsive action on my part, if there is little to no supply that readily lines up with my demand, the moment might, just might, pass and my hair will remain purple.

If I get the urge to take my own life tonight, which thankfully I won’t, let’s say the idea of a gun appeals to me for that because it’s quick and easy. But if I have no gun and I can’t easily beg, borrow, or steal one, there’s a chance I just may live to see another day. We can’t put something to use that we do not have.

People will find another way to kill themselves, you say?

Here is someone who was willing to try a method of suicide that did not involve a firearm. She was alive when I got home. I once had a young woman houseguest make a suicide attempt while I was out. There was no gun on the property so killing herself with a firearm was not an option. She looked in my medicine cabinet to see what could be found. Nothing really, so she downed a bottle of Advil. A trip to the emergency room for a stomach pumping, and fifteen years later she is happily married with three beautiful girls. I shudder to think how that scenario might have played out had I had some weapons around that I felt no need to secure because my houseguest was an adult.

To me it stands to reason that there would be fewer suicides with fewer guns circulating. A gun is often a preferred instrument for taking one’s life because it provides the possibility of a simple, instantaneous, and efficient exit. The idea of slowly bleeding to death from slit wrists, for example, or gasping through a hanging death, or lying there waiting for pills to take hold, or summoning up the nerve to jump from a bridge could be unappealing enough that a person with no gun might find himself/herself still here, after all, to witness more sunrises. Not always, but sometimes the moment passes and the urge with it. You have a little bit of time to remember you have kids, or you sober up, or you call somebody and say you just scared yourself. But if there is a firearm in the armoire, and in one split second all troubles can be wiped away once and for all, how tempting is that?

To me it stands to reason that there would also be fewer murders with fewer guns circulating. Murderous rages, love triangles, domestic situations, sour business deals…..isn’t it easier to let a bullet do the work from a distance (think of the power-you are an annihilator) rather than to come within reach of another and have to deal with whatever defense is launched as you stab or bonk with a ball bat or try to throw your victim off a cliff? If the Sandy Hook perpetrator had come in with a knife, do we not suspect that an elementary building full of educators could have gained control of that knife somewhere shy of 26 innocents being slaughtered? Yeah, an armed teacher maybe could have taken care of everything in even shorter order. But when I stack up the odds of a gun being useful as self-defense against the possibility of the gun seeing criminal use or impulsive destructive use against self or others, I say no, thanks. You can say yes in the U.S.

The day that Sandy Hook occurred I thought, well, we finally know what it takes to generate more comprehensive firearms restrictions. A roomful of dead kids. Such a shame that it took that. What? Sales of high-powered automatic weapons and other weapons skyrocketed? In my view, a mentality that says give me more of what took the children out that day is a mentality that is very hard to deal with.