America's mass shooting statistics...

[bostonmick]

With regards to the point that has been put across several times about the guns that were available at the time of writing of the second amendment,

it would be wise to look at that from a more logical stand point.

 

yes, the majority of guns were flintlocks etc, but at that time the government were also using approximately the same weapons. so at that point it would have been a fair fight, no?

 

are you really telling me that given todays guns that are used by the armed forces, that it still be a fair fight if the 'well regulated militia' was only armed with flintlocks as that was what was supposedly intended at the time of writing of the second amendment?

 

the second amendment is there to give the American citizens the ability to be able to fight a tyrannical government. in its purest form, as the governments technology has advanced, the second amendment has afforded general citizens the right to bare arms and defend themselves with equal force.

 

the second amendment was written to be progressive through the times, not just to be relevant at the time of writing.

it also has nothing to do with sporting shooting and hunting.

Well regulated militia are you serious they don't even have a well regulated firearms policy.now in the days of national service and then when you came out of that were on a reserve list yes that would have been a trained and regulated force.for all those on here who I presume are legal owners of firearms and also use them for sporting or pest control purpose it beggars belief that all the comments are in favour of the killers not losing their rights to own guns.I suppose in your world the people who choose not to hold guns have to be quiet and take their chances.

[Rewulf]

Well regulated militia are you serious they don't even have a well regulated firearms policy.now in the days of national service and then when you came out of that were on a reserve list yes that would have been a trained and regulated force.for all those on here who I presume are legal owners of firearms Are you presuming some of us are not ?and also use them for sporting or pest control purpose Is there any other reason ?it beggars belief that all the comments are in favour of the killers not losing their rights to own guns.I suppose in your world the people who choose not to hold guns have to be quiet and take their chances.

 

Who said the killers are not losing their rights to own guns ?

They usually end up not breathing after they have done the killing.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

 

This makes interesting reading,just a few stats about gun deaths and possession world wide,France and Germany are interesting .

Edited October 5, 2015 by Rewulf

[deadeye18]

I wish we had the 2A.

[Bazooka Joe]

Blaming the tool is not only blinkered but about as meaningful as blaming cars for the popularity of their use as bombs by the IRA.

 

 

 

 

It makes no difference if the perpetrator of these acts has a fully automatic assault rifle or a bolt action .22lr

 

If someone goes over the edge and decides to commit acts of murder there isnt a lot you can do about it.

 

If they have no access to firearms at all,a car,knife,gallon of petrol or a pointy stick are all deadly weapons with a deranged mind behind them.

 

To say that banning military type weapons in the US would stop nutters going on killing sprees is about as sensible as when some states banned ' high' capacity magazines.

 

If they can only buy 10 rnd mags,they can either carry more mags or buy them out in another state,the person planning the atrocity would hardly be bothered about this law.

 

Its been said time and time again on this forum,you cant regulate against insanity , temporary or otherwise.

 

 

 

Two excellent points, to much emphasis put on the gun, the reason one is used is because it's more effective. if there was no gun, whoever wanted to commit such an atrocity would find a different way of doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Danger-Mouse]

I wish we had the 2A.

 

Bill of Rights 1689 - subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defence as permitted by law;

[brett1985]

Well regulated militia are you serious they don't even have a well regulated firearms policy.now in the days of national service and then when you came out of that were on a reserve list yes that would have been a trained and regulated force.for all those on here who I presume are legal owners of firearms and also use them for sporting or pest control purpose it beggars belief that all the comments are in favour of the killers not losing their rights to own guns.I suppose in your world the people who choose not to hold guns have to be quiet and take their chances.

 

what the **** have you been smoking today mick? absolutely no one is in favour of 'killers not losing their rights to own guns', as you so eloquently put it.

and where does the last sentence you wrote even come in to what I said?

 

wake up and stop living in your own world mick, you constantly fail to actually read and understand peoples posts without twisting what they have wrote into something that barely resembles the original point.

 

god forbid someone challenges your opinion (as 90% of the time, that's all it is...)

 

I can only assume that as you didn't actually acknowledge the basis of my last post you either 1. didn't read it properly, or 2. skipped over it as it didn't conform to your opinion.

 

the fact remains, as I stated previously, the constitution and amendments were written to be progressive and move in line with Americas independent growth.

the 2nd amendment specifically was written to stop any government EVER being able to become tyrannical at any future point.

[bostonmick]

 

what the **** have you been smoking today mick? absolutely no one is in favour of 'killers not losing their rights to own guns', as you so eloquently put it.

and where does the last sentence you wrote even come in to what I said?

 

wake up and stop living in your own world mick, you constantly fail to actually read and understand peoples posts without twisting what they have wrote into something that barely resembles the original point.

 

god forbid someone challenges your opinion (as 90% of the time, that's all it is...)

 

I can only assume that as you didn't actually acknowledge the basis of my last post you either 1. didn't read it properly, or 2. skipped over it as it didn't conform to your opinion.

 

the fact remains, as I stated previously, the constitution and amendments were written to be progressive and move in line with Americas independent growth.

the 2nd amendment specifically was written to stop any government EVER being able to become tyrannical at any future point.

First point I do not smoke.Maybe it's time for a third ammendment to take into account today society and the advancements made.My last line was because a lot of opinion here seems to think it a good thing to be able to hold firearms for self defence maybe it is but what about the many people who do not wish go be armed or take a life.If the president of that country believes it is time for change then who are we thousands of miles away to say different. As far as I am aware it is not even law to secure their guns so aside from thief's they've very lax guards against accidents.And yes it is only my opinion that they need change and I am sure many thousands of innocent people will die before anything is if ever done.It is your opinion that they have a good system and that it is right that they have what they have.It is mine that it needs updating.

 

I would ask that if you believe the general population should have equal resources to that of the government that may become tyrannical does that include all weapons that the state may hold.

Edited October 5, 2015 by bostonmick

[brett1985]

First point I do not smoke.Maybe it's time for a third ammendment to take into account today society and the advancements made.My last line was because a lot of opinion here seems to think it a good thing to be able to hold firearms for self defence maybe it is but what about the many people who do not wish go be armed or take a life.If the president of that country believes it is time for change then who are we thousands of miles away to say different. As far as I am aware it is not even law to secure their guns so aside from thief's they've very lax guards against accidents.And yes it is only my opinion that they need change and I am sure many thousands of innocent people will die before anything is if ever done.It is your opinion that they have a good system and that it is right that they have what they have.It is mine that it needs updating.

 

I would ask that if you believe the general population should have equal resources to that of the government that may become tyrannical does that include all weapons that the state may hold.

 

hold your horses there mick,

I never said they had a good system...

my actual opinion of their 'system' (term used very loosely) is quite the opposite. the fact that there is no stable licencing system in place (like ours) is ridiculous.

and don't get me started on their gun security. I have had many discussions with Americans on that subject as its something I feel quite strongly about.

 

my initial post was aimed at clearing up why Americans are able to buy what some call 'assault weapons'...

their bill of rights is a minefield of misunderstanding to most people.

 

firearms for self defence isn't something that we need here, but we are not America.

as some have previously mentioned, their gun culture is entirely different to ours. they are at a point where in some places carrying a gun is normal, and needed.

 

last time I was out there, I got chatting to the bar manager at the hotel we were staying in. he has a cc permit and always has his gun on him, even at work.

I couldn't understand why, in orlando, you would need one.

he then explained that orlando doesn't start and finish at International drive, and there are some not so nice places just 5 minutes from the tourist areas.

he had been victim of an attempted car jacking at gun point just 10 minutes from our hotel, 2 months earlier.

 

a driver passing by at the time, who happened to be a concealed carrier, stopped and disarmed the guy. apparently the car jacker wasn't ready to lose his life over a car, so laid down his gun and was restrained until the police arrived.

no shots fired.

 

would he have done the same thing if he didn't have the threat of being shot hanging over his head? probably not...

[Rewulf]

First point I do not smoke.Maybe it's time for a third ammendment to take into account today society and the advancements made.My last line was because a lot of opinion here seems to think it a good thing to be able to hold firearms for self defence maybe it is but what about the many people who do not wish go be armed or take a life.If the president of that country believes it is time for change then who are we thousands of miles away to say different. As far as I am aware it is not even law to secure their guns so aside from thief's they've very lax guards against accidents.And yes it is only my opinion that they need change and I am sure many thousands of innocent people will die before anything is if ever done.It is your opinion that they have a good system and that it is right that they have what they have.It is mine that it needs updating.

 

I havnt actually seen anyone on here say that firearms for self defence is a good idea,have you ?

It would be most inadvisable for a FAC or SGC holder to suggest such a thing.

The US is a different country to the UK in many respects,one of which is size,many people live in very remote areas,where police response is measured in hours.

It may be they feel more comfortable having access to a firearm to defend themselves from perceived dangers.

In a lot of cases its simply a deterrent ,if they attack you or your property with a gun,you have a gun to fight back with one yourself.

And with the full backing of the law.

 

Edit ,damn Brett said it much better first!

Edited October 5, 2015 by Rewulf

[Gordon R]

bostonmick - you clearly have a problem with the gun laws in the USA. Have you actually done anything about it, in the USA, rather than berating people on here? You use emotive language and jump to conclusions at Olympic medal level.

 

I will say again - what goes on in the USA is their business and nothing said on here will alter anything.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Gordon R

[bostonmick]

bostonmick - you clearly have a problem with the gun laws in the USA. Have you actually done anything about it, in the USA, rather than berating people on here? You use emotive language and jump to conclusions at Olympic medal level.

 

I will say again - what goes on in the USA is their business and nothing said on here will alter anything.

I believe I actually said words similar in a previous post.Thank you

[Scully]

i condemn all acts of this type.my belief is that our current laws are doing a lot to try and keep these instances to an absolute minimum of course there is no system that will stop it 100%.but with these killings happening on a near monthly basis even you with your anti establishment views must admit it cannot become an accepted thing to keep an outdated attitude for much longer.i also have no prejudice against any gun i have like everyone a preference.your point about they are allowed types of weapons by law is valid however they are not allowed to use them to commit these type of crimes.it would seem that some are of the opinion that the right of the gunman to own any kind of gun overrides the right of others to a life.if they removed some of the rights to certain weapons from the masses and it saved just one life then in my eyes it would be worth it.history shows that America has always been a violent society maybe the right to bear arms played a part in that.

I'm not sure anyone on here has suggested 'it' becomes an 'accepted thing', merely that it is an American problem and one which they themselves have to deal with and resolve.

All people are trying to point out to you is that the situation they now find themselves in isn't as simple as you seem to be suggesting it is to resolve, which is why emotive comments such as yours; (and yet another above 'they are not allowed to use them to commit these type of crimes' !! How is anyone supposed to take you seriously or respond to remarks like that? Is anyone allowed to use them for these types (or any other) type of crime?) end up with you being ridiculed.

The rest of your post is complete twaddle, and the 'if it saves one life' remark is straight from the anti phrase book of emotive soundbites.

Very odd to hear such a comment coming from a firearms owner. The phrase was used widely following Dunblane and politicians and the media and the general public used it again following Cockermouth.

As a firearms owner yourself Mick you (according to the antis) have the potential to become the next nut job. Ever considered that if it could save one life it's worth surrendering yours now?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Scully

[Gordon R]

I believe he has earned the right to show us the way forward. Bostonmick - surrender your firearms and I will take you seriously. Very easy to tell others what to, when it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

[deadeye18]

Maybe one unfortunate day if someone murders a few folks with a best english SxS 12bore then all those that dont like AR15 sporting rifles,hi cap semi auto shotguns and pistols will have a different attitude to all guns in general.

Edited October 5, 2015 by deadeye18

[Zapp]

Maybe one unfortunate day if someone murders a few folks with a best english SxS 12bore then all those that dont like AR15 sporting rifles,hi cap semi auto shotguns and pistols will have a different attitude to all guns in general.

You mean exactly like Derrick Bird did 5 years ago?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

[deadeye18]

Aye exactly.

[Dr_Scholl]

Breaking news: Americans like guns and mass shootings do little to change that.

 

Seriously, this still surprises people?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Dr_Scholl

[bostonmick]

 

 

 

This makes interesting reading,just a few stats about gun deaths and possession world wide,France and Germany are interesting .

 

the American newspaper report at the beginning of this thread makes even more interesting reading,294 mass shootings in 274 days .

[bostonmick]

I'm not sure anyone on here has suggested 'it' becomes an 'accepted thing', merely that it is an American problem and one which they themselves have to deal with and resolve.

All people are trying to point out to you is that the situation they now find themselves in isn't as simple as you seem to be suggesting it is to resolve, which is why emotive comments such as yours; (and yet another above 'they are not allowed to use them to commit these type of crimes' !! How is anyone supposed to take you seriously or respond to remarks like that? Is anyone allowed to use them for these types (or any other) type of crime?) end up with you being ridiculed.

The rest of your post is complete twaddle, and the 'if it saves one life' remark is straight from the anti phrase book of emotive soundbites.

Very odd to hear such a comment coming from a firearms owner. The phrase was used widely following Dunblane and politicians and the media and the general public used it again following Cockermouth.

As a firearms owner yourself Mick you (according to the antis) have the potential to become the next nut job. Ever considered that if it could save one life it's worth surrendering yours now?

I was beginning to get concerned about you scully I had not heard from you for a while thought you might have been unwell good to know you are ok.the situation as you put it that they find themselves in is by their own doing.but as you saythere is no easy solution and it will be up to them to come up with one.it does not affect my life so that's fine.i have never read the anti's handbook so will have to take your word for it.i have never bothered the anti brigade and they have never bothered me so that also is fine.and yes none of us know what the future holds for us including your good self I am probably a little more protected in that area as both my daughters are qualified mental health nurses so would recognise any such change in my behaviour and act accordingly.who is watching over you?.on the subject of my guns this is you may recall not the first time you have kindly suggested that I may wish to give them up but alas you are to be disappointed yet againafter many decades of shooting my guns will be passed on in the family as they have been for a long time now.(or maybe you and Gordon r had ideas of upgrading your cabinets) and as you have pointed out none of the above has anything to do with this actual thread but I have only replied to your unconnected comments.back on track now 294 mass shootings in 274 days.now that's something to ponder.

Edited October 5, 2015 by bostonmick

[Rewulf]

 

the American newspaper report at the beginning of this thread makes even more interesting reading,294 mass shootings in 274 days .

 

Not going to argue with the figures Mick.

But you do realise that those one a day figures mean 4 or more people were killed or injured in all types of shootings.

It also omits less than 4 people killed or injured,so the actual number is much higher.

Around 30,000 people are killed by firearms in the US each year on average.

Around 2/3 s of these are suicides.

Which leaves 10,000 ,some of these are accidents,some are shot by the police , but the vast majority are from crime.

 

So Mick,your 294 'mass' shootings when you take away the crime element,ends up at what ?

But hey,lets not get away from the fact that there are people running round with guns shooting up the town.

What Im getting at is,its a sensational headline designed to grab attention,trying to make you believe a school or work place is being shot up every day.

Its not,and expanding on gun legislation in the US isnt going to take the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Just like the handgun ban here didnt,it actually made it worse.

I put the link up about firearm deaths worldwide because it shows that it doesnt really matter how many guns are in a country ,or what type,or even what the law in that country is regarding guns.

France has 3 times more firearms per capita and far more lax laws than the UK,yet has less firearm death or incidents,Germany is similar.

Now why is that ?

Armed police? Less crime ? Tougher sentencing ? More guns in the hands of licenced civilians ?

Have a think on that one.

[Scully]

Upgrade? To a Beretta? I don't think so.

Do you mean 294 'mass shootings'? Really? Or do you mean 294 murders ? What are we to do with this info' Mick? Unless I've read the article wrong it puts the USA 28th in the worlds league table of highest homicide rates. What do we do with this info'? What point are you trying to make?

[bostonmick]

Upgrade? To a Beretta? I don't think so.

Do you mean 294 'mass shootings'? Really? Or do you mean 294 murders ? What are we to do with this info' Mick? Unless I've read the article wrong it puts the USA 28th in the worlds league table of highest homicide rates. What do we do with this info'? What point are you trying to make?

no I meant 294 mass killings as reported in the Washington times.unless of course they are lying.a mass shooting is where four die including the gunman.i don't think I need to make any point with stats like that.

[bostonmick]

 

Not going to argue with the figures Mick.

But you do realise that those one a day figures mean 4 or more people were killed or injured in all types of shootings.

It also omits less than 4 people killed or injured,so the actual number is much higher.

Around 30,000 people are killed by firearms in the US each year on average.

Around 2/3 s of these are suicides.

Which leaves 10,000 ,some of these are accidents,some are shot by the police , but the vast majority are from crime.

 

So Mick,your 294 'mass' shootings when you take away the crime element,ends up at what ?

But hey,lets not get away from the fact that there are people running round with guns shooting up the town.

What Im getting at is,its a sensational headline designed to grab attention,trying to make you believe a school or work place is being shot up every day.

Its not,and expanding on gun legislation in the US isnt going to take the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Just like the handgun ban here didnt,it actually made it worse.

I put the link up about firearm deaths worldwide because it shows that it doesnt really matter how many guns are in a country ,or what type,or even what the law in that country is regarding guns.

France has 3 times more firearms per capita and far more lax laws than the UK,yet has less firearm death or incidents,Germany is similar.

Now why is that ?

Armed police? Less crime ? Tougher sentencing ? More guns in the hands of licenced civilians ?

Have a think on that one.

the report I read a few months ago did in fact confirm your figure of some 30,000 adult deaths a year but also recorded over 10,000 child deaths or injuries a year also.now they may have been telling untruths I don't know.i would have a guess at the lower figures in france and Germany as being a culture thing in large part.as for armed police i wish we had more of them(if the officers had appetite that is)i have never said it matters how many guns there are in a country in relation to firearm crimes.i just think that the constitution is so far out of sync with this issue it really is not fit for purpose in that area.just my opinion you understand and in no way meant as what should be.i am happy with our system and as theirs does not affect me then i am also happy with theirs.

[bostonmick]

Upgrade? To a Beretta? I don't think so.

 

 

i guess your right they might be to much for you to handle.

[Scully]

no I meant 294 mass killings as reported in the Washington times.unless of course they are lying.a mass shooting is where four die including the gunman.i don't think I need to make any point with stats like that.

So that's 294 mass killings; 'mass' being the term used to describe a shooting where at least 4 people have died. So that's 294 multiplied by 4 (minimum) which comes to 1,176 (minimum) people in 274 days, from a total of 30,000 per year. So that's a further 28,824 on average which make up the remainder of the year. So, I'll ask again Mick, what are we to do with this information and what point are you trying to make bearing in mind that the USA as I mentioned is 28th in the worlds league and Rewulfs posts?

 

i just think that the constitution is so far out of sync with this issue it really is not fit for purpose in that area.Why? just my opinion you understand and in no way meant as what should be.i am happy with our system and as theirs does not affect me then i am also happy with theirs.Eh? You're happy with their system? Then what are you going on about? Didn't you say just a short while ago you were concerned that the shootings in America would effect us in the UK?

 

 

i guess your right they might be to much for you to handle.

 

 

Well I've already admitted they are quality guns (with exceptions) and that they don't fit me, but it's really just a matter of aesthetics; with the exception of the DT10 I just find them incredibly ugly.