Luckily no. But it certainly could have been bad.
*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Maybe this thread is really about "public shootings". That seems to be a broader category.
The fact people can look at an incident where a kid shoots some other kids in school, than commits suicide, and say "lucky, it could've been worse" and return to the regular scheduled programming shows just how much of an issue this really is.
How many people died to the Boston Bomber? 3. Terrorism! A whole city closed off! Manhunt! Filthy foreigners!
How many people died this year in public mass shootings? 173. No-one bats an eye.
I don't want to start any number fetishism (10.000+ gun deaths in a year in the US - more than 3x 9/11, more than 150% of the number of Americans dead in Iraq and Afghanistan together - but that includes hundreds/thousands who would've died differently, whose deathsw ere tragic accidents, and whatever).
However, the fact that this and other such stories have been relegated tot he "faits divers" part of the news, that they're hardly mentioned at all - isn't that tragic? It's your children! Yes, there are plenty of high and middle schools in the US, and sure, the odds are small of it happening near you (though much higher than the chance of dying due to terrorism), but.... "oh sure, some kids died. And hey, the Kardashians did something weird!" is just....Nope. Don't get it.
How many people died to the Boston Bomber? 3. Terrorism! A whole city closed off! Manhunt! Filthy foreigners!
How many people died this year in public mass shootings? 173. No-one bats an eye.
I don't want to start any number fetishism (10.000+ gun deaths in a year in the US - more than 3x 9/11, more than 150% of the number of Americans dead in Iraq and Afghanistan together - but that includes hundreds/thousands who would've died differently, whose deathsw ere tragic accidents, and whatever).
However, the fact that this and other such stories have been relegated tot he "faits divers" part of the news, that they're hardly mentioned at all - isn't that tragic? It's your children! Yes, there are plenty of high and middle schools in the US, and sure, the odds are small of it happening near you (though much higher than the chance of dying due to terrorism), but.... "oh sure, some kids died. And hey, the Kardashians did something weird!" is just....Nope. Don't get it.
The difference between the Boston Bomber/Terroism and the school shootings/suicide should be very apparent. I see the point you're going after, you just used a poor comparison.
I don't know. Comparing it to, say, traffic accidents is wrong to me. It'sn ot "ah well, some people'll die from it, it's a given, we should just minimize it" - which is true for car accidents, and in America seems to become the view held towards (school) shootings.
As a European, and I know we look differently at these things, it's much closer to terrorism. Handing out guns to people who can't use them properly (and I'm talking about children, minors, the mentally handicapped, psychiatric patients, previously convicted murderers - all of these groups can and have been guilty of shootings in the past!) and letting them wander around comes pretty close to neglicence. There are things between "completely eliminating all guns everywhere" (which is unrealistic in any country where guns are/have become prevalent, such as the USA, or Lybia, or Afghanistan, or Congo, or... - you'll never get them all, leaving only the bad guys with guns as some politicians like to claim) and "letting anyone have any gun without any oversight or control whatsoever".
I'm not anti-gun, per se. I'm practically libertarian for a Belgian! As far as I'm concerned, anyone can have all the guns they want...If they can handle them. And it's been proven again and again (be it mothers letting their kids at their guns, background checks being non-existant, or whatever) that some people can't responsibly handle guns. Just like some people can't handle a car responsably. And guess what? I do think people who've been caught drinking and driving should be banned from driving. Myeah. hey, perhaps car accidents IS a better comparison!
You got us. Why didn't we think of that? We really should stop handing out guns to all of the people you mentioned. If only we had some laws to restrict those people from having them!
Oh wait... we do. Well, problem solved.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
2010 Data , per here: CDC.gov
Cancer killed people in 2010 at a rate of 44 to every one killed in a homicide.
2010 Data , per here: CDC.gov
- Heart disease: 597,689
- Cancer: 574,743
- Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
- Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
- Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
- Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
- Diabetes: 69,071
- Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
- Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
- Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Cancer killed people in 2010 at a rate of 44 to every one killed in a homicide.
To note, according to wikipedia (which claims to have pulled from the CDC), the number of traffic-related deaths in the USA in 2009 was 33,808, so that's be just above 10th on the list there. It's probably part of the accidents stat there, but IMO deserves special mention.
As an example of how 'reliable' statistics can theoretically be, if we were to start a policy of shooting anyone who was diagnosed with cancer, "deaths by cancer" would plummet, while "firearm deaths" would rise dramatically.
Morbid, I know, but I hope it illustrates how raw statistics obviously do not tell the whole story.
Also, people would point to these numbers and say, "See? We are making progress against cancer! Cancer deaths down xx% in the last year alone!"
--Patrick
Last edited:
Would like to note that there are several reasons for why Gun violence should get people angry despite there being "only" 12,996 homicides.
1. None of those higher on the list are crimes.
2. Many of those such as Heart disease, stroke and Alzheimers effect older people while gun violence generally effects young people
3. All of those get millions and millions of dollars to study and prevent while studies on gun violence have been stripped of funding and the data that would be used is denied to anybody.
Yeah yeah yeah we have thousands of deaths and the government provides exactly zero dollars to studying the problem.
Big whoop I know.
I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from with this. I can't really figure out what you're trying to say with this.
It's not a comment on any one person or department/organization in particular, rather it's just me rolling my eyes and bellyaching at the lack of coherent* message/common cause across our leadership in general. I've pretty much come to believe that The Government doesn't actually care about The People any more, as if We have become Government's senile old grandfather and Government is increasingly neglecting us in order to go out and have fun with its friends.
--Patrick
*as in "coherent light"
True but the problem goes deeper than just that the government is providing no money towards studying gun violence it's also that the ATF has to jump through all sorts of hoops to gather any sort of information about the guns used in violent crime and then there are laws that distinctly say that they can't provide that information to anybody else. I want to say for any reason but I know they can't release the stats for research.
Except the laws that say that the CDC can't research gun crime and that ATF can't provide the statistics have been in place for years before Obama.
Very true but I can see how Obama would rather have the fight over Gun control rather than over funding into gun violence that will take 5 years before they provide usable data 10 before a consesnsus is really reached and even then the specifics could be endlessly argued over.
I just don't like the fact that there are no really good stats on gun violence and crimes.
And I don't like the fact that the one entity most responsible for making a better life for me and my countrymen has been fractured, perverted, and diverted from doing its single most important duty, a condition which I unfortunately realize is something best healed slowly and correctly (thus likely not within my lifetime), because the quick-fix version would ... set the bones wrong, if you get what I'm saying.
Really, this straying from primary directive disappoints and dismays me more than all the grammatical errors on the Internet, combined.
--Patrick
... That are out there period. Hell if it turns out that 0% of guns bought in private transactions are used in criminal acts then I would change my stance on them and say they weren't a problem. But we don't know how many of the guns used in gun crime were bought privately or how many started their life of crime by being stolen during a robbery.
Say it explicitly: what's the primary and/or most important role of government? If your response is "to make my life as good as it can be" then we fundamentally disagree as to the most important role of government, as I don't think that should be a role of it at all and thus that's quite different than most important.
IMO the most important role of government is for it to prevent others from screwing you over. I'm also pretty sure it has the role of being a "shit disturber" to ensure those on top topple over (anti-monopoly & related), but it has no obligation to ensure your personal comfort/happiness. YOU have to take that responsibility on yourself.
Not my life, specifically. That's why I used "We" and "The People."
It's all spelled out right there in the preamble:
The Entity that is the federal government was not created to guarantee any sort of benefit to me or mine, rather it was created to facilitate the success of the collective. It is that government's job to ensure that those necessary things that no individual wants to do still get done (which is why it needs the power to force people to do things For Their Own Good). As a result, my situation ultimately improves...not because it is targeted at me, rather because I am part of the collective.
If this is not your vision of the purpose of our Government, then that's perfectly all right. Most people can't agree on the perfect vehicle, either. That's because, as individuals, we all have specific needs. We all agree, however, that there are some things that all conveyances should be able to do for everyone.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
And now they found an IED on a vehicle in Killeen (the town next to Fort Hood)
http://www.kcentv.com/story/25153747/breaking-suspicious-device-reported-in-killeen-neighborhood
Edit - but they think it is unrelated.
http://www.kcentv.com/story/25153747/breaking-suspicious-device-reported-in-killeen-neighborhood
Edit - but they think it is unrelated.
That poor town, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
That was the main driving force that created the Texas CHL laws
GasBandit
Staff member
It's reigniting the debate about soldiers being armed while on base (currently they're not allowed to carry firearms).
While on the one hand it seems counterintuitive to me to ban soldiers from carrying firearms, I can understand the logistical nightmare of checking out/tracking/inventorying 50,000 weapons. There should be some sort of middle ground in this. Perhaps allow those with CCW certification to carry personal sidearms.
Of course, that's just my attempt to be reasonable/compromise. If I had my druthers, it'd just be universal open carry.
While on the one hand it seems counterintuitive to me to ban soldiers from carrying firearms, I can understand the logistical nightmare of checking out/tracking/inventorying 50,000 weapons. There should be some sort of middle ground in this. Perhaps allow those with CCW certification to carry personal sidearms.
Of course, that's just my attempt to be reasonable/compromise. If I had my druthers, it'd just be universal open carry.
Pic removed. We had a few complaints. Sorry to bust your meme.
Last edited by a moderator:
uhhhhhhhhhh
GasBandit
Staff member
Offended on behalf of others again, are we Chuck?