5 year old given rifle as gift, kills 2 year old sister

[iguana_tonante]

Firearms Homicide Rate per 100,000 population in Wyoming: 0.9 (source)
Firearms Homicide Rate per 100,000 population in England&Wales: 0.07 (source)

Ok people keep doing this and it's slightly annoying. Isn't it *total* murder rate that matters? And our total murder rate is indeed less than america.

I think you misinterpreted my data.

Both your Firearms Homicide Rate and your Total Homicide Rate are lower than Wyoming's.

Total Homicide Rate per 100,000 population in Wyoming: 1.4 (source)
Total Homicide Rate per 100,000 population in England&Wales: 1.06 (source)

And as you and others have said, it is particularly egregious since England is a fucking whole country with a population of 53 millions and a density of more than 1,000 people per square mile, while Wyoming is basically a big box full of nothing (population less than 600 thousands, density just under 6 people per square mile).

 

[gturner]

So cowboys who wear guns on their hips and drive around with three rifles in their pickup truck's gun rack doesn't result in more murders than a genteel country that bans just about every conceivable weapon, and banning guns in Chicago and Washington makes people have to rinse the blood off their sidewalks every morning from the constant murders. It's not just rural versus urban, either. Cities like Plano or El Paso have about 2 homicides per 100,000. Gun control cities like Chicago have about 20, and places like Detroit have over 50. BTW, the rape rate in major American cities varies by a factor of ten and the assault rate varies by a factor of twenty. The presence of a tool doesn't drive human behavior, human behavior drives tool use. America is awash in push-up bars, but that didn't make them start doing push ups.

 

[1001001]

So cowboys who wear guns on their hips and drive around with three rifles in their pickup truck's gun rack doesn't result in more murders than a genteel country that bans just about every conceivable weapon, and banning guns in Chicago and Washington makes people have to rinse the blood off their sidewalks every morning from the constant murders. It's not just rural versus urban, either. Cities like Plano or El Paso have about 2 homicides per 100,000. Gun control cities like Chicago have about 20, and places like Detroit have over 50.

Didn't the high murder rates come first, and the attempts to control gun violence second?

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Cities like Plano or El Paso have about 2 homicides per 100,000. Gun control cities like Chicago have about 20, and places like Detroit have over 50.

Chicken or egg? Wasn't gun control instituted in those cities at least partly because there was already a high homicide rate? (Oops, digits was making the same point at the same time.)

Also, you can't look at a small geographic area, such as a city, in isolation. If it has much stricter gun control than nearby jurisdictions, there are obviously going to be a lot of guns brought in from those jurisdictions.

 

[Gary7]

I'd seen the headlines, but just read the story within the hour. I simply don't understand why people would give a child that young a real rifle instead of an air rifle.

I'm not a parent, but is a 5 year old even capable of comprehending that a gun can kill people? Or of what death is?

There's some sort of irony at work here. In the 50s and 60s, I had cap pistols. Cowboys and Indians were all over TV. There were even some guns that shot plastic "bullets" like the Mattel Fanner 50 revolver. Then after the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, safety groups got involved and such toys were virtually eliminated. So now they give kids barely old enough to wipe their own asses real guns.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I can't see any good reason for any gun aficionado parent to entrust their child with a semi or fully automatic weapon. And frankly, I don't think any kid under 13 should be allowed to use a firearm. There's just no sense in it, because they inherently don't have the maturity (there may be few exceptions, but tough luck--wait your turn to grow up). Sure, let them fire BB guns to develop the skills up until they reach teenage years THEN introduce them to basic firearms. Creating a "child weapon" is just horrifically irresponsible. I imagine some NRA lobbyist must have proclaimed "a child should be able to defend himself against an oppressive government!" and irresponsible politicians went along with it.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Also, you can't look at a small geographic area, such as a city, in isolation. If it has much stricter gun control than nearby jurisdictions, there are obviously going to be a lot of guns brought in from those jurisdictions.

Yes. When Tasmania had the laxest gun laws in Australia (pre-1996), Mainlanders use to catch the night ferry to Tasmania, legally buy guns here, and take them back on the ferry. We had current affair shows filming just how easy it was.

 

[gturner]

Cities like Plano or El Paso have about 2 homicides per 100,000. Gun control cities like Chicago have about 20, and places like Detroit have over 50.

Chicken or egg? Wasn't gun control instituted in those cities at least partly because there was already a high homicide rate? (Oops, digits was making the same point at the same time.)

Also, you can't look at a small geographic area, such as a city, in isolation. If it has much stricter gun control than nearby jurisdictions, there are obviously going to be a lot of guns brought in from those jurisdictions.

If it's a chicken and an egg problem, the egg has hatched and is clucking around the yard.

There are many different reasons for gun control in some of the bigger northern cities. Some of it was from a culture clash where people from down South, who are extremely friendly but sometimes react to serious insults with lethal force, moved up north where people aren't as overtly friendly to strangers and like to hurl insults all day. The simplest solution was to disarm all the blacks. Other issues were inner city crime and gang activity, and the simplest solution was to disarm the blacks while pretending to disarm the Irish and Italians. It didn't really work out very well, because criminals have a much higher drive and incentive to get guns than their victims do, and of course they really don't care if they're breaking the law to do so.

Importing guns from outside the city is just a fact of life, and since the criminal gangs are fighting over control of cocaine and heroin distribution, drugs which have to come in from a hundred times as far and which are ten times easier for the police to detect along the entire route, the most effective conceivable attempts to stop gun smuggling will utterly fail. Heck, even ATF agents were selling military/police only pistols to Mexican drug gangs over the Internet.

 

[Data Holmes]

Cities like Plano or El Paso have about 2 homicides per 100,000. Gun control cities like Chicago have about 20, and places like Detroit have over 50.

Chicken or egg? Wasn't gun control instituted in those cities at least partly because there was already a high homicide rate? (Oops, digits was making the same point at the same time.)

Also, you can't look at a small geographic area, such as a city, in isolation. If it has much stricter gun control than nearby jurisdictions, there are obviously going to be a lot of guns brought in from those jurisdictions.

If it's a chicken and an egg problem, the egg has hatched and is clucking around the yard.

There are many different reasons for gun control in some of the bigger northern cities. Some of it was from a culture clash where people from down South, who are extremely friendly but sometimes react to serious insults with lethal force, moved up north where people aren't as overtly friendly to strangers and like to hurl insults all day. The simplest solution was to disarm all the blacks. Other issues were inner city crime and gang activity, and the simplest solution was to disarm the blacks while pretending to disarm the Irish and Italians. It didn't really work out very well, because criminals have a much higher drive and incentive to get guns than their victims do, and of course they really don't care if they're breaking the law to do so.

Importing guns from outside the city is just a fact of life, and since the criminal gangs are fighting over control of cocaine and heroin distribution, drugs which have to come in from a hundred times as far and which are ten times easier for the police to detect along the entire route, the most effective conceivable attempts to stop gun smuggling will utterly fail. Heck, even ATF agents were selling military/police only pistols to Mexican drug gangs over the Internet.

A lot of the "modern" firearms bans in major cities such as LA, Chicago, D.C., ect were put into place in the 60's and 70's as a counter to fear of armed black, socialist, and anarchist political groups. The second wave was in '94 when the Clinton admin pushed the AWB through, and left leaning states and cities rushed to pass local legislation mirroring the federal ban, or like NJ or CA, push it further.

 

[iguana_tonante]

So cowboys who wear guns on their hips and drive blah blah blah

I like it how you blather to distract from the fact that your "statistics" were completely invented.

As usual.

 

[MacLeod]

You know we'll have this debate again and again because unfortunantly they'll be another shooting incident in the States like Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine etc...

Yes we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. It is however fair to say that the US has one of the highest rates of firearm realted murders out of what we would say are the developed nations (OECD, G20). Now of course other countries have their own problems which country doesn't? In 1996 both Australlia (Port Arthur) and the United Kingdom (Dunbalne) suffered from a mass shooting event, these events resulted in a public outcry leading to tighter gun laws. The response in the US seems to be an initial outcry that something must be down, only for little if anything to be down and a case of acceptance that these events happen and nothing we do can stop them from occuring. Which is true, in so far as all that can be done is to reduce the chance of such an event occuring.

Now I'm not a parent, but to me it would seem protecting my childs life is more important than the right to own a gun. If a gun ban would reduce the risk to my I'd take it.

Now of course places like Switzerland has high gun ownership but not as many of the problems realting to guns as the US. But is that in part due to the fact of National service? Or something else, or a combination of things?

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2013/05/07/romo-pkg-bullet-proof-backpack.cnn

Companies start developing and selling bulletproof armor for kids as a reaction to school shootings now.

It certainly is a better step than putting guns into kids hands, but it stinks of resignation and acceptance of the concept of unavoidability of massacres and making a huge profit on top.

 

[farmkid]

If a gun ban would reduce the risk to my I'd take it.

Now of course places like Switzerland has high gun ownership but not as many of the problems realting to guns as the US. But is that in part due to the fact of National service? Or something else, or a combination of things?

And there's the issue right there. Pro-gun control people see it as obvious that the presence of guns is the core of the problem, so anything done to restrict guns will reduce these events. Since the presence of guns is the problem, then anyone who who doesn't want more restrictions obviously doesn't care about protecting children. Gun rights people, on the other hand, believe the problem is not the presence of guns, but is the fault of those committing these acts. Restricting gun sales/bullet sales/ownership/etc. will have no effect on these events because those who would do these things obviously have no regard for the law. Such laws would only punish law-abiding people who aren't a threat anyway.

The root of the whole debate is that one side believes guns are the problem becuase if guns weren't around then crazy people couldn't get them and the other believes guns aren't a problem but the crazy people are. Neither side seems capable of even understanding the other side.

 

[gturner]

So cowboys who wear guns on their hips and drive blah blah blah

I like it how you blather to distract from the fact that your "statistics" were completely invented.

As usual.

Except that up thread we have "When Wyoming's number of murders is in single digits - Yes, it is below the British murder rate."

But how did you change the focus to just England and Wales when I was comparing Wyoming statistics to the UK, which includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, and whose murder rates are higher than England and Wales (in 2011 Scotland was at 2.34 and Northern Ireland was at 1.52).

It's not like I'm shifting the subject to the gun-friendly states that have a lower murder rate than Wyoming.

 

[MacLeod]

If a gun ban would reduce the risk to my I'd take it.

Now of course places like Switzerland has high gun ownership but not as many of the problems realting to guns as the US. But is that in part due to the fact of National service? Or something else, or a combination of things?

And there's the issue right there. Pro-gun control people see it as obvious that the presence of guns is the core of the problem, so anything done to restrict guns will reduce these events. Since the presence of guns is the problem, then anyone who who doesn't want more restrictions obviously doesn't care about protecting children. Gun rights people, on the other hand, believe the problem is not the presence of guns, but is the fault of those committing these acts. Restricting gun sales/bullet sales/ownership/etc. will have no effect on these events because those who would do these things obviously have no regard for the law. Such laws would only punish law-abiding people who aren't a threat anyway.

The root of the whole debate is that one side believes guns are the problem becuase if guns weren't around then crazy people couldn't get them and the other believes guns aren't a problem but the crazy people are. Neither side seems capable of even understanding the other side.

So are you saying hypothetically speaking if Guns where banned in the US or more highly regulated that it wouldn't reduce the risk of a "crazy" person getting hold of one?

No law passed by Parliament or Act of Congress will ever prevent a shooting incident form occuring, it can however reduce the risk of such an event occuring.

Or would you disagree with that statement?

Or how about this in a democracy the will of the majority is usually carried out.

From gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

In that poll it seems the majority are in favour of some reforms to the existing gun laws.

 

[Miss Chicken]

So cowboys who wear guns on their hips and drive blah blah blah

I like it how you blather to distract from the fact that your "statistics" were completely invented.

As usual.

Except that up thread we have "When Wyoming's number of murders is in single digits - Yes, it is below the British murder rate."

But how did you change the focus to just England and Wales when I was comparing Wyoming statistics to the UK, which includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, and whose murder rates are higher than England and Wales (in 2011 Scotland was at 2.34 and Northern Ireland was at 1.52).

It's not like I'm shifting the subject to the gun-friendly states that have a lower murder rate than Wyoming.

I have come to realise that when I made that statement i was comparing Wyoming murder rate to Britain's intentional homicide rate. This was a mistake as 'intentional homicide' actually include some forms of manslaughter (i.e. non-negligent manslaughter) which are excluded from the Wyoming numbers that deal only with murder. I am not sure what the murder rate for Britain actually is.

The figures you quote for Scotland and Northern Ireland also seems to be for intentional homicide rather than just murders.

 

[Gary7]

The "smoking gun" here is indeed mental health. But that problem is so difficult to control that one can only fall back on the implement used, which can cause rapid deaths in short order. Violent people are generally not easily deterred. If it's not guns they can use, they'll find ways to create makeshift explosives.

What still gets me is how reactive people are. Nobody got chills down their spine seeing these massive assault weapons easily purchased by the general public? Apparently not enough... have to wait until someone misuses them. Just confounds the dickens out of me.

 

[MacLeod]

I like it how you blather to distract from the fact that your "statistics" were completely invented.

As usual.

Except that up thread we have "When Wyoming's number of murders is in single digits - Yes, it is below the British murder rate."

But how did you change the focus to just England and Wales when I was comparing Wyoming statistics to the UK, which includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, and whose murder rates are higher than England and Wales (in 2011 Scotland was at 2.34 and Northern Ireland was at 1.52).

It's not like I'm shifting the subject to the gun-friendly states that have a lower murder rate than Wyoming.

I have come to realise that when I made that statement i was comparing Wyoming murder rate to Britain's intentional homicide rate. This was a mistake as 'intentional homicide' actually include some forms of manslaughter (i.e. non-negligent manslaughter) which are excluded from the Wyoming numbers that deal only with murder. I am not sure what the murder rate for Britain actually is.

The figures you quote for Scotland and Northern Ireland also seems to be for intentional homicide rather than just murders.

This is what I managed to find

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

UK (Great Britain) Total Murder / Homicide numbers and rate 2011/2012
Total UK population in 2011 (census 2011) was 63,181,775
Total Murders / Homicides in UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) in the financial year 2011/12 is 663 (was 777 in 2010/11)
Total UK murder / homicide rate in 2011/12 is 10.5 (was 12.3 in 2010/11) figure is per 1 million population

If you look at the data it says in 2011/12 of those murder/homicide rates in England and Wales 39 were carried out with a gun whilst 5 were carried out in Scotland. The figure for Northern Ireland wasn't provided so we have at least 44 minimum with a maximum of 67 (23 murders in N. Ireland). Which accounting for population size (the US being around 4.5 times larger) would mean around 198-302. The overall rate ~3000. Which is what 3-4 times lower than the US murder rate.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

There are many different reasons for gun control in some of the bigger northern cities. Some of it was from a culture clash where people from down South, who are extremely friendly but sometimes react to serious insults with lethal force, moved up north where people aren't as overtly friendly to strangers and like to hurl insults all day. The simplest solution was to disarm all the blacks....

Just a bit of stereotyping, don't you think? Northerners may (or may not) tend not to be as friendly as southerners, but the vast majority don't "hurl insults all day." In fact, I don't know anyone who hurls insults all day. And, yes, I grew up in the north and still visit family and friends there.

 

[farmkid]

So are you saying hypothetically speaking if Guns where banned in the US or more highly regulated that it wouldn't reduce the risk of a "crazy" person getting hold of one?

No law passed by Parliament or Act of Congress will ever prevent a shooting incident form occuring, it can however reduce the risk of such an event occuring.

Or would you disagree with that statement?

Or how about this in a democracy the will of the majority is usually carried out.

From gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

In that poll it seems the majority are in favour of some reforms to the existing gun laws.

I'm not saying it; that's what the argument from the pro-gun crowd is. To a certain extent I agree. Regarding your italicized statement, I agree with it, but the question is regarding the nature of the laws passed. Congress could pass a law that would lock up everyone one with mental health issues, and that would certainly reduce mass shootings. However, I think most will agree that the cost in terms of money and freedom is too high. Congress could also ban all guns and confiscate them all (ignoring the constitutional issues for the sake of argument), but doing so would be next to impossible and would result in massive conflicts, probably many more deaths than many years of mass shootings, and also high cost in money and freedom. So sure, laws could be passed that would reduce them, but the ones that would obviously work aren't workable. That leaves us with things such as banning high-capacity magazines and assault weapons and such. Such things sound effective to people without experience with guns. Gun owners and shooters, on the other hand, see such things as ineffective and only restrictive to law-abiding citizens. Anyone who shoots knows that with a little practice it takes only a few seconds (some can do it is less than one second with some guns) to change magazines, so there is little to no difference between having three 10-round magazines or one 30-round magazine. They also realize that the term "assault weapon" is meaningless regarding actual function of a weapon. For example, the latest assault weapon ban listed many makes and models of guns that were banned or permitted. The Ruger Mini-14 (functionally equivalent to an AR-15) with a wood stock was exempted, but with a folding stock was banned. There is no functional difference between the two. A particular model of .22 was banned because it was dressed up to look like a military weapon. It's still a .22 and not useful for hunting anything bigger than a squirrel or a tin can and rarely deadly, but it looks scary so it was banned. The problem gun owners have is that such laws are usually, if not always, drawn up by people who know nothing about guns and they end up being laws that will do nothing to solve the problem but will only cause problems for law-abiding citizens.

The Gallup poll was interesting, but not surprising. Frankly, I'm baffled that the background check issue didn't pass. As you point out, pretty much everyone is in favor of it, including most gun owners. It only makes sense. If you look at the poll, you'll see that the things with the most support are the things that gun owners support as solutions to the problem--attacking it from a mental health perspective and measures aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them without restricting the majority of people and increasing security and improving response. Banning things has the lowest support of anything on the list.

 

[1001001]

There are many different reasons for gun control in some of the bigger northern cities. Some of it was from a culture clash where people from down South, who are extremely friendly but sometimes react to serious insults with lethal force, moved up north where people aren't as overtly friendly to strangers and like to hurl insults all day. The simplest solution was to disarm all the blacks....

Just a bit of stereotyping, don't you think? Northerners may (or may not) tend not to be as friendly as southerners, but the vast majority don't "hurl insults all day." In fact, I don't know anyone who hurls insults all day. And, yes, I grew up in the north and still visit family and friends there.

I grew up in Los Angeles.

We don't care enough to hurl insults all day.