 | |
OT - Virginia Tech
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#251
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: OT - Virginia Tech -
04-27-2007
, 04:55 PM
|
In message <f664335miu96pm0kjeqdtfnsodts55bohf (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Bill Smith quandary (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> writes About 2.5 million people every year use a gun to defend themselves. If you outlaw guns, those people become vulnerable, and you don't disarm people who ignore your laws. Actually you do, as proved by the fact that hardly any criminals in this country use guns. |
results than that.
Quote:
|
According to the FBI, 75% of murder victims are convicted felons. 50% of the worlds illicit drugs are sold in the US, the people in that business do not settle their disputes in court. Drugs and gangs, just like it is everywhere else. Would there be less gun violence if they were outlawed? Nope. There would be less gun violence if drugs were legalised. I would have thought that was obvious. And that is just one of many, many benefits of legalisation that far outweigh even the most pessimistic estimates of the disadvantages. |
Quote:
|
Probably, but not much. Would there likely be more victims of crime of all kinds? very likely. It's a trade off, there are already 5 times as many defensive gun uses as there are crimes with guns. It's a trade off. And as I have said several times now, I don't know anybody at all in the UK who would trade our rate of domestic burglaries for your rate of gun deaths. |
I'm sure you wouldn't, even when handguns were legal there you didn't
have the murder rate we do. You didn't really get anything for banning
handguns, and your Olympic shooters have to go to Belgium to practice.
Despite the danger, they return unscathed every time.
Bill Smith
#252
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <Gohan.Ryu.2po1nb (AT) no-mx (DOT) nodomain.com>, Gohan Ryu Gohan.Ryu.2po1nb (AT) no-mx (DOT) nodomain.com> writes [quoted text muted] Is it -really- better that the only citizens who are carrying concealed weapons are law-breaking murderers? Yes. How many such people do you think are actually law-abiding citizens right up until the moment they murder someone? The Lancet 2007; 369:1403 |
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60639-4
Editorial
Gun violence and public health
The blood had not yet dried in the lecture rooms of Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, Virginia, before polarised camps claimed that the
slaughter of 32 students and teachers vindicated their particular
stance on gun control. So shrill was the debate about whether the
tragedy would have been better prevented by reducing firearms through
stronger gun laws or by increasing availability through liberalising
right-to-carry legislation, that the more important issue of gun
violence as a public-health menace has been neglected. Until the
debate widens to address violence as a preventable social problem,
rather than solely a legal concern, mass shootings will continue. To
pretend that the Blacksburg tragedy is unique ignores the legacy of
school shootings in Dunblane, Columbine, and elsewhere, and deprives
people of an opportunity to reduce future risks.
Violence is a broad problem that involves communities, not just
criminals, and populations around the world, not just the USA. In
2003, 1·6 million people were killed by violence worldwide, more than
by road traffic crashes or malaria. One-third died as a result of
homicide. The incidence is rising, fuelled by inequalities,
victimisation, and lack of social trust, so that gunshot wounds are a
major cause of death for young men.
Because the USA has the highest homicide and gun-homicide rates of any
industrialised democracy, the country is a natural focus for attempts
to learn more about violence. But despite many Federally funded
programmes, objective research on interventions to reduce violence is
lacking. Nor has the Campbell Collaboration, established to synthesise
evidence for the social sciences, provided guidance. In 2004, the US
National Research Council critically reviewed gun violence and
concluded that there was little quality science to inform decision
making. The reason is that most studies are based on associations or
on before-and-after series.
A 2004 survey from Harvard estimated that 38% of households and 26% of
individuals had at least one of the 283 million private firearms in
the USA. Even teenagers report ready access to guns. Several studies
in the USA and elsewhere cite protection as the main reason for having
a gun, despite the fact that guns are far more likely to be used
offensively, including suicide, than for self-defence. The association
of firearms and their use in homicide between populations (four
shooting deaths per 100â??000 in the USA vs 0·15 per 100â??000 in Cameroon
where private guns are banned) is complex and obviously involves
cultural factors as well.
Yet, interventions within populations that remove guns do seem to
reduce gun crime in a reproducible manner. In 2003, more than half the
guns retrieved from crimes were traced to 1% of dealers. When such a
dealer in Milwaukee stopped selling inexpensive handguns, local gun
crime was reduced by 96% and the transfer of new weapons to criminals
decreased by 44%. In Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City,
policing to remove illegal firearms from the street reduced gun crime
as well. Multiple interventions combining social networks with
stronger enforcement can also be successful, such as the 63% drop in
homicides after Operation Ceasefire in Boston. Tougher gun laws in
Brazil in 2003, allied with a buy-back programme of 450â??000 guns,
reduced the gun-homicide rate by 8% and hospitalisation for gunshots
by 4·6%.
How can such findings inform sensible policy decisions? The National
Research Council concludes that individual-level data are needed.
Characteristics of victims can be enhanced with WHO's International
Classification of External Causes of Injuries, which by introducing
standard reporting criteria, enables comparisons between studies. But
there are few details about perpetrators, since criminal background
checks for sales by gun dealers are destroyed within 24 h and private
second-hand sales, which constitute 40% of gun transfers in the USA,
are not recorded. To understand assailants' risk factors requires
records of gun ownership or ballistic fingerprinting, to which the
powerful US National Rifle Association is opposed.
The events in Blacksburg on April 16 demand a more mature evaluation
of gun violence, based on the right to health instead of the right to
bear arms, and which places public welfare above self-interest. The
National Research Council's call for accurate, individual-level data
from rigorous studies is essential, in order to provide robust
information on which sound interventions can be based. But until such
data are available, the best current evidence clearly supports an
immediate reduction in the availability of firearms as a public-health
priority.
The Lancet
#253
| |||
| |||
|
|
You don't think that if he hadn't been able to walk into a shop and buy his weapons the likelihood of failure would have been higher and/or the liklihood of such a tally less? It would have been more difficult, but nowhere near impossible. Do you or do you not think it is a worthwhile aim to make it more difficult to kill 32 innocent people? Yes. |
shop and buy his weapons. But it wasn't.
So what additional restrictions and controls are you willing to see to
achieve the worthwhile aim you have acknowledged?
--
Richard Miller
#254
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 27 Apr 2007 00:55:10 GMT, "Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: Bill Smith wrote: On 27 Apr 2007 02:00:52 +0300, Phil Carmody thefatphil_demunged (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote: Bill Smith <quandary (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> writes: On 25 Apr 2007 00:29:38 +0300, Phil Carmody thefatphil_demunged (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote: Gohan Ryu <Gohan.Ryu.2pkbfn (AT) no-mx (DOT) nodomain.com> writes: Mark Wrote: Very few people really benefit from having guns. I know of about 30 dead VT students who would have had a very good use >> >> for a gun, and I'll bet a few thousand VT students wish they were armed >> >> on that day... It's a very strange and worrisome mindset that comes up with the solution "a few thousands more people should have guns" as a solution to the problem "one person too many has a gun". There are already quite a few VT students, staff, and faculty that have concealed carry licenses. They leave their guns at home because >> the rules require it. What makes you think that bringing them to >> school would make them turn into homicidal maniacs? Oh gawd, another idiotic straw-man. Your reading comprehension age seems to be about the same as the number of bullets in your six-shooter. Phil You could answer the question. Why dignify it? Can you even attempt to justify the question without ridiculing youself? You must think that an mature, well behaved, person, must become something else when carrying a gun. Why? |
psychosis, with little in the way of warning. Certainly, in a population the
size of Virginia Tech's, there will be a number of people with psychiatric
disturbances, some of them may become psychotic. A psychotic person with a
knife or an axe can cause a lot of harm (We recently had a case here where a
man armed with a knife killed one and injured two fellow train passengers)
but if the same person possesses firearms, the potential for injury and
death is multiplied many times.
It seems to me that the US is very much isolated on its view of the
possession of guns. The number of people killed and maimed by firearms in
the US is appalling. Many countries - including mine - have a comparable
number of firearms pro capita to the US, yet the use of firearms in homicide
and suicide is very low (less than 50 cases of homicide per annum in a
population of five million, about half of them being by the use of
firearms.)
Why do you think that should be ?
Doc
Quote:
|
Bill Smith |
#255
| |||
| |||
|
|
peter wrote: To be fair he did have to tick a box saying he was mentally stable. That normally works! About as well as having a box on an immigration form that asks "Are you, or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation?". I suppose it catches out the stupid ones. |
a box to be crossed in reply to the question "Sex?". The answer "yes please"
would feature fairly often.
Doc
Quote:
|
-- Phil http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/ |
#256
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:53:52 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: Bill Smith wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:10:07 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net wrote: Bill Smith <quandary (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> wrote in news:ask2339le038nbe1tv7s9g5qnt19jrro56 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com: Certainly not me. Do you think the lack of a licence will keep a mentally unbalanced person from carrying a gun? Yes!! Cho wasn't. Isn't that the point? He was able to legally purchase two guns. If he had not been able to buy them legally he would have been forced to commit a crime to get them, and anyone becoming aware of him having them could have reported him to the police. As it was, he was guilty of no crime whatsoever until he decided to go on his killing spree, and was simply exercising his right as a free American citizen. If that's really what you want then you're welcome to it but it doesn't exactly make me wish we were so free here! He was a prohibited person and shouldn't have been able to buy a gun at all. His name should have been in the NICS database but wasn't. There's a bill now before Congress to bring it up to date, which I'm very much in favor of. |
previous history of psychiatric disease?
Doc
Quote:
|
Bill Smith |
#257
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <1tr433pcns40gv6lkeivk4403fulvjlsgj (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Bill Smith quandary (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> writes You don't think that if he hadn't been able to walk into a shop and buy his weapons the likelihood of failure would have been higher and/or the liklihood of such a tally less? It would have been more difficult, but nowhere near impossible. Do you or do you not think it is a worthwhile aim to make it more difficult to kill 32 innocent people? Yes. Ergo you do think it should have been impossible for Cho to walk into a shop and buy his weapons. But it wasn't. So what additional restrictions and controls are you willing to see to achieve the worthwhile aim you have acknowledged? Dick Cheney didn't need Gun Control, why should anyone else? |
(Music by The Invisible Girls)
EVIDENTLY
CHICKEN TOWN
John Cooper Clarke 1980
the fucking cops are fucking keen
to fucking keep it fucking clean
the fucking chief's a fucking swine
who fucking draws a fucking line
at fucking fun and fucking games
the fucking kids he fucking blames
are nowehere to be fucking found
anywhere in chicken town
the fucking scene is fucking sad
the fucking news is fucking bad
the fucking weed is fucking turf
the fucking speed is fucking surf
the fucking folks are fucking daft
don't make me fucking laugh
it fucking hurts to look around
everywhere in chicken town
the fucking train is fucking late
you fucking wait you fucking wait
you're fucking lost and fucking found
stuck in fucking chicken town
the fucking view is fucking vile
for fucking miles and fucking miles
the fucking babies fucking cry
the fucking flowers fucking die
the fucking food is fucking muck
the fucking drains are fucking fucked
the colour scheme is fucking brown
everywhere in chicken town
the fucking pubs are fucking dull
the fucking clubs are fucking full
of fucking girls and fucking guys
with fucking murder in their eyes
a fucking bloke is fucking stabbed
waiting for a fucking cab
you fucking stay at fucking home
the fucking neighbors fucking moan
keep the fucking racket down
this is fucking chicken town
the fucking train is fucking late
you fucking wait you fucking wait
you're fucking lost and fucking found
stuck in fucking chicken town
the fucking pies are fucking old
the fucking chips are fucking cold
the fucking beer is fucking flat
the fucking flats have fucking rats
the fucking clocks are fucking wrong
the fucking days are fucking long
it fucking gets you fucking down
evidently chicken town
#258
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <1tr433pcns40gv6lkeivk4403fulvjlsgj (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Bill Smith quandary (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> writes You don't think that if he hadn't been able to walk into a shop and buy his weapons the likelihood of failure would have been higher and/or the liklihood of such a tally less? It would have been more difficult, but nowhere near impossible. Do you or do you not think it is a worthwhile aim to make it more difficult to kill 32 innocent people? Yes. Ergo you do think it should have been impossible for Cho to walk into a shop and buy his weapons. But it wasn't. So what additional restrictions and controls are you willing to see to achieve the worthwhile aim you have acknowledged? Well, |
You know that Dick Cheney didn't need Gun Control, why should anyone else?
(Music by The Invisible Girls)
EVIDENTLY
CHICKEN TOWN
John Cooper Clarke 1980
the fucking cops are fucking keen
to fucking keep it fucking clean
the fucking chief's a fucking swine
who fucking draws a fucking line
at fucking fun and fucking games
the fucking kids he fucking blames
are nowehere to be fucking found
anywhere in chicken town
the fucking scene is fucking sad
the fucking news is fucking bad
the fucking weed is fucking turf
the fucking speed is fucking surf
the fucking folks are fucking daft
don't make me fucking laugh
it fucking hurts to look around
everywhere in chicken town
the fucking train is fucking late
you fucking wait you fucking wait
you're fucking lost and fucking found
stuck in fucking chicken town
the fucking view is fucking vile
for fucking miles and fucking miles
the fucking babies fucking cry
the fucking flowers fucking die
the fucking food is fucking muck
the fucking drains are fucking fucked
the colour scheme is fucking brown
everywhere in chicken town
the fucking pubs are fucking dull
the fucking clubs are fucking full
of fucking girls and fucking guys
with fucking murder in their eyes
a fucking bloke is fucking stabbed
waiting for a fucking cab
you fucking stay at fucking home
the fucking neighbors fucking moan
keep the fucking racket down
this is fucking chicken town
the fucking train is fucking late
you fucking wait you fucking wait
you're fucking lost and fucking found
stuck in fucking chicken town
the fucking pies are fucking old
the fucking chips are fucking cold
the fucking beer is fucking flat
the fucking flats have fucking rats
the fucking clocks are fucking wrong
the fucking days are fucking long
it fucking gets you fucking down
evidently chicken town
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.