Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

10 dead at college shooting

957 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101

From what I read about him, he's considered an "Expert" in Australia and has a ton of licenses for dozens of firearm types and explosives.

Gun fairy tales are prominent over there I hear!!

LOL, Expert now.

For a more typically abrasive headline from me.......

LINK - Australians Are Disgusted At The American Response To The Oregon Gun Massacre

The disgust is not limited to Australian shores. The New York Times struck a similar note. “Mass shootings have become an unsurprising part of American life, with lame public rituals in which politicians express grief and then retreat quickly into denial about this scourge,” the paper’s editorial board wrote Friday.

LINK - The Political Ritual After Mass Shootings

“We have to really get to the bottom of it,” Donald Trump, usually the most voluble candidate in offering quick-fix certainty about national challenges, told The Washington Post. “It’s so hard to even talk about these things.”

Now, as the presidential campaigns intensify, is precisely the time that he and the other candidates must talk about these things — about the horrendous toll the mass shootings have inflicted on the nation, with no end in sight. Like other Republican politicians, and many Democrats, too, Mr. Trump simplistically narrowed the topic of the gun massacre to “another mental health problem.”

This has become the standard political line, particularly among Republicans, for ducking the crucial fact that easy access to powerful arsenals — the Oregon murderer reportedly had 13 firearms, six of which he brought with him — is the great modern enabler for individuals, mentally ill or not, to massacre the innocent in shooting sprees.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker

No I do not need to add that, family suicides like the Hunt Family are not rampant killers like James Holmes, and I have already said, that if you see no difference between the two, I really do not think I am the one with a problem here. Neither breach the Australian Definition of Gun Massacre, not sure what your current PC definition is, but I do not find these silly word games amusing. You called it spin, because people died in both situation, what you refuse to acknowledge is the how and why, which is where major differences lie and why we do not have schools of little kids being shot up. We already went over this and you did not show the definition to be in error, only that the definition has been tightened to allow Pro Gun Users to attempt to remove our record which remains spotless.

You know, I would really hope that people put more thought into gun ownership than that, you quite let me down with this post. So much for responsible gun ownership huh!! Your agenda is slowing you down. How you can see a desperate family man with massive burdens and a mental illness to be compared with James Holmes and Adam Lanza I will never understand. That's almost insulting. And it is insulting to logic and common sense.

Because they almost all have mental illness. if we disqualify those with mental illness, the US rates would drop dramatically. Do you wish me to research this?

If we drop family mass murder/suicides, the US rate will again drop. Do you wish me to research this also?

If we drop murders by foreign nationals (such as the Monash University Shooting), then again, the US rates will drop dramatically.

My whole point was YOU are using a Australian definition for Australia..... And claiming ZERO mass shootings. While those proselytizing anti-gun propaganda in the US are using a US definition. If we use the Australia definition for the US, the anti-gun people would go NUTS, because now their butcher's bill just dropped to a third (possibly) what it had previously been. It blunts their argument. And makes them appear to be making a bigger deal then is warranted. And if we use the US definition with Australia then there has been several gun massacres since Port Arthur. Three that I see on this list. (Montash, Hectorville and Hunt Family).

The anti-gun people of the US don't care about the How and Why, so why should the pro-gun people?

The 2011 Hectorville siege took place between the hours of 2:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on Friday, 29 April 2011, at the small suburb of Hectorville, east of Adelaide in the state of South Australia, Australia. It began after a 39-year-old resident of the suburb, later identified as Donato Anthony Corbo, shot and killed three people on a neighbouring property. He went on to wound three more people (a child and two police officers), before eventually being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour stand off.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege

All you have to say is "vastly reduced" instead of "zero". You can do it... I know you can.

Mexico, why not The Congo, or Rio? Venezuela? Should be easy to justify your ownership with those role models.

Always the excuse,.... it's just too darn hard!!

Why should we only compare the US to Europe and not our closer neighbors? Why does the US have to be Europe? Why can't the US, culturally, be somewhere between England and Mexico? Do you go on anti-gun rants against the other 3/4 of the world which is even more dangerous then the US?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Because they almost all have mental illness. if we disqualify those with mental illness, the US rates would drop dramatically. Do you wish me to research this?

Yes I do wish you to do so, and I wish for the search to be accurate.

Geoff Hunt was:

  • Mentally ill due to recent brain surgery complications.
  • Deep in debt
  • Had a highly critical wife, to a point I would consider abuse
  • Had access to a legal Farmer Registered Shotgun
  • Had domestic issues due to a recent affair

For instance, I would not consider James Holmes or OJ Simpson "on par"They are chalk and cheese, and this still does not breach the Mass Shooting Definition, Australian or otherwise.

If we drop family mass murder/suicides, the US rate will again drop. Do you wish me to research this also?

Yes, and I would like to keep it on par with families that go out like this due to pressures, not some drunken deadbeat who decided to beat up on his wife and took that fight to a gun.

Is that level of data even available?

How do you see something like the Hunt Family suicide as comparable to Sandy Hook or Columbine? I honestly do not see how they are not chalk and cheese?

If we drop murders by foreign nationals (such as the Monash University Shooting), then again, the US rates will drop dramatically.

With 2 dead, it does not breach the definition. Perhaps we could compare how many have died in Australian School and Universities as a result of mass shootings compared to the US count?

My whole point was YOU are using a Australian definition for Australia..... And claiming ZERO mass shootings. While those proselytizing anti-gun propaganda in the US are using a US definition. If we use the Australia definition for the US, the anti-gun people would go NUTS, because now their butcher's bill just dropped to a third (possibly) what it had previously been. It blunts their argument. And makes them appear to be making a bigger deal then is warranted. And if we use the US definition with Australia then there has been several gun massacres since Port Arthur. Three that I see on this list. (Montash, Hectorville and Hunt Family).

You need to look further, Wikipedia also has the definition for Mass Shooting.

Mass shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. Mass shootings can be a form of mass murder, which is commonly categorized as the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period.[1][2] While the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, 31% of public mass shootings occur in the U.S.[3][4]

"Mass Shooting" Is the term our Ex PM who introduced the laws used.

And what is this a bit further down? It covers the Hunt Family Suicide.

According to CNN, a mass shooting is defined as having four or more fatalities, not including gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members.[5]

The anti-gun people of the US don't care about the How and Why, so why should the pro-gun people?

That is simply not true at all, The Why is studied and is paramount in understanding that train of thought.

LINK - Why Do People Commit Mass Shootings?

The theories of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim may give us a deeper understanding of how certain cultural factors contribute to mental illness. In a classical study he found that suicides were much more frequent in individualistic societies, which are characterized by a lower degree of social integration, compared to more collectivistic societies. A person who is poorly socially integrated has a high risk of becoming a lone wolf, which may be a more common problem attributable to individualistic societies. Mass murderers are often isolated individuals that over time have built up aggression towards to the society they feel disconnected from.

According to Durkheim a society may find itself in a state of anomie, or normlessness, when the rules that guide people in their behavior toward each other have broken down, and people do not know what to expect from each other. This is in line with the social control theory which states that mass shootings occur when the perpetrator’s bond to society weaken. The shooter’s self-perception becomes one of being socially marginalized.

https://en.wikipedia...ctorville_siege

All you have to say is "vastly reduced" instead of "zero". You can do it... I know you can.

But that would not be true to the aforementioned, and linked to definition, why do you insist I lie about our good record?

Why should we only compare the US to Europe and not our closer neighbors? Why does the US have to be Europe? Why can't the US, culturally, be somewhere between England and Mexico?

Do you feel that is the case? I never did and always have thought Mexico was a rather poor country, and is best know for the drug cartels that rule it. I hope the US is not in that bad shape? I would not holiday there is you paid me to do so.

In fact, just last night this was on the local news......

LINK - Australian surfers feared murdered in Mexico during quest for 'crazy waves'

Do you go on anti-gun rants against the other 3/4 of the world which is even more dangerous then the US?

I have never seen a single one of them tell me they need guns for self defence, or because their Government might attack them, or other poor excuses. I have only seen Americans defend Gun Culture so stringently, and funny enough, that just happens to be a serious money spinner for the very same country. Co-incidence?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Yes I do wish you to do so, and I wish for the search to be accurate.

Geoff Hunt was:

  • Mentally ill due to recent brain surgery complications.
  • Deep in debt
  • Had a highly critical wife, to a point I would consider abuse
  • Had access to a legal Farmer Registered Shotgun
  • Had domestic issues due to a recent affair

For instance, I would not consider James Holmes or OJ Simpson "on par"They are chalk and cheese, and this still does not breach the Mass Shooting Definition, Australian or otherwise.

Ok, reading your entire post, I see why you want to eliminate that mass suicide/murder. But if this guy had gone out to a mall and killed 4 people would it really be different then when he kills his own family? I don't really get why family murder/suicides need to be in a different bucket. Wasn't the kid that shot up Columbine also stressed out and have multiple issues?

I did find this....

Mass public shootings have become more frequent and more deadly in recent years, the Congressional Research Service concluded in a report
Domestic violence contributed to about a fifth of mass public shootings and almost all of the family-related mass shootings, the researchers concluded.
It also shows the frequency has increased to 74 days between incidents this decade, compared with 282 days between killings in the 1970s.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/6/mass-shootings-becoming-more-common-deadlier-study/?page=all

So that does indicate a problem, but 74 days between incidents would be about 5 mass shootings a year.

Yes, and I would like to keep it on par with families that go out like this due to pressures, not some drunken deadbeat who decided to beat up on his wife and took that fight to a gun.

Is that level of data even available?

Maybe, but I think perhaps it would take hours and hours of time to look for individual news articles that held more detail then the one sentence summaries that you might find on most sites.

How do you see something like the Hunt Family suicide as comparable to Sandy Hook or Columbine? I honestly do not see how they are not chalk and cheese?

I personally am not trying to make a distinction. I am saying the US public Media makes that distinction or not. They would rather throw out large numbers of contrived data, or change the bar the word is judged by, rather then report what is going on within the limitations already created. So, you have them saying things like ,"Only 90 mass shootings in the 30 years from 1966 to 1996, and now 351 this year".... To scare the heck out of people. It is blatant manipulation of the data to cause fear in the ignorant.

You need to look further, Wikipedia also has the definition for Mass Shooting.

Mass shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. Mass shootings can be a form of mass murder, which is commonly categorized as the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period.[1][2] While the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, 31% of public mass shootings occur in the U.S.[3][4]

"Mass Shooting" Is the term our Ex PM who introduced the laws used.

And what is this a bit further down? It covers the Hunt Family Suicide.

According to CNN, a mass shooting is defined as having four or more fatalities, not including gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members.[5]

Here is a good example.

There have been 334 days and 351 mass shootings so far this year
The nation was once again gripped by gun violence on Friday after a gunman identified by authorities as Robert Lewis Dear Jr. stormed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, killing two civilians and one police officer and injuring nine others.
It is just the latest in a year of more-than-daily mass shootings in America. In fact, there had already been one mass shooting on Friday — in the early morning hours, two people were killed and two injured in a shooting at a restaurant in Sacramento. Another mass shooting incident in Boston in the early hours of Thanksgiving Day took the life of a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority rail conductor.
There have been at least 351 mass shootings so far this year, according to news reports collected by a reddit community that tracks these incidents. The reddit tracker defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire. The Mass Shooting Tracker is different from other shooting databases in that it uses a broader definition of mass shooting — the old FBI definition focused on four or more people killed as part of a single shooting.

So we have a SENSATIONALISTIC STORY! More mass shootings then days in the year!! OMG! .... The story is obviously meant to be dramatic and put fear into people about being mass murdered. Yet the three examples are 3 dead with 9 wounded... 2 dead with 2 wounded, and the third one with 1 dead and 3 wounded. So, by your standard of 4 dead, NONE of these is a mass shooting. Right? Yet we in the US are sold this everyday.

If we go to the Redit Mass Shooting List.... We are told there are 351 incidents. Yet, if we use the 4 deaths rule, we see there are... 40 with 4 or more killed and only 15 with 5 or more killed. AND.... What makes a better headline... 351 mass shootings, or 40? And we don't know how many of those were family murder suicides and we don't know how many were gang related... So that 40 could easily turn into 20, or 15. Now do you see why the definition matters?

That is simply not true at all, The Why is studied and is paramount in understanding that train of thought.

LINK - Why Do People Commit Mass Shootings?

The theories of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim may give us a deeper understanding of how certain cultural factors contribute to mental illness. In a classical study he found that suicides were much more frequent in individualistic societies, which are characterized by a lower degree of social integration, compared to more collectivistic societies. A person who is poorly socially integrated has a high risk of becoming a lone wolf, which may be a more common problem attributable to individualistic societies. Mass murderers are often isolated individuals that over time have built up aggression towards to the society they feel disconnected from.

According to Durkheim a society may find itself in a state of anomie, or normlessness, when the rules that guide people in their behavior toward each other have broken down, and people do not know what to expect from each other. This is in line with the social control theory which states that mass shootings occur when the perpetrator’s bond to society weaken. The shooter’s self-perception becomes one of being socially marginalized.

So then being marginalized is an excuse? We don't count the people killed by those who feel marginalized?

Yet, I said the "US anti-gun people". Which is not a Frenchman studying depression, it is the people who assembled that 351 event list, where perhaps only 15 to 20 of those events actually match the official definition of mass shooting. These people do not care why a shooting happened, it is just another digit on their list to be PROOF that the USA is uber dangerous and we should ban guns.

But that would not be true to the aforementioned, and linked to definition, why do you insist I lie about our good record?

It is not a lie if it is true.

Do you feel that is the case? I never did and always have thought Mexico was a rather poor country, and is best know for the drug cartels that rule it. I hope the US is not in that bad shape? I would not holiday there is you paid me to do so.

Mexico is actually very modern and industrialized. It is #15 as far as GDP in the world. It is just behind South Korea and Australia. The problem it has is a very violent culture. Other then that it is very modern.

I have never seen a single one of them tell me they need guns for self defence, or because their Government might attack them, or other poor excuses. I have only seen Americans defend Gun Culture so stringently, and funny enough, that just happens to be a serious money spinner for the very same country. Co-incidence?

I suspect that is because in any of that 3/4 of the world I mentioned, it is just a given. People carry guns, and lots of people die from being shot. Some in defense, some as the aggressor. The US defends this because a lot of people think we should be just like Europe, when we're not like Europe. Do we demand that gays, and transvestites, act like everyone else? Or are we told to accept them for who they are? More people die, I get that, but really it simply boils down to the US being culturally more violent then Europe. And culture takes time to change.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Ok, reading your entire post, I see why you want to eliminate that mass suicide/murder. But if this guy had gone out to a mall and killed 4 people would it really be different then when he kills his own family? I don't really get why family murder/suicides need to be in a different bucket. Wasn't the kid that shot up Columbine also stressed out and have multiple issues?

I see worlds of difference, in reason, planning method and most importantly - treatment.

I see huge differences in motivation, one man had felt the end of the world had come for him, and had brain related injuries, one of these kids was on anti depressants which it seems was the wrong way to treat his angst.

Done for different reasons, one wanted to kill as many as possible, one wanted to spare his loved ones the pains they would suffer due to what he perceived as his personal failures. One is a threat to general society, one is a threat to themselves and immediate family.

All the bombs and planning those twisted kids did is nothing like the man who came to the end of his road. It is not uncommon for people like Farmers to suicide when they see no future ahead. That can extend to family out of a love for them as opposed to a hate for society.

They will both have individual solutions to what I feel are obviously very different problems.

I did find this....

http://www.washingto...study/?page=all

So that does indicate a problem, but 74 days between incidents would be about 5 mass shootings a year.

The way the media reports things is often a problem sadly. Standards for Journalism need to be much higher.

Maybe, but I think perhaps it would take hours and hours of time to look for individual news articles that held more detail then the one sentence summaries that you might find on most sites.

Most likely, but that level of detail I feel is where the differences lie, it is a shame they are pushed to one side for statistics to take the light. I do feel it is the best data to actually tackle the problem with.

I personally am not trying to make a distinction. I am saying the US public Media makes that distinction or not. They would rather throw out large numbers of contrived data, or change the bar the word is judged by, rather then report what is going on within the limitations already created. So, you have them saying things like ,"Only 90 mass shootings in the 30 years from 1966 to 1996, and now 351 this year".... To scare the heck out of people. It is blatant manipulation of the data to cause fear in the ignorant.

Here is a good example.

So we have a SENSATIONALISTIC STORY! More mass shootings then days in the year!! OMG! .... The story is obviously meant to be dramatic and put fear into people about being mass murdered. Yet the three examples are 3 dead with 9 wounded... 2 dead with 2 wounded, and the third one with 1 dead and 3 wounded. So, by your standard of 4 dead, NONE of these is a mass shooting. Right? Yet we in the US are sold this everyday.

If we go to the Redit Mass Shooting List.... We are told there are 351 incidents. Yet, if we use the 4 deaths rule, we see there are... 40 with 4 or more killed and only 15 with 5 or more killed. AND.... What makes a better headline... 351 mass shootings, or 40? And we don't know how many of those were family murder suicides and we don't know how many were gang related... So that 40 could easily turn into 20, or 15. Now do you see why the definition matters?

Yes, I saw that the definitions were being confuddled a little bit back, our PM used the term "No More gun Massacre" Which it seems is a general definition, Mass Shootings we seems to have different definitions for. But according to the Wiki Definition I posted, which does seem to take the US position into account does say "4 or more dead" Which Australia has not had.

This is where we get confused. The term "Gun Massacre" I did not even realise had a different meaning.

Google says "Gun Massacre" Comes under "Mass Shooting".

What is the definition of a mass shooting?

Though the FBI doesn't specifically define mass shooting, it does define mass murder, calling it a single incident in which a perpetrator kills four or more people, not including himself or herself. The FBI defined mass murder to distinguish it from serial murder.

The US seems to have another definition yet again?

Hectorville lost 3 people, Monash 2, a far cry from Sandy Hook or Columbine for a start, and Geoff Hunt did not kill indiscriminately, not that family suicide comes under that definition and I would think rightly so as the definition calls for indiscriminate killing. His murder suicide was planned and a result of abnormal conditions in his brain.

So then being marginalized is an excuse? We don't count the people killed by those who feel marginalized?

I would not say it is an excuse, I would say that it means different treatments are in order to curb this behaviour.

Yet, I said the "US anti-gun people". Which is not a Frenchman studying depression, it is the people who assembled that 351 event list, where perhaps only 15 to 20 of those events actually match the official definition of mass shooting. These people do not care why a shooting happened, it is just another digit on their list to be PROOF that the USA is uber dangerous and we should ban guns.

Well, even I do not agree with the list, and it does not adhere to the above definitions, so it seems worthless?

What we do know is mass shooting happens in the US, and since we regulated weapons, that has ended. It seems rather simple to me?

It is not a lie if it is true.

But as with the above, it is not true, it does not qualify for the set definitions.

Mexico is actually very modern and industrialized. It is #15 as far as GDP in the world. It is just behind South Korea and Australia. The problem it has is a very violent culture. Other then that it is very modern.

Then it needs a new tourism department. Mexico's reputation is even worse than Bali's! The two dead Aussies seems to slam that point home?

I suspect that is because in any of that 3/4 of the world I mentioned, it is just a given. People carry guns, and lots of people die from being shot. Some in defense, some as the aggressor. The US defends this because a lot of people think we should be just like Europe, when we're not like Europe. Do we demand that gays, and transvestites, act like everyone else? Or are we told to accept them for who they are? More people die, I get that, but really it simply boils down to the US being culturally more violent then Europe. And culture takes time to change.

More violent than Mexico?

Nobody else has the same attachment, and I do feel the NRA is the prime cause of that. But the thing is you are more like Australia and Britain then you are like the Third World Counties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I see worlds of difference, in reason, planning method and most importantly - treatment.

I see huge differences in motivation, one man had felt the end of the world had come for him, and had brain related injuries, one of these kids was on anti depressants which it seems was the wrong way to treat his angst.

Done for different reasons, one wanted to kill as many as possible, one wanted to spare his loved ones the pains they would suffer due to what he perceived as his personal failures. One is a threat to general society, one is a threat to themselves and immediate family.

All the bombs and planning those twisted kids did is nothing like the man who came to the end of his road. It is not uncommon for people like Farmers to suicide when they see no future ahead. That can extend to family out of a love for them as opposed to a hate for society.

They will both have individual solutions to what I feel are obviously very different problems.

Different reasons, different treatments, different backgrounds. But I think that if I made a sandwich using ham, pickles and bread, that regardless of what kind of ham, pickles and bread I used, it would still be a sandwich. I don't see why the specifics matter to the broad description of mass shooting. I think the only descriptors should be "mass", meaning in this case at least 4, and "shooting", meaning a gun was used. I don't see where gangs, or family suicides, are outside those two words, other then Society (or more correctly the FBI in the US) has proclaimed it so.

The way the media reports things is often a problem sadly. Standards for Journalism need to be much higher.

Agree. :tu:

Most likely, but that level of detail I feel is where the differences lie, it is a shame they are pushed to one side for statistics to take the light. I do feel it is the best data to actually tackle the problem with.

That is actually a big part of what we need to do here in the US. We need to focus on the people, not the guns. Healthy people (physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, fiscally...) will not be using guns wrongly. But many anti-gun advocates here in the US think that taking away the guns is the solution, when actually all it is doing is removing a tool from the hand of a messed up person... The messed up person then still remains, most likely still troubling society.

Yes, I saw that the definitions were being confuddled a little bit back, our PM used the term "No More gun Massacre" Which it seems is a general definition, Mass Shootings we seems to have different definitions for. But according to the Wiki Definition I posted, which does seem to take the US position into account does say "4 or more dead" Which Australia has not had.

This is where we get confused. The term "Gun Massacre" I did not even realise had a different meaning.

Google says "Gun Massacre" Comes under "Mass Shooting".

What is the definition of a mass shooting?

Though the FBI doesn't specifically define mass shooting, it does define mass murder, calling it a single incident in which a perpetrator kills four or more people, not including himself or herself. The FBI defined mass murder to distinguish it from serial murder.

I think we can agree that the US media and propagandists on both sides are shamelessly using bias numbers.

I would not say it is an excuse, I would say that it means different treatments are in order to curb this behaviour.

And the behavior is to shoot a mass of people, no?

I might be inclined to agree if there was some kind of definition that specified mental condition, or whether a felony had occurred. Yet the term "mass shooting" doesn't really refer to either one.

Well, even I do not agree with the list, and it does not adhere to the above definitions, so it seems worthless?

What we do know is mass shooting happens in the US, and since we regulated weapons, that has ended. It seems rather simple to me?

Well I have to agree with you here. Taking guns away will always result in fewer deaths. Guns make situations more deadly.

Even if we agreed to the much looser definition, that there were 3 incidences over like 20 years, that is a heck of a lot less then 300+ a year here in the US.

I do still stand by my condition of supporting heavy restrictions, or a ban, on firearms, only when I see a plan that would remove guns from the hands of criminals, and not just from the honest citizens.

But as with the above, it is not true, it does not qualify for the set definitions.

I would agree with you. But, if I was running a anti-gun website in the US, I'd say that all three were mass shootings. And the followers of that website would use those numbers shamelessly and aggressively.

Then it needs a new tourism department. Mexico's reputation is even worse than Bali's! The two dead Aussies seems to slam that point home?

It is a dangerous place, especially outside the tourist areas. Drive outside the tourist area and you might get arrested for nothing and held for ransom by the police themselves.

More violent than Mexico?

Nobody else has the same attachment, and I do feel the NRA is the prime cause of that. But the thing is you are more like Australia and Britain then you are like the Third World Counties.

Mexico and the US have similar total gun death rates per 100,000. With the US being 10.5 and Mexico being 11.17 The big difference being that suicides make up just under 70% of those deaths, while in Mexico the suicide rate is about 7% of the total deaths. So, Mexico has almost three times the gun murder rate the US does.

The US is not more violent then Mexico, but it is a lot more violent then the UK, or France, or Germany. :gun:

What about the US makes us more like the UK then Mexico?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Different reasons, different treatments, different backgrounds. But I think that if I made a sandwich using ham, pickles and bread, that regardless of what kind of ham, pickles and bread I used, it would still be a sandwich. I don't see why the specifics matter to the broad description of mass shooting. I think the only descriptors should be "mass", meaning in this case at least 4, and "shooting", meaning a gun was used. I don't see where gangs, or family suicides, are outside those two words, other then Society (or more correctly the FBI in the US) has proclaimed it so.

But then again mate you do tend to take a more blank view of statistics overall by nature. I feel there are many nuances that separate these people, for instance, I do not consider Geoff Hunt's Murder Suicide a "Mass shooting" because it was not indiscriminate, it was limited to the number of people he felt he was sparing pain. Nobody else in the world was at risk there, just his own family, whereas someone who does commit a mass shooting like Sandy Hook would take out every soul that crosses his sights, any random person on the globe (obviously within his reach) is at risk. There are very specific reasons as to why these incidents happen, and how they are carried out, and that I find a massive difference to a bunch of dead people. If we just look at statistics, then the CT'ers would even have a point with the war on terror and the innocents that became collateral damage, I mean if at the end of the day it all means dead, where do we draw that line?

Agree. :tu:

For the jouro's ;)

Inigo-Montoya-Meme.jpeg

That is actually a big part of what we need to do here in the US. We need to focus on the people, not the guns. Healthy people (physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, fiscally...) will not be using guns wrongly. But many anti-gun advocates here in the US think that taking away the guns is the solution, when actually all it is doing is removing a tool from the hand of a messed up person... The messed up person then still remains, most likely still troubling society.

Mental illness is not well enough known to make the impact required to mitigate killing. I am sure we will get there, but for the here and now, we just do not know enough about it. What we do know enough about, and have precedents for are guns. Australia is proof regulation works. That is fact. Mental Illness does not confine itself to any one country, and we have no clue as to how to prevent or cure even a third of it. As such, taking away guns is the solution, regulation ensures that the people who suffer mental illness are unlikely to qualify, there will always be holes as there is with the laws on cars, but those holes can only be tightened over years of experience. if you never start the road to a gun free society, you have no hope of ever beating the unreasonable death counts.

I think we can agree that the US media and propagandists on both sides are shamelessly using bias numbers.

And terms, they seems to swing it toward their bias.

Pro Gunners are making it worse too. If I see a statistic form say aztek saying Australia's gun crime is higher than it was before, as a citizen I can only shake my head and roll me eyes. It is obvious BS and promoted by NRA sites. I know for a fact as a resident that is simply not the case, and then to defend guns after a bunch of little kids was killed just makes that argument seems insult. Pro Gunners are an enemy of gun culture, they just do not realise it, and stick to their cliques and pat each other on the back. It's rather stomach turning to witness.

And the behavior is to shoot a mass of people, no?

No, again with Geoff Hunt he did not want to mass kill, he specifically knew who he was going to kill and was sick enough t think it was kindness. If his family comprised of three, three would be dead if it was nine, then nine would be dead, no random people though, just the people he wanted to spare, which is not all that different form the JW:s who let children die for their faith, or any other faith that acts in the same manner.

I might be inclined to agree if there was some kind of definition that specified mental condition, or whether a felony had occurred. Yet the term "mass shooting" doesn't really refer to either one.

No it does not, but as we see, the definition does not include murder suicide, which is a start. Maybe it is high time these terms were looked at and maybe it could even help us fathom what makes a mind break.

Well I have to agree with you here. Taking guns away will always result in fewer deaths. Guns make situations more deadly.

Even if we agreed to the much looser definition, that there were 3 incidences over like 20 years, that is a heck of a lot less then 300+ a year here in the US.

Indeed, but I see that I come of as smug about our record. I do not mean to, I would like to see everyone benefit as we do, and as per the newspaper article, seeing kids die like that is just too much to bear, it gets one rather passionate when children particularly are involved, and all my dislike for guns comes directly from child killings,as I said I grew up with them, they do not shock me, but I see even Guin Advocates turning around and saying "we were wrong, yes this is a great thing - better than good"

And the silly childish people who think they are Clint Eastwood or use uber lame excuses.......... :rolleyes:

I do still stand by my condition of supporting heavy restrictions, or a ban, on firearms, only when I see a plan that would remove guns from the hands of criminals, and not just from the honest citizens.

I do not see how our model does not reflect that this is exactly what happens, Black Market guns are so dear you have to be a professional criminal to afford them, the thugs that break and enter aren't in the know, or have the funds. And the professional criminals do not bother with everyday citizens, they need us.

I would agree with you. But, if I was running a anti-gun website in the US, I'd say that all three were mass shootings. And the followers of that website would use those numbers shamelessly and aggressively.

Not following, if it was anti gun, wouldn't that hurt the argument?

It is a dangerous place, especially outside the tourist areas. Drive outside the tourist area and you might get arrested for nothing and held for ransom by the police themselves.

I see a lot about the drug cartels on TV and to be honest they scare the bejeebers out of me. No morals, no ethics, just kill and traffic drugs. Even the prisons are a joke. They seem no better than ISIS.

Mexico and the US have similar total gun death rates per 100,000. With the US being 10.5 and Mexico being 11.17 The big difference being that suicides make up just under 70% of those deaths, while in Mexico the suicide rate is about 7% of the total deaths. So, Mexico has almost three times the gun murder rate the US does.

The US is not more violent then Mexico, but it is a lot more violent then the UK, or France, or Germany. :gun:

Because you not only have guns, but this "I'll shoot" " Get of my lawn" ""Pry it from my cold dead hands" ideals that come with guns in a free society where you can do pretty much what you want. People seems to get off on these childish lines which I though most people got over during their teenage rebellious years. That side of the culture is not only detrimental to your citizens by result, but honestly, it is one thing I find many non US people comment on as rather silly. It's not about black people, many seems to associate the two, that too is cultural, people need equal opportunities to be equals in society.

What about the US makes us more like the UK then Mexico?

Economy, modern thinking, modern lifestyle, with the exception of Gun Culture, you may not realise it but are a model that much of the world bases itself upon. Many love your movies, your humour, your products, you innovations. And I number myself amongst those people. I have always held the US in very high regard, I feel your concepts of freedom are somewhat overly dramatic, but most of the time I consider that part of US charm. I guess that is also why I find the US position so bewildering as it is so very opposite to so many other countries who have adopted Gun Regulation to their benefit. I also feel strongly that the largest US CT is right under everyone's noses, but have been indoctrinated to ignore it. With that sort of money getting about, there has to be someone protecting it, and to see the ridiculous excuses I do see I can only come to the same conclusions I can about religion, People are not taking the best option because they have been brainwashed. And without doubt, everyone benefits from gun regulation.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.