What is the problem is the help available for mentally ill people. In NZ and the UK and Aus and Canada, if I'm not mistaken, they have universal health care. The US does not. This means that in any of those countries, if someone is ill, they can get help.
Not in NZ, not the same way. If I want counselling I have to find a therapist and pay them around $120 an hour. The GP costs $46 per 15min appt. The hospital is free if you go through the public system - with waiting lists of 6 months minimum for something "urgent" - although A&E is free, yes (again with very long waiting times, sometimes days and if I went there with a mental health issue they'd tell me to get counselling - again with the $120 upwards an hour, as if I can afford that).
I know the US has a ****ed up system I'm just pointing out that it's not all rosy here either, yet you never see shootings like this and they happen in the US fairly often, and the argument about population size isn't valid especially as you don't take into account the proportion of the population who own a firearm etc.
Anyway like someone just said, most of these people are not poor, they come from relatively wealthy and financially stable backgrounds.
Last edited by effervescence : 18-12-2012 at 10:49 PM.
Even as the stone of the fruit must break
that its heart may stand in the sun,
so must you know pain.
There are only two ways in which one can live their life. One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is.
This is the point I was making I think. Would he have still been able to cause such damage if he didn't have access to the gun? No. That's not to say he wouldn't have found another way of killing dozens of innocent people, but at the same time, his ideologies may have developed because he had always had such easy access to guns.
Exactly.
Even as the stone of the fruit must break
that its heart may stand in the sun,
so must you know pain.
There are only two ways in which one can live their life. One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is.
I will add most of these kids also come from financially secure backgrounds. They had health insurance and care. The shooter from this week had a mom getting 350,000 a year in alimony payments. She didn't even need to work.
That's the bit I was referring to.
Even as the stone of the fruit must break
that its heart may stand in the sun,
so must you know pain.
There are only two ways in which one can live their life. One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is.
whoa whoa whoa... you can get a gun in A DAY???? I though tthere was like a waiting period and stuff for the checked and things!!! I thought it tool at least as long as a CRB if not longer
By the end of the day, backround check. Isn't "in & out". Idiot read.
It pretty much is in and out, especially when comparing it to the UK. And I am not overly impressed by you calling someone an idiot, nor will most people be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow-light
whoa whoa whoa... you can get a gun in A DAY???? I though tthere was like a waiting period and stuff for the checked and things!!! I thought it tool at least as long as a CRB if not longer
See I think that is the problem. Fair enough if people want to have guns for leisure and protection and stuff but the checks should take a lot longer than a day! And safety cabinets and stuff should be mandatory.
None of that stuff would neccessarily have prevented the recent tragedy but I guess if the US as a country think access to guns is really important (which I personally do not understand fully), its about finding ways to make that as safe as possible. Think interfering health and safety person- if you must do that, find the safest way possible to do it!
EXCLUSIVE: Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap
The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.
Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims' families worship.
By the end of the day, backround check. Isn't "in & out". Idiot read.
Yeah thanks for that. I can actually read, even though I will concede that most of your posts are quite difficult due to lack of grammar, punctuation and normal sentence structure.
I think that most people would consider within a day to be pretty much in and out, to be honest.
Even as the stone of the fruit must break
that its heart may stand in the sun,
so must you know pain.
There are only two ways in which one can live their life. One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is.
A killer with a baseball bat is unlikely to be able to kill dozens in minutes. I'd also bet that the proportion of baseball bat attacks to deaths shows that they are a lot less dangerous than firearms.
Irrelevant - people kill themselves with tabacco and alcohol abuse (on the whole) - not other people, and not whole classrooms of them at once.
Medical errors are just that - errors, as are unintentional injuries.
It's a totally different kind of thing and not helpful to compare.
Even as the stone of the fruit must break
that its heart may stand in the sun,
so must you know pain.
There are only two ways in which one can live their life. One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is.
I think the most relevant statistic there are more NON-firearm homicides.
Besides, regulation does nothing but make sure that law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves. And it wastes money. If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find a way. If people want to kill a lot of people you don't necessarily need a gun. There are bombs and planes for example. Should we also make fertilizer illegal and other bomb-making materials? No. We just need to stop glorifying and talking constantly about the murderer. That's why they do it. Fame. This is why I hate the media. They, whether inadvertently or not, encourage hatred and violence.
Besides guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Guns will still be just as easy to obtain even if they are completely regulated. And if the government decided that it would revoke the right to bear arms, I think that would create more violence as people would need to defend themselves against the government as well as the gangs and criminals.
And speaking of gangs, where's all the uproar about how many kids/teens die because of gang violence? Why aren't we concerned about the much larger numbers of children killed by gun violence (and other violence) in Mexico, Africa, and China etc.? For one, the media doesn't really cover that do they? How many thousands (or is it millions now?) of children have died in Africa? If we're going to care about the deaths of children in other countries, shouldn't we do so equally?
Oh yeah, one more thing: alcohol abuse does kill other people. It's called drunk driving. And that sometimes kills multiple people at a time, including children.
The point is that gun regulation will not work and it's just a political device anyway used to fuel re-election campaigns.
I could go on but the media's response and everyone else's responses have actually sickened me more than the actual event...so I'm done. I want no more part of this.
A killer with a baseball bat is unlikely to be able to kill dozens in minutes. I'd also bet that the proportion of baseball bat attacks to deaths shows that they are a lot less dangerous than firearms.
Um. The statistics say baseball bats ARE used more in homicides. What the hell are you on about them being 'less dangerous'? LOLOLLOL You can't kill 20 people in one attack with them, but how does that make them less dangerous if they're still used more often?
(It doesn't). We're looking at total numbers here.
People have studied the trend of mass shootings and there has been no increase in the past few decades. It's all the media blowing it out of proportion.
Bring a real argument and not this politician rebuttal.
Last edited by Amaryllis : 20-12-2012 at 04:09 PM.
Reason: If you're going to quote someone, use their actual words instead of making things up or paraphrasing badly.
Nous avons abrité tous les rêves du monde,
Et c'est dans le soleil que nous avons grandi.
but if you shoot someone then you probably have a 70% chance of killing them, and you can kill multiple people VERY quickly. With a bat, on the other hand, you're unlikely to kill someone in a single hit, you will have to hit them repetedly and even then there's probably only a 40% chance of killing them, and you'll only be able to kill 1, maybe 2, people in a short period of time (apart from anything else you'd get tired before you'd killed many people).
Personally if I was going to be attacked I'd rather the attacker had a bat, or even a knife, than a gun
The US is not going to change the constitution anytime soon, it is incredibly difficult to amend the constitution in the United States. There is no precedent that would allow the government in the US to ban guns. There is no widespread support to ban guns, in fact it is exactly the opposite. See this poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx That's 73% of Americans in 2011 against banning handguns, I can guarantee that statistic has changed very little, if at all, over the past year. There is no possible way for that statistic to have changed enough for guns to be banned in the US. There have been a half a dozen mass shootings in the US this year, (Only two of those involved deaths of over a dozen people if you include this recent one, not a significant number if you look at the US population size) none of those have changed popular opinion on gun control. Independence is hugely important to Americans, the ability to protect against government infringement of rights is considered a right in itself. This is part of the American culture that is difficult for people from outside of the US to understand. If you find it interesting I would highly recommend reading up on the US Constitution, US government and history, and please please please please please read try to read/watch/listen to, something other than the UK media once in a while. As a general trend the UK media tends to cast the US in a terrible light, most media sources tend to be biased in one way or another and it will make you a more informed global citizen if you branch out a little.
I am really not sure why so many americans are against banning guns... this may be a cultural thing as obviously I do not live in America, but I have never heard an argument that has convinced me of gun being legal being a good thing
I am really not sure why so many americans are against banning guns... this may be a cultural thing as obviously I do not live in America, but I have never heard an argument that has convinced me of gun being legal being a good thing
Well aside from the constitutional aspects, being able to own guns does not produce the mayhem some people think. Facts are the vast majority of people never see a gun crime at all their whole lives. Gun deaths are lower than car accidents and suicides (although a large portion of gun deaths are suicides). Many gun homicides involve criminals killing other criminals. While there have been some recent notorious shootings gun deaths on the whole have been down a lot the last 15 years That was due to non-gun related policing. The largest school killings were in the 1927 when 38 school children and teahcers were killed in the Bath Bombings in Michigan.
A few years ago the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2nd amendment fun owning rights. As people were able to buy more guns crime actually dropped.
"Gun-related violent crimes drop as sales soar in Virginia."
"Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.
The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.
But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.
The numbers appear to contradict a long-running popular narrative that more guns cause more violent crime, said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who compared Virginia crime data for those years with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch."
Um. The statistics say baseball bats ARE used more in homicides. What the hell are you on about them being 'less dangerous'? LOLOLLOL You can't kill 20 people in one attack with them, but how does that make them less dangerous if they're still used more often?
(It doesn't). We're looking at total numbers here.
People have studied the trend of mass shootings and there has been no increase in the past few decades. It's all the media blowing it out of proportion.
Bring a real argument and not this politician rebuttal.
Less dangerous in amount of people killed per attack and less dangerous as in I'd rather be bludgeoned with a baseball bat than shot as I'd have a greater chance of surviving. Do you think the death rate would go up or down if school shooters used bats instead?
You are confusing dangerousness with frequency of use.
I don't agree with the argument that guns are necessary for self protection. Ok I wouldn't have a hope in hell against a gun. But I do martial arts/street defence and like to think I would have at least some chance against a knife or even a bat - I don't need weapons to defend myself.
