Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Shooting in CO....why you won't hear much about it.
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Dec 17, 2013 08:45:17   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
Skellum0 wrote:
Putting an armed guard into every potentially vulnerable situation will
a: have to be paid for by you and me.
b: Inevitably business people will start trying to make a profit and so the the price for these armed guards will go up. This is a country which rewards enterprise after all. So even higher taxes and/or prices.
then c: Who is going to apply for these jobs? certainly not the kind of person who can make a decent living elsewhere
so d: then you have to ask yourself if you really trust the man with the gun to defend your children and also do you really trust him not to get frustrated one day and turn his guns on the children?

This is just the start of the arguments.

Meanwhile there are a bunch of countries who keep their children statistically far safer by imposing strict gun control. The merit of this system is that the times a person goes through an insane period and has access to a gun are so rare as to be almost never.

The more guns you put out there, the more shooting incidents will occur. Common sense for the simple reason reason of access.

Look at the statistics for Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Scandinavia, UK. You can add countries like Switzerland with high gun ownership and strict gun control. The combined population of these countries is similar to the US but I can only find reference to five mass shooting in the last decade. One of these was in Norway where, despite tough gun control, they have a very high gun ownership rate.

Statistically, these are amongst the safest countries on earth in terms of homicide rate and person on person violence. America on the other hand has several of the most dangerous cities in the World.

Guns are the problem, not the answer.

I have also seen several reporters recently claim that the most dangerous UK cities, London and Manchester, are worse than any American city for violence. Simply not true. The homicide rate in London is 1.6 per 100,000 compared with the US average of around 4.7. In the most dangerous US cities you are around 10 times more likely to be killed then in either London of Manchester.

The only grain of truth, and this is hugely exaggerated, is that violence goes up after gun control. It does, for a relatively very short time, then it goes way down on previous levels.

Gundamentalism is ruining America. Huge sums of money are being spent by the gun lobby to prevent people realising that gun control means far safer lives, it means lower taxes (because you do not need the same level of police) and it means less violence.
Putting an armed guard into every potentially vuln... (show quote)


That sounds great except that everywhere this has been the case your supposed negatives haven't panned out.

As opposed to the opposite approach where only criminals have guns and every place is a gun free zone...and that's been a complete disaster.


By the way....your statement that crime goes DOWN after a short while where guns are controlled...lol...total hogwash....

Reply
Dec 17, 2013 09:24:33   #
RichieC Loc: Adirondacks
 
None of the following stats are presented in a way that would accurately describe/compare situations between certain hand-picked cities and countries with America. It is. however a good self serving way to put forth an agenda in a typical liberal fashion. The facts are... something that many have touted would work... worked! Your way has failed miserably and this fact is driving your nuts, forcing you to grasp to find some made up reason why it won't. Funny thing- you put your total trust in the government, instead of the people- in direct opposition to the brilliance of our founding fathers. Had you been alive back then, you would have voted for the King to "protect" you.

Your side was proven wrong in this issue. But there are bigger, much more profound issues at stake here, and you are willing to sell us down the road. Both the left and right sides of the isle are beginning to see developments in OUR government in such a light... and I quote a prominent Democrat: "that would make Madison turn over in his grave".




Skellum0 wrote:
Putting an armed guard into every potentially vulnerable situation will
a: have to be paid for by you and me.
b: Inevitably business people will start trying to make a profit and so the the price for these armed guards will go up. This is a country which rewards enterprise after all. So even higher taxes and/or prices.
then c: Who is going to apply for these jobs? certainly not the kind of person who can make a decent living elsewhere
so d: then you have to ask yourself if you really trust the man with the gun to defend your children and also do you really trust him not to get frustrated one day and turn his guns on the children?

This is just the start of the arguments.

Meanwhile there are a bunch of countries who keep their children statistically far safer by imposing strict gun control. The merit of this system is that the times a person goes through an insane period and has access to a gun are so rare as to be almost never.

The more guns you put out there, the more shooting incidents will occur. Common sense for the simple reason reason of access.

Look at the statistics for Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Scandinavia, UK. You can add countries like Switzerland with high gun ownership and strict gun control. The combined population of these countries is similar to the US but I can only find reference to five mass shooting in the last decade. One of these was in Norway where, despite tough gun control, they have a very high gun ownership rate.

Statistically, these are amongst the safest countries on earth in terms of homicide rate and person on person violence. America on the other hand has several of the most dangerous cities in the World.

Guns are the problem, not the answer.

I have also seen several reporters recently claim that the most dangerous UK cities, London and Manchester, are worse than any American city for violence. Simply not true. The homicide rate in London is 1.6 per 100,000 compared with the US average of around 4.7. In the most dangerous US cities you are around 10 times more likely to be killed then in either London of Manchester.

The only grain of truth, and this is hugely exaggerated, is that violence goes up after gun control. It does, for a relatively very short time, then it goes way down on previous levels.

Gundamentalism is ruining America. Huge sums of money are being spent by the gun lobby to prevent people realising that gun control means far safer lives, it means lower taxes (because you do not need the same level of police) and it means less violence.
Putting an armed guard into every potentially vuln... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 17, 2013 09:31:14   #
bsmith52 Loc: Northeast Alabama
 
Guns are not the answer for everything. But when you are being shot at, or your children, they are certainly better than apples and chalk.

Reply
 
 
Dec 17, 2013 16:08:00   #
Skellum0
 
rpavich wrote:
That sounds great except that everywhere this has been the case your supposed negatives haven't panned out.

As opposed to the opposite approach where only criminals have guns and every place is a gun free zone...and that's been a complete disaster.


By the way....your statement that crime goes DOWN after a short while where guns are controlled...lol...total hogwash....


First, I was obviously from the context talking about violent crime. Look at the stats, violent crime is coming down year on year from level already way lower then America. Next, you have to be very careful when reading reports of violent crime. If you research properly you find that , in the UK for example there are far stricter criteria on what constitutes violent crime. In addition, there is also a higher reporting culture. These difference in how data is collected and reported means it is very difficult to compare like with like from country to country. This is why NRA propagandists find it so easy to manipulate the data to fool the credible. They will never argue on homicide rates, (unless the are downright lying which happens too) but will try and fudge the issues by crime rates and other 'violent crime'.

What you can do is compare homicide rates which are a very good indicator to real underlying violent circle and is an accepted methodology by most researchers in the field. By this measure America and the other gun toting countries are far, far more dangerous.

Next, Remove countries at war from the stats. Of the remainder, all the most dangerous countries in the world have either or both of high gun control/ high gun ownership.

All the safest democracies in the World in terms of homicide rates and violent crime have either or (normally)both, strict gun control/low gun ownership.

Some cities in the US are statistically so dangerous that some European countries will not send their representatives to them. There are also, despite huge counter pressure from the US government, warnings to Europeans wanting to travel to these cities on holiday.

Lack of gun control enables criminals and especially it enables gangs. It gives them the tools to terrorize.

If you track the countries with really tough gun control laws you can see that in the beginning criminals hang on to their guns, but they stop carrying them very soon.

As time goes on and there are less and les guns in circulation, so there are less shooting incidents. In these countries, UK, Australia, Japan, for example. Criminal on civilian shootings almost never happen.

As you disbelieve me on crime falling in the UK see link below. Note the homicides were reported as an absolute number rather than a percentage of the population, so for many of the years the number was going up in line with the population. Significant however, is how much the homicide rate has fallen since the really strict gun gun control post the Dunblane massacre.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html

Reply
Dec 18, 2013 03:24:52   #
Skellum0
 
RichieC wrote:
None of the following stats are presented in a way that would accurately describe/compare situations between certain hand-picked cities and countries with America. It is. however a good self serving way to put forth an agenda in a typical liberal fashion. The facts are... something that many have touted would work... worked! Your way has failed miserably and this fact is driving your nuts, forcing you to grasp to find some made up reason why it won't. Funny thing- you put your total trust in the government, instead of the people- in direct opposition to the brilliance of our founding fathers. Had you been alive back then, you would have voted for the King to "protect" you.

Your side was proven wrong in this issue. But there are bigger, much more profound issues at stake here, and you are willing to sell us down the road. Both the left and right sides of the isle are beginning to see developments in OUR government in such a light... and I quote a prominent Democrat: "that would make Madison turn over in his grave".
None of the following stats are presented in a way... (show quote)


I am not hand picking to suit my case. I am picking the very worst crime cities in the UK and pointing out that their homicide rate is half the US average and ten time better then some of the worst American cities. Gun control has been so successful in the UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand that the topic is almost a non issue. The vast majority of the respective population do not want a homicide rate 4 times higher.

You guys are also missing the arms escalation. Guns are not likely to get safer anytime soon, so America is going to continue trying to arm up to keep ahead of the criminals, who will of course arm up even more to keep themselves alive. More and more guns so every time a teenager has an attack of angst there will be gun somewhere close.

The real issue is that everyone makes errors of judgement. Some frequently, some infrequently. The more times there is a gun around at the same time the more times someone will get killed.

Gun control has worked, and 15 years on in Australia and UK it is working more every year. There may be a few more burglaries but I would swap that every day of the week for the relatively tiny homicide rate and all those other shooting deaths.

Reply
Dec 18, 2013 06:09:59   #
ohallboyz Loc: Boston, MA
 
Our town just got a $50,000 grant to enhance security in the high school. I hope they put an officer there, not more security cameras. Security cameras didn't prevent a teacher from being killed, but if a guard was there maybe she would have had a chance.

Reply
Dec 18, 2013 17:50:53   #
Skellum0
 
ohallboyz wrote:
Our town just got a $50,000 grant to enhance security in the high school. I hope they put an officer there, not more security cameras. Security cameras didn't prevent a teacher from being killed, but if a guard was there maybe she would have had a chance.


For all my views on gun control, you have to do what you have to do while every lunatic in the country has easy access to multiple firearms. So I would want the same under current conditions.

Fortunately for me and mine we are currently living in a country which decided to enforce very strict gun control after their last mass shooting 15 years ago. Since then there have been no more mass shootings and homicides have dropped to less than 1 per 100000 of population.

Reply
 
 
Dec 18, 2013 18:01:20   #
Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida
 
rpavich wrote:
You won't hear much about the latest shooting because

(1) the shooter was a Leftist and

(2) a good guy with a gun was at the school and saved countless lives.

We all understand how this works by now, don’t we?

There was a shooting at a Colorado high school on Friday.

It was headline news for about 43 minutes, then it became a little side story, now, according to the media, it might as well have never happened.

They’ve moved on to other things. And why is that? Well, he was an avowed left wing socialist who hated Republicans and capitalism. Not exactly the sort of profile that a mass shooter is “supposed” to have. I guess that’s why the Denver Post actually edited the word “socialist” out of their report on the incident.

I’m not claiming that his politics necessarily motivated him to commit this crime — it looks like he was driven more by a personal vendetta — but every rational adult in this country knows that this thing would still be in the headlines if only the guy had been described as a “Tea Partier” or a “radical right winger.”

So be it. We get it.

The media doesn’t report truth — they advance narratives. It’s all scripted and plot-driven; it’s a combination of propaganda and entertainment. Propatainment. Entertainaganda. You get the idea. Violent liberals just don’t fit into the story they’re telling, so dudes like Pierson are left on the cutting room floor. If someone in the writer’s room can come up with a clever way to incorporate him into the plot, then maybe we’ll hear about him. Otherwise, crickets.

That’s how it works. We all know it. No reason to harp on the point.

There is something else about that incident on Friday — something important. It’s the reason you should pay attention to this story, and another reason why the media would prefer you don’t.

The carnage was limited. The shooter took his own life after critically wounding one innocent girl and inflicting minor wounds on another bystander. It’s still a tragic situation, as that young girl barely clings to life, but it wasn’t the bloodbath it could have been.

And why?

Because Pierson wasn’t the only armed man in the school that day.

He came equipped to slaughter dozens of kids, but ended up murdering only himself. The reason: this school had a resource officer. The armed cop cornered the would-be killer in the library, causing Pierson to give up and take his own life.

If a good guy with a gun hadn’t been there, this tale could have a drastically, horribly, tragically different ending.

I do not bring this up to score a political point. I’m not a politician, and I’m not trying to “win” anything. I bring this up because it is nothing less than cowardly and despicable to ignore it. This, everyone, is the formula for stopping, or at least mitigating the severity of, school shootings. It played out on Friday. There it is. That’s it. Are you paying attention?

If we care about our kids, we will see to it that they are defended. Period.

I cannot tolerate or even stomach one more blabbering fool insisting that we ought to gather our children together in a central location, and then ADVERTISE the fact that they are vulnerable and defenseless. This is beyond mere stupidity. It’s reckless endangerment.

Make sure there are armed good guys in every public school in the country. For all the money we spend on education, and all of the unnecessary frills and thrills we add to the experience, you can not tell me that this is impractical or unachievable. Put resource officers in the schools. If not them, then armed security. If not that, then let capable, trained, and licensed teachers carry firearms. However we do it, it must be done.

Do you know why? Because Arapahoe High School.

Because pure logic, reason, and common sense ought to be enough to bring us to the conclusion that a “gun free” sign has never stopped one shooting or protected one innocent victim from harm.

They put armed security in some post offices. They put them in Social Security offices and court houses. They put them in government buildings to protect bureaucrats and politicians. The politicians who argue that guns can not defend against bad people with bad intentions, still go to work every day in buildings that are heavily guarded by the very guns they abhor. These hypocrites hide behind armed men and then insist that our children aren’t afforded the same protection. They couldn’t care less about your kid’s life, no matter what they say when the cameras are pointing at them.

Forget them.

Protect the schools. This should be done now. Tomorrow. Immediately. Why are we even talking about it? Are we delusional or indifferent? How else can I explain why we actually DEBATE the merits of defending our children against mass murderers?

Are you unconvinced? OK, imagine the worst case scenario. Imagine you turn on the news one afternoon and you see it: there’s an active shooter at your child’s school. Now, imagine the anchor comes on and informs the audience that this school has a resource officer, or armed security, or armed teachers. How would you feel? Would you actually be MORE concerned knowing that your kid isn’t utterly defenseless? Would you think, “Gee, I wish the shooter was the only one with a gun in that building”?

Or would you find some measure of tentative relief, and pray that the good guy with the gun finds the bad guy, and puts a bullet through his head?

Every single sane and loving parent would fall into the latter category. Every single one.

So, that’s it. Enough arguing. Leave your ideology aside. Let’s be rational. Let’s fulfill our obligation to shield our children from harm, to the best of our ability.

Let’s protect the schools. Now.

Here is the link to the blog post
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/15/put-guns-in-the-schools-because-thats-the-only-sane-thing-to-do/
You won't hear much about the latest shooting beca... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Thanks for posting.

For all those that DO NOT think that a person has the right to defend them self, they are welcome to move to Chicago, a city with the strickest gun laws.

Reply
Dec 18, 2013 20:25:07   #
Skellum0
 
Samuraiz wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Thanks for posting.

For all those that DO NOT think that a person has the right to defend them self, they are welcome to move to Chicago, a city with the strickest gun laws.


The gun laws in Chicago a) barely qualify as gun control by international standards, b) are almost pointless because they're unilateral c) are a typical ineffective liberal compromise.

The most effective gun control democratic countries are those where the parties to the right of the political spectrum have either introduced the legislation or have supported it.

Reply
Dec 18, 2013 20:30:30   #
Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida
 
Skellum0 wrote:
The gun laws in Chicago a) barely qualify as gun control by international standards, b) are almost pointless because they're unilateral c) are a typical ineffective liberal compromise.

The most effective gun control democratic countries are those where the parties to the right of the political spectrum have either introduced the legislation or have supported it.


What exactly did you just say?

Furthermore since you stated that you do not live in the USA, none of this apples to you, no?

Reply
Dec 18, 2013 23:20:31   #
Skellum0
 
Samuraiz wrote:
What exactly did you just say?

Furthermore since you stated that you do not live in the USA, none of this apples to you, no?


Born and bred American, time served in the military. These days I go where work takes me. As a citizen and entitled to vote I exercise my right to express my views. Furthermore, having lived in countries with and without gun control i have the advantage of witnessing first hand the benefits of gun control. I have come to realise how much safer countries like Australia are, compared either to America or even to Australia before the gun control was tightened right up 15 years ago.

What they call gun control in Chicago is nothing more than a farce.

Reply
 
 
Dec 19, 2013 01:40:27   #
wwjd38 Loc: Wyoming
 
Very well said, thank you for posting this.

Reply
Dec 19, 2013 08:42:53   #
phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO
 
Skellum0 wrote:
Born and bred American, time served in the military. These days I go where work takes me. As a citizen and entitled to vote I exercise my right to express my views. Furthermore, having lived in countries with and without gun control i have the advantage of witnessing first hand the benefits of gun control. I have come to realise how much safer countries like Australia are, compared either to America or even to Australia before the gun control was tightened right up 15 years ago.

What they call gun control in Chicago is nothing more than a farce.
Born and bred American, time served in the militar... (show quote)


Well, if you are so happy with the policies of the land where you work, why not just stay there? In the America you claim to be your home we have a constitution that includes a second amendment, and we aim to keep it this way. (pun intended)

Reply
Dec 19, 2013 11:06:24   #
Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida
 
Sad that very few are as up in arms (pun intended) over the fact that a 16 year old convicted of drunk driving deaths successfully use the fact that he and his family are stupid rich to avoid a meaningful prosecution.

We do not need any new laws to add additional burden to law abiding citizens. We need to enforce the laws we have. Violent criminals are released everyday. Punish the guilty not the Innocent.

Also, not everyone in Australia agrees that the gun bans have added to their level safety.

Reply
Dec 19, 2013 19:20:22   #
Skellum0
 
Samuraiz wrote:
Sad that very few are as up in arms (pun intended) over the fact that a 16 year old convicted of drunk driving deaths successfully use the fact that he and his family are stupid rich to avoid a meaningful prosecution.

We do not need any new laws to add additional burden to law abiding citizens. We need to enforce the laws we have. Violent criminals are released everyday. Punish the guilty not the Innocent.

Also, not everyone in Australia agrees that the gun bans have added to their level safety.
Sad that very few are as up in arms (pun intended)... (show quote)


Not everyone no. Last poll showed only around 90% supported the continued ban so you are correct. In the police, who were on balance against the gun control initially, they also now overwhelmingly support it. Why wouldn't they? Homicides are down, police killings are down, violent crime, while still a problem in some isolated communities and late at night in downtown, is also well down. Accidental shootings are down, there have been no mass killings since before the gun regulation was tightened in the 1990s, suicides are down.

Guns are a very dangerous tool. The easier the access the more people get killed and there is a resulting knock on effect on societal violence.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.