In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='hasan']

You are.  I'm sorry but statistically America is way ahead of Canada and Europe in terms of violent deaths and gun crimes.  [/quote]

 

Yes, clearly because less people die in car crashes in rural areas, I am safe there, no need for seatbelts.

 

And in terms of crime that actually affects the average citizen? the difference isnt that large. The vast majority of violent crime in the USA is gang members killing each other, the average citizen is actually pretty safe. and even moreso outside of the major cities that really skew americas crime rate, like chicago, Washington DC, LA, Detroit. 

 

Most of the states bordering canada have the same or lower crime rates than the provinces that they border, and in general areas in the states with the same demographics as canada have pretty similar crime rates. Many of these states have huge gun ownership and among the laxest gun control in the nation.

 

Now if you were to take the gigantic gangs that the USA has created with its various drug and alcohol prohibitions, hyper violent ones like MS13 that we dont have in canada or in europe, and put them in canada as well,  we would have a skyrocketing crime rate as well.

 

And that is just regular day to day crime, that the media doesnt cry over. If you want to talk about spree killings, shootings, stabbings, bombings, etc, the USA in no way has a monopoly. They are getting the brunt of it, but as things like Ecole Polytechnique and the recent assasination attempt on the quebec premier, or europes bombings, and the Norway shooting show... nothing about canada and europe is actually preventing these crimes from happening, when a crazy person decides to make it happen.

 

If you take a guy like James Holmes and put him in canada, he would have been able to pass all of our background checks and get licensed to buy guns legally, he was certainly patient enough. And we have all the same guns here, handguns and AR15's, shotguns of every flavour. The recent elementary school shooting, he wasnt even legal to buy guns, he had to steal them from his parents, who would have passed any countries requirements to own guns.

 

The only thing in the way here in canada is that we have a little pin installed in every magazine restricting it to 5 or 10 rounds. Our entire plan is that people who are inclined to kill people are going to want to obey the law and leave the little pin(that a chimp with pliers could remove in a minute) in place. wouldnt want to break a gun law before committing a massacre.

[4588686]

 

Yes, clearly because less people die in car crashes in rural areas, I am safe there, no need for seatbelts.

 

And in terms of crime that actually affects the average citizen? the difference isnt that large. The vast majority of violent crime in the USA is gang members killing each other, the average citizen is actually pretty safe. and even moreso outside of the major cities that really skew americas crime rate, like chicago, Washington DC, LA, Detroit. 

 

Most of the states bordering canada have the same or lower crime rates than the provinces that they border, and in general areas in the states with the same demographics as canada have pretty similar crime rates. Many of these states have huge gun ownership and among the laxest gun control in the nation.

 

Now if you were to take the gigantic gangs that the USA has created with its various drug and alcohol prohibitions, hyper violent ones like MS13 that we dont have in canada or in europe, and put them in canada as well,  we would have a skyrocketing crime rate as well.

 

And that is just regular day to day crime, that the media doesnt cry over. If you want to talk about spree killings, shootings, stabbings, bombings, etc, the USA in no way has a monopoly. They are getting the brunt of it, but as things like Ecole Polytechnique and the recent assasination attempt on the quebec premier, or europes bombings, and the Norway shooting show... nothing about canada and europe is actually preventing these crimes from happening, when a crazy person decides to make it happen.

 

If you take a guy like James Holmes and put him in canada, he would have been able to pass all of our background checks and get licensed to buy guns legally, he was certainly patient enough. And we have all the same guns here, handguns and AR15's, shotguns of every flavour. The recent elementary school shooting, he wasnt even legal to buy guns, he had to steal them from his parents, who would have passed any countries requirements to own guns.

 

The only thing in the way here in canada is that we have a little pin installed in every magazine restricting it to 5 or 10 rounds. Our entire plan is that people who are inclined to kill people are going to want to obey the law and leave the little pin(that a chimp with pliers could remove in a minute) in place. wouldnt want to break a gun law before committing a massacre.

 

You can mock Canada's regulations all you want but the stats are the stats.  America's violence is way, way higher than other countries.  

 

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2005/03/24/violent-societies/

 

 

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/

 

If you have data showing that America's a=stats are that skewed by gang violence I'd look at it and try to be open minded but I don't know how you can make those numbers work.  

[Winchester]

What's our non-firearm assault rate like, as compared to other countries?

 

 

Further, what if we break it down by state? Are Texans the same as New Yorkers? Is "American" culture monolithic?

Edited December 17, 2012 by Winchester

[4588686]

What's our non-firearm assault rate like, as compared to other countries?

 

I'd assume that it's also way higher.  I don't think that the main problem is how many high capacity magazines you can buy at Wal-Mart.  But I was responding to J-Lol saying that Canadians and Europeans are wrong to say that their societies are really so much less violent than America's.

[Winchester]

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

 

Looking for responses to this article, which is from 2009.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Winchester

[Anomaly]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

 

Looking for responses to this article, which is from 2009.

 

The homicide rate in the UK per the article you linked is 1.49 per 100,000

 

From the FBI website for the US: In 2010, the homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants,

 

 

Looking at violent crime rates:

UK 2,034 per 100,000 per the article.

 

US / FBI website, there were an estimated 403.6 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. 

 

 

I'm not sure there is a metric conversion factor to consider.

[Winchester]

The homicide rate in the UK per the article you linked is 1.49 per 100,000

 

From the FBI website for the US: In 2010, the homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants,

 

 

Looking at violent crime rates:

UK 2,034 per 100,000 per the article.

 

US / FBI website, there were an estimated 403.6 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. 

 

 

I'm not sure there is a metric conversion factor to consider.

 

 

I find the UK's number bizarrely high, but their standards for self defense were hideous for a number of years. You were essentially expected to curl up into a ball. To me, that would skew the numbers.

[BigJon16]

What does all of this jibber-jabber have to do with anything? I do not see how this thread is productive or respectful to the tragedy that took place.

 

 

 

The-never-ending-gun-debate isn't making anything any better.

 

 

[Winchester]

What does all of this jibber-jabber have to do with anything? I do not see how this thread is productive or respectful to the tragedy that took place.

 

 

 

The-never-ending-gun-debate isn't making anything any better.

 

I guess we're just not as advanced as you. You should pray for us. Preferably with your eyes turned Heavenward, all saintly-like.

[morostheos]

I haven't read most of the previous nine pages of this thread, but as a resident of CT this tragedy has affected so many people in ways I would never imagine something could. I didn't personally know any of the victims, I keep learning how so many of my friends are connected personally to them. Christmas parties at work are being cancelled, some friends are wearing all black until Christmas. While the world continues on, with sympathy and mourning, it feels like the state of Connecticut is not there yet. Our hearts are so heavy. The only thing that seems fitting for me to do still is to pray. I can't bring myself to read the stories of the children who died, listening to all the details and the arguments about gun control is just a cacophony that I hear going on around me but I can't listen to. My heart aches for the families of the children who died, the heroic teachers, and the whole community. My heart also aches for the family of the shooter and the shooter himself. This violence was not rational, and that is one of the reasons it is so difficult. Why those children? How could it ever have been predicted? How can we ensure this doesn't happen again? There are no real answers to those questions. The details of what occurred and any strategies to prevent it from occurring again will always be inconsequential in relation to the big picture. 

 

All we can do is to continue to do God's will in our lives as best we can - to love and serve God, and to love our neighbor. Other things may or may not make a difference, but love will always make a difference.

 

The night after the shootings, I went to see the Hobbit at the theater, and this line really stuck with me:

 

 

"Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. But that it is not what I've found. I've found it is the small things, every act of normal folk that keeps the darkness at bay — simple acts of kindness and love." - Gandalf in The Hobbit

 

[StMichael]

Good article covering the gun-free zone and a few things I was not aware of regarding even the Colorado shooting:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

 

 

The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund 

 

A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

 

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

 

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

 

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

 

Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

 

First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”

 

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

 

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

 

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

 

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

 

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

 

There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.

 

Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business owner who now suggests that a “gun-free zone” revert back to what critics would characterize as “a wild, wild West” status. Indeed, shortly after the Cinemark attack in Colorado, the manager of the nearby Northfield Theaters changed its policy and began banning concealed handguns.

 

In all of the fevered commentary over the Newtown killings, you will hear little discussion of the fact that we may be making our families and neighbors less safe by expanding the places where guns aren’t allowed. But that is precisely what we may be doing. Both criminals and the criminally insane have shown time and time again that those laws are the least of the problems they face as they carry out their evil deeds.

 

— John Fund is a national-affairs columnist for NRO.

[StMichael]

Good article covering the gun-free zone and a few things I was not aware of regarding even the Colorado shooting:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

 

 

The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund 

 

A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

 

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

 

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

 

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

 

Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

 

First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”

 

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

 

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

 

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

 

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

 

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

 

There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.

 

Despite all of this evidence, the magical thinking behind gun-free zones is unlikely to be questioned in the wake of the Newtown killings. Having such zones gives people a false sense of security, and woe to the politician or business owner who now suggests that a “gun-free zone” revert back to what critics would characterize as “a wild, wild West” status. Indeed, shortly after the Cinemark attack in Colorado, the manager of the nearby Northfield Theaters changed its policy and began banning concealed handguns.

 

In all of the fevered commentary over the Newtown killings, you will hear little discussion of the fact that we may be making our families and neighbors less safe by expanding the places where guns aren’t allowed. But that is precisely what we may be doing. Both criminals and the criminally insane have shown time and time again that those laws are the least of the problems they face as they carry out their evil deeds.

 

— John Fund is a national-affairs columnist for NRO.

[Jesus_lol]

I'd assume that it's also way higher.  I don't think that the main problem is how many high capacity magazines you can buy at Wal-Mart.  But I was responding to J-Lol saying that Canadians and Europeans are wrong to say that their societies are really so much less violent than America's.

 

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I didnt say Canada and Europe are as violent as america. What I did say is that we like to think of ourselves as totally safe from the types of disaster happening in the states, because we have the security blanket of gun control. Facts are, many of the recent shootings could have happened in canada, the laws would not have prevented them.

 

These shootings have happened in Europe and Canada as well, it is entirely possible for them to still occur here, nothing in our countries or laws really actually prevents this. Unless you think there is the same number of crazy people who want to kill preschoolers in canada that get out the door on the way to buyguns, knives, gasoline or whatever and stop and go "Oh wait, guns are harder to get here, and our culture is so polite, why dont I just turn around and live a life of peace."

 

And yes Hasan, I do feel fairly comfortable mocking some of canada's gun laws, first and foremost because I know what they are and have dealt with many of them myself.

 

You are seeing two things and assuming causation over correlation. Over the years Canada's gun control has not shown itself to be responsible for any changes in our crime rate, we have had a steady downwards trend in violent crime with guns for at least a decade before we had any real gun control laws in place, and it has not changed one way or the other as we have added and removed sections from our gun control. Canada has had a similar fraction of the USA's crime rate for decades and decades, long before we had any measurable kind of gun control(used to be able to mail order full auto machine guns in canada), it would be silly to assume that it is all because of laws we have added in the past 20 years.

 

Same thing with the UK. People say "oh look, the UK basically banned guns and now their murder rate is a fraction of the USA's, therefore A>B" when in reality, their murder rate did not significantly change during their recent change in gun laws towards being more restrictive, and in fact has been at a similar level(in comparison to the USA) for over a century, long before either country conceived of making laws restricting guns.

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

I haven't read most of the previous nine pages of this thread, but as a resident of CT this tragedy has affected so many people in ways I would never imagine something could. I didn't personally know any of the victims, I keep learning how so many of my friends are connected personally to them. Christmas parties at work are being cancelled, some friends are wearing all black until Christmas. While the world continues on, with sympathy and mourning, it feels like the state of Connecticut is not there yet. Our hearts are so heavy. The only thing that seems fitting for me to do still is to pray. I can't bring myself to read the stories of the children who died, listening to all the details and the arguments about gun control is just a cacophony that I hear going on around me but I can't listen to. My heart aches for the families of the children who died, the heroic teachers, and the whole community. My heart also aches for the family of the shooter and the shooter himself. This violence was not rational, and that is one of the reasons it is so difficult. Why those children? How could it ever have been predicted? How can we ensure this doesn't happen again? There are no real answers to those questions. The details of what occurred and any strategies to prevent it from occurring again will always be inconsequential in relation to the big picture. 

 

All we can do is to continue to do God's will in our lives as best we can - to love and serve God, and to love our neighbor. Other things may or may not make a difference, but love will always make a difference.

 

The night after the shootings, I went to see the Hobbit at the theater, and this line really stuck with me:

 

 

"Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. But that it is not what I've found. I've found it is the small things, every act of normal folk that keeps the darkness at bay — simple acts of kindness and love." - Gandalf in The Hobbit

 

 

Know that I am and many others on this site, around the nation, and all over the world are praying with you for everyone who has been affected. I feel the same way about not knowing what else to do but pray.

 

One of the things that I've held onto when bad things have happened is that when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist, we are connected spiritually to everyone within the Body of Christ including those in heaven. When I say goodbye to someone close, I always say, "See you in the Eucharist." Because really, Jesus Himself is the only one who heals all, feels all, and connects all through Him.

[BigJon16]

I guess we're just not as advanced as you. You should pray for us. Preferably with your eyes turned Heavenward, all saintly-like.

 

 

 

All I was trying to say is that this thread isn't cool. You are the one calling me a saint...

 

 

 

And can you blame a guy for trying?