Colorado: The very good and the very bad

[jjbrr]

I grew up and went to the local school in the Roseland/Pullman part of Chicago.

 

I just googled and came up with about ten or twenty shootings there in the past of couple of years.

 

Is this a gun law thing or a gang violence, drugs, street violence, poverty, culture thing?

[mike777]

Is this a gun law thing or a gang violence, drugs, street violence, poverty, culture thing?

 

 

Kids did bring hand guns to my local grammer school, tough kids but I can honestly say I was never afraid of staying out late and getting shot.

 

I went back a few years ago and found:

1) the main department store and grocery stores gone.

2) catholic churches shut down or turned into who knows what..

3) the local catholic high school....gone and turned into some kind of academy.

4) THE MAIN BANK PUllman bank gone and empty..I think they moved out..

5) I lived in two places..one is now an empty lot the other was boarded up.

 

The local Y and Local park..Palmer Park where I spent my youth were still there.

 

--

 

I dont really buy it is a poverty thing, we did not own a car or a home or dishwasher,air cond....etc.....

[jjbrr]

Right, my point is Colorado happens and everyone starts crapping on America for gun laws, but doesn't it seem drugs/poverty/gangs/culture/education/whatever are the real problem?

 

My list, which admittedly is cherry-picked (but from Reuters UK) suggests that in the last 5 years, these sort of public, mass shootings have caused MORE deaths in Finland than in the US.

 

Is it much of a surprise that the UK doesn't have much gun violence given it doesn't have much gang violence?

 

What are the gun murder numbers like in Mexico or some Latin American countries?

 

I just think it's very wrong that Colorado happens and people start hurling their gun control opinions at everyone as if that's actually the issue.

[blackshoe]

There is a myth running around that Americans routinely buy and use automatic weapons. It's bull. It is theoretically possible, and practically highly unusual, one might even say very improbable, for a US citizen to own an automatic weapon. Also, it's been a while, but as I recall, there's not been more than one incident of a legally owned automatic weapon being used in a crime in the US, at least not since Prohibition (and I don't think those were legally owned either, I just don't know for sure). The media have been making a big deal of the guy in Colorado using weapons that could fire "50-60 rounds a minute". These are not automatic weapons. The problem is that the government has confused things by labeling certain "evil looking" weapons "assault weapons", which is more BS: an assault weapon is an automatic weapon, the government's so called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic.

 

Thirty years later, I might handle the situation differently. For one thing, I've learned to know where the cops are. For another, I carry a cell phone. For a third, I no longer carry a firearm routinely. So things would certainly be different. Thirty years ago, I would have tried to talk him out of doing violence even if I didn't have a gun, but I'd have been a lot less sanguine about the outcome if I couldn't. And I'll grant that the outcome could have been a lot different if he'd had a handgun as well.

 

When I retired to Rochester twenty years ago, my friend Gary handed me a map of the city, which had a number of areas circled in red. I asked him "what's with the circles?" He said "don't go there". I still don't. Gary was a police dispatcher, and the areas he'd marked were known bad parts of town. I think Rochester, which has a reputation for gun violence worse than some places and better than others, has had something like 76 shootings this year, which may sound like a lot, but compare it to Detroit, Chicago, NYC, or LA. Or various cities in Mexico. When a shooting happens, the media are all over it. Unless, of course, it was a "righteous" shooting - for example where a homeowner shot an armed intruder. Then they just sort of mention it in passing and forget about it.

 

Would I like to live in a society where there's never any violence? Sure. Do I expect such a society to exist anywhere any time soon? No. Do I want to be prepared if violence comes my way? Damned straight. And that includes being armed.

[luke warm]

Perhaps we should update the 2nd Amendment to read:

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms ICBMs, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and F-16's shall not be infringed.

it is true that things have progressed at a rate unimaginable by the founders... the world is far more dangerous than they could have envisioned, to the point that we the people now have arguably more to fear from outside forces than from our own gov't... even so, what mike said is accurate - though possibly outdated... could americans, no matter how well armed, successfully fight the gov't if the need arose? that would depend upon whose side the military took... they do, after all, swear to uphold the constitution and not the gov't

[barmar]

There is a myth running around that Americans routinely buy and use automatic weapons. It's bull. It is theoretically possible, and practically highly unusual, one might even say very improbable, for a US citizen to own an automatic weapon. Also, it's been a while, but as I recall, there's not been more than one incident of a legally owned automatic weapon being used in a crime in the US, at least not since Prohibition (and I don't think those were legally owned either, I just don't know for sure). The media have been making a big deal of the guy in Colorado using weapons that could fire "50-60 rounds a minute". These are not automatic weapons. The problem is that the government has confused things by labeling certain "evil looking" weapons "assault weapons", which is more BS: an assault weapon is an automatic weapon, the government's so called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic.

Does it really matter what you call them? Does any ordinary citizen need a weapon capable of firing rapidly and holding dozens of rounds for self-defense or sport shooting?

[barmar]

Perhaps we should update the 2nd Amendment to read:

I'm actually of the opinion that this is what the framers intended. They'd recently been part of an insurrection against a tyrannical government, and wanted to protect the right of future citizens to rebel if the new government went overboard. So the people should have weapons capable of fighting against the government.

 

Of course, this is totally unrealistic now. The US military is the most effective fighting force in the world, routinely besting armies of other countries. No citizen group could possibly arm itself well enough to fight against it successfully. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and unnecessary now, but there's no way it could ever be repealed or revised because the gun lobby is too powerful.

[mike777]

I'm actually of the opinion that this is what the framers intended. They'd recently been part of an insurrection against a tyrannical government, and wanted to protect the right of future citizens to rebel if the new government went overboard. So the people should have weapons capable of fighting against the government.

 

Of course, this is totally unrealistic now. The US military is the most effective fighting force in the world, routinely besting armies of other countries. No citizen group could possibly arm itself well enough to fight against it successfully. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and unnecessary now, but there's no way it could ever be repealed or revised because the gun lobby is too powerful.

 

 

in fact citizens groups have fought well against it...see Iraq and Afghanistan. that is kinda the whole argument by those that advocate for these heavy weapons.

 

They are using the weapons to blow up tanks and jet fuel and spare parts depots to keep the planes grounded. Small cheap boats took out a Navy ship.

 

They are not for dove hunting.

 

When people see working concentration camps in Europe, in the 1990's and see the UK get invaded in the 1980's where many died in a war and eastern europe under a home grown police state including half of Germany.....they get worried.

 

I understand such a think happening in NYC or London is unthinkable but that is the argument for 100 round clips.

 

 

I grant the next battle/war is much more likely to be fought via computers attacking banking or the electrical grid, but people tend to prepare for the last wars not the next ones.

[Cyberyeti]

Is it much of a surprise that the UK doesn't have much gun violence given it doesn't have much gang violence?

It has lots of gang violence in some areas, a lot more of it with knives than guns, but particularly in 2 or 3 cities some gang related gun crime.

 

I live in a city of 137K population. I don't remember the last time anybody was shot here (I've been here 25 years), although very occasionally people are threatened with guns in robberies.

 

There was one maybe 45 miles from here where somebody shot 2 burglars who were in his house killing one. He was somebody who had held a shotgun legally, but his licence was not renewed as the police didn't like his mental state. As the two were running away and he shot them in the back, plus the shotgun was illegally held, he went to prison for a long time amid huge national media coverage.

 

Show your work? I believe you about gun murder rates, but I'm curious how much different it really is, particularly when adjusted for population size.

 

Well if you believe Wikipedia US 4.14 firearm homicides/100K population, England/Wales 0.07

 

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate, these are old stats and the UK ones are older than the US ones.

 

Or see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

US 9369 murders with guns in the last year for which stats are available, UK 14. Well US is maybe 5 times bigger but still ...

 

I agree with you on the rampages, they will happen anyway, it's much more the single victim gun crime that changes.

 

Also US has a maybe 50% higher suicide rate than UK (http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/), and a much higher proportion of those suicides are with guns (first link above), I wonder (with no evidence whatsoever) if the availability of guns makes suicide "easier" and some of those people might not go through with it without a quick and pretty certain way of doing it.

[mike777]

It has lots of gang violence in some areas, a lot more of it with knives than guns, but particularly in 2 or 3 cities some gun crime.

 

 

Sounds like the Sharks and Jets

 

btw some may think modern day Russia, which is a large part of Europe, is basically run as a giant organized crime family.

[blackshoe]

Does it really matter what you call them? Does any ordinary citizen need a weapon capable of firing rapidly and holding dozens of rounds for self-defense or sport shooting?

It's not a matter of "need", it's a matter of "right". Aside from that, who gets to decide? Some bureaucrat? No thank you.

 

I'm actually of the opinion that this is what the framers intended. They'd recently been part of an insurrection against a tyrannical government, and wanted to protect the right of future citizens to rebel if the new government went overboard. So the people should have weapons capable of fighting against the government.

 

Of course, this is totally unrealistic now. The US military is the most effective fighting force in the world, routinely besting armies of other countries. No citizen group could possibly arm itself well enough to fight against it successfully. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and unnecessary now, but there's no way it could ever be repealed or revised because the gun lobby is too powerful.

BS. 1. The US military routinely bombs the ***** out of people. In head to head combat, sometimes we win, and sometimes we lose. See, as Mike777 points out, Afghanistan, and also Vietnam. We did win in Nicauragua and Grenada, but the schoolyard bully could have beat those guys. 2. Just because you claim the 2nd Amendment is "outdated and unnecessary" does not make it so. And the gun lobby is a good thing. Without that, those of us who still wish the government to recognize our right to bear arms would be up the creek. No doubt that would make some people happy, but I'm not in the habit of giving up my rights to make somebody else happy. And I'm not going to get in that habit, either.

[Cyberyeti]

Sounds like the Sharks and Jets

 

But did it only get that way because of the relative lack of guns. There are gang fights in bits of London you'd never see as a tourist all the time, there is just a culture of using melee weapons more than guns.

btw some may think modern day Russia, which is a large part of Europe, is basically run as a giant organized crime family.

It's not really a large part of Europe, the population of Russia is 143M approx the same as UK + Germany. Actually it's worse, it's being run as a crime family organised by the KGB.

[billw55]

A possibly relevant bit of news, a mass killing with a knife:

 

yahoo story

 

So yes, this is entirely possible without any guns at all.

[Cyberyeti]

A possibly relevant bit of news, a mass killing with a knife:

 

yahoo story

 

So yes, this is entirely possible without any guns at all.

Yes but you're unlikely to get to the Breivik situation with a knifeman. It's always possible, particularly in a Dunblane type situation in a primary school, but simply, you kill people more slowly with a knife than an auto weapon or a number of handguns and you don't have range if people scatter.

[billw55]

Yes but you're unlikely to get to the Breivik situation with a knifeman. It's always possible, particularly in a Dunblane type situation in a primary school, but simply, you kill people more slowly with a knife than an auto weapon or a number of handguns and you don't have range if people scatter.

Certainly, it is not the same thing. Obviously the death potential is higher with guns. For that matter it is even higher with explosives (Oklahoma City). Sometimes I wonder why these guys use guns instead of bombs. I think it must be psychological, perhaps some glory image they have in their minds, or just simple copycat-ism.

 

On another angle, I wonder what the gun laws were like in Norway when Breivik did his deed.

[blackshoe]

On another angle, I wonder what the gun laws were like in Norway when Breivik did his deed.

It would also be interesting to see what has happened to those laws since then, or may happen in the near future. And then take a look fifty or a hundreds years down the pike and see if folks in Norway think the right decision was made.

[nigel_k]

Yes but you're unlikely to get to the Breivik situation with a knifeman. It's always possible, particularly in a Dunblane type situation in a primary school, but simply, you kill people more slowly with a knife than an auto weapon or a number of handguns and you don't have range if people scatter.

Wasn't there a guy in India who strangled 900 people with a yellow cloth?

[Cyberyeti]

Wasn't there a guy in India who strangled 900 people with a yellow cloth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee yes, but he took 40 years to do it.

[Cyberyeti]

Certainly, it is not the same thing. Obviously the death potential is higher with guns. For that matter it is even higher with explosives (Oklahoma City). Sometimes I wonder why these guys use guns instead of bombs. I think it must be psychological, perhaps some glory image they have in their minds, or just simple copycat-ism.

 

On another angle, I wonder what the gun laws were like in Norway when Breivik did his deed.

Breivik of course used bombs too immediately before he went on the shooting rampage.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

 

Semi automatics are legal.

[kenberg]

Laws, cultural norms, personal demons all affect actions. Killing someone with your hands (I have never done it, but I suppose) takes strength and skill. It's up close and personal. To some extent that is true of knives as well. Guns are different. A guy can wheeze when he walks a flight of stairs, have little or no strength or training, give him a gun and just like that he is a heavy dude. Quite possibly it is not so easy to pull the trigger, but a lot of people are pretty confident that it is. The comic books that I read when I was a kid had ads for the Atlas body building course. Build your strength, protect yourself and your girl from the bully on the beach. Why bother? Just get a gun a blow him away. And suddenly someone is dead and someone else is in jail.

 

I wrote elsewhere of a time in my childhood when we had taken in a woman and her kids after she left her abusive husband. He came over one night after drinking, trying to get in. My father was out, my mother was at the foot of the basement stairs with my father's shotgun pointed at the door at the top of the stairs. He left. Smart move. Sixty some years ago but I remember it vividly, where I was, where she was, what was going on. So yes, a gun can be useful. But I don't have one. If I felt the need, there is a long list of things I would do first. More secure locks. A switch that I can throw that would light up everything. A loud alarm. Cops or a security company on speed dial. If that's not enough maybe I need to be in the Witness Protection Program. Or move. Or learn to get along better with my neighbors.

 

It's my thought that guns give a false sense of security. Maybe if you are highly trained, maybe it will work out well. Maybe, maybe not. I think a substantial danger is that a person with a gun handy will get himself into a confrontation that an unarmed person may well find a way to duck. And unless he is cooler than I am, something might go very wrong. Ask Zimmerman.

 

I'm hoping we can change attitudes. The law will then follow along.

[billw55]

If I felt the need, there is a long list of things I would do first. More secure locks. A switch that I can throw that would light up everything. A loud alarm. Cops or a security company on speed dial. If that's not enough maybe I need to be in the Witness Protection Program. Or move. Or learn to get along better with my neighbors.

I have two big loud dogs. I am fairly comfortable that if I am away and a crook decides to try to enter my home (with wife and kids in it), he will probably change his mind.

[luke warm]

I have two big loud dogs. I am fairly comfortable that if I am away and a crook decides to try to enter my home (with wife and kids in it), he will probably change his mind.

probably so... bad people hardly ever shoot dogs

[billw55]

probably so... bad people hardly ever shoot dogs

I can't tell if you are joking or not.

 

If not, the point is that crooks are generally lazy and their top priority is easy victims. Dogs aren't easy, they make noise, alert neighbors, might bite, etc, so the crook will almost always move along to greener pastures, whether he has a gun or not.

[luke warm]

... the crook will almost always move along to greener pastures, whether he has a gun or not.

true... my only point was, if someone is intent on doing harm, he will do harm

[blackshoe]

As a friend of mine used to say, criminals are stupid. They're also lazy. They may set out to rob a particular house, but if anything goes wrong, they're likely to give up and go elsewhere. OTOH, criminals have been known to panic and make a bad (for them and their victims) situation worse.

 

It is about as smart to buy a gun with no training as it is to buy a double-bitted axe to chop down the oak tree in your yard with no training. Either way, you're likely to end up in trouble.

 

For many people, knives are actually scarier than guns. That's one reason why that scene in Crocodile Dundee is so funny ("That's not a knife. This is a knife!" :P )