Why are there so many Damm shootings

The BBQ Pit
41

pldennison,

If we’re going to discuss the relative merit of argumentative styles, let’s examine some of yours.

If you’re going to bring in the fact that you’ve haven’t seen anyone killed on the way to work, or known anyone who’d been shot, then dismiss the instances cited from my personal experience, then let’s just dispense with the irrelvancies. The fact that neither of us has ever witnessed anyone get gunned-down is not the issue.

I’ll dispense with the sweeping generalizations if you will. While I made reference to the mindset of the SDMB supporters of the 2nd Amendment, I make no connection between their beliefs in this arena and their views on abortion, euthanasia or restrictive building codes. Assuming that the advocate of one type of reform is a blanket revolutionary right across the board is facile.

That is precisely the problem - somehow we find this kind of violence easier to accept if the wacko in question has some sort of half-assed rationale for his action. “Ohh, he didn’t like Jews…Good thing I’m not Jewish.” I’m not saying we need to jump off the deep end and become a police state, but hell, if our only response is the ‘glad it wasn’t my kind’ one, then things will only get worse.

Mr. Z,

I’m trying to steer clear of the gun control debate, and I don’t disagree with your assessment of the proper response. But if you’re going to bring up the homicidal effects of nictoine, motor vehicles and over-the-counter medicine - which have no relevance here - then I’ll rejoin with a similarly veined response.

Z

42

I presume you’re being facetious. What you mean is that there were 8 FAMOUS shootings in the United States. I’m pleased to report that in general our urban centres don’t suffer from the sort of endemic warfare which seems to plague those in the United States.

“Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 5 times higher than in neighboring Canada…A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the ‘natural’ causes of death combined.” (from http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

According to the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, the US homicide rate in 1997 was 6,8 per 100 000 population. The rate in Canada in that year, according to Statistics Canada, was 1,92 per 100 000 population.

The US, therefore, has an overall per-capita homicide rate nearly 4 times larger than that of Canada. As mentioned, youth firearm violence specifically is 5 times greater in the US than in Canada.

And yet, [soapbox] we in Canada are exposed to the same movies, music, and video games that you in the United States are! So much for that argument.[/soapbox]

43

Canada has very low levels of gang violence, which make up a pretty high percentage of shootings in the U.S.

Here in Edmonton we have some rival Asian gangs acting up, and our murder rate has increased because of it. We’ve also had a bunch of drive-by shootings, and one spectacular shootout where two cars sped down a busy street while thugs hung out the window and shot at each other.

44

I’m not saying that it makes it easier to accept, simply that it was not random; he had particular targets in mind, unlike the kids at Columbine (who may or may not have).

But it seems to be you want to play both sides of the field here. When I asked if you’d rather live in Belfast or Jerusalem, you said you would, specifically because you are unlikely to be in a targeted group. If you’re going to use it as a criterion, you have to accept that the person who shot up the Jewish day care center may be the result/harbinger of a different phenomenon than a guy who shoots up a McDonald’s, and not just “another damm[sic] shooting.”

45

Okay, I got into this because of a personal beef with Realm505. That is now a dead issue. But as for gun violence not being of interest to me because I have not personally seen someone gunned down or somehow it doesn’t relate to me because the statistics are so low… let me share. Skip this if you don’t want to know my side of the story.

My neighborhood is called Rose Park. Doesn’t that sound nice? It isn’t. For a few years we were on the news every night because of drive-bys. Eventually, the shootings were so numerous that they no longer made the local news, let alone the national news. It was “just the way it was”. Oh, and we did have one house-by (don’t ask. The man was an idiot and figured, “They’ll never find the house.”) but it is personal and immediate to me because it’s so close.

When I first moved in, my sister lived with me, and we would be talking, watching the tube and hear “pops”. At first we thought “firecrackers” because we both grew up in the suburbs in Arvada. But then we got more “pops” and then screaming.

Just up the street from us folks were shooting it out over women, drugs, cars, territory. All kinds of stupid (to us) shit. We were horrified. At this point I was deeply in debt in order to get into this house and getting out wasn’t even in the scope of what I could have done. I decided to stick around and change things.

Then, my sister joined the Navy and I was on my own. It got so bad with the break-ins to cars (and fights with a really interestingly psychotic neighbor) that I parked my car in back. Guess what? About two months down the road some gang-bangers lead by a “sweet little old mom type” move in next door and start to park their gang-bang mobiles in front of my home. Why? Because, they knew if they parked them in front of their house, they’d get hit. So they parked them in front of anyone’s house but their own to avoid getting shot at. Bully for them but it left me and other neighbors a target. What to do?

Got in touch with the Gang unit here. Just by calling, fighting against them, I became a target. I spent most of my time in the back rooms because if they shot at the house they wouldn’t hit me. Christ! I’m not talking about taking guns away from my neighbor (friend, ex-lover) who likes to hunt but these were 13 year old kids that didn’t care about anything. They had automatic weapons that could have dumped 100’s of bullets into me, my home, my dog, in a heartbeat. They are sociopaths that don’t care about themselves, let alone me.

I don’t know if you’ve ever been threatened by a kid half your size and age and felt fear turn your legs to jello because he drew a weapon. There is nothing in this world more frightening then being faced with someone who will blow you away in an instant, without so much as a brief flicker of thought, just because you asked them to turn down the stereo. You don’t know what that is like unless you’ve been there. It’s terrifying. Most people can’t intimidate me with their size but a gun? Yeah, I’m intimidated. I was lucky enough to be able to back away to my home. I called the cops. They got busted. They came back to get back at me. Luckily, the cops were waiting for them.

Okay, this is long but my point is: no thirteen year old (or anyone under twenty-one) should be able to own a weapon. And no one, not even police officers, should own a weapon with automatic fire capabilities. The only thing a weapon like that is good for is killing a lot of people, really fast.

Sure, I could have got a gun of my own but I would have been faced with killing someone. I would hesitate. That’s all it would take. I prefer to run, hide or take them down without killing them.

I didn’t read this really closely but I can’t imagine anyone here advocating the ownership of automatic weapons. If you do, I’d sure as hell like to know why.

46

I’m sorry, but in the US, it most certainly is a random act to wander into a daycare to shoot up pre-schoolers. In Israel, Arab/Jew hate crimes occur on a much more frequent basis, and enjoy a ‘historical tradition’ according to the perpetrators of these acts. By your rationale, I could walk into the nearest American Embassy, waste a few dozen Joe Schmoe Civil Servants, claim my victory in the name of Allah; and your stance would be that this did not meet the criteria for a random act? Maybe not in Iran, but in North America, I think it would. Certainly so in Canada.

That type of sectarian violence simply is not the issue in North America the way it is in the Middle East or Northern Ireland. The important thing to examine in these acts of violence is not the “rationale” of the perpetrator, but the circumstances surrounding his ability to commit said act.

Byz,

Chilling. I can’t imagine the kind of fear you must live under, but I can imagine the response you’re going to get over the auto-weapon bit.

Z

47

matt_mcl wrote:

This may be true, but it’s a tad misleading. Automobile accidents, getting stabbed, getting strangled, etc., do not count as “natural” causes of death either. And death by automobile is a lot more prevalent in every age category than death by gunshot is.

Visit the Internet Stellar Database at www.stellar-database.com

48

Two obvious questions for me :
Why don’t women commit this type of atrocity ?
And why don’t we see young black men in schools doing this type of thing ? If any group had built up frustrations… Perhaps the aforementioned war analogy fits that. Gang warfare is filling that need.
The profile of these killers is of alienated white men. All the statistics seem to say that this isn’t an “epidemic”, so perhaps we should then view it as a warning.
Steps to take to prevent this might include teaching young men to handle their impulses (not just medicating them away, as is all too common now ) as well as compassion for others. Of course,this may well put a damper on gung-ho soldiers and monomaniacal corporate assholes, but ya can’t have everything…

49

elelle– interesting post. I did not check your stats but I’m fairly certain you are female.

I’ll bet you are aware of this fact but I wonder if others reading this thread are: Most mass killers and serial killers are white males between the ages of 19-54. Few are women. Few are men (or women) of color (for lack of a better term).

White males seem to like to kill.

Oddly, no one has gotten into the automatic weapons debate on this thread: I wonder why?

50

At first I thought this was a rant against Arnie Van Damm and his stupid movies…

I really get a bug in my ear when someone in another country starts slamming our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but if anyone has some reason/right to say anything, it would be our neighbors and cousins to the north, who have so much in common with us here in America.

I’m not going to enter into another debate, just restate my opinion.

While a credible argument might be made that firearms are too readily available without more stringent safeguards, guns and gun availability alone doesn’t adequately explain the outbreak of mass-shooting violence.

Take Japan, England, Canada and Australia: very stringent gun-control laws, strict availability of firearms, very little violent crime, almost no incidents of mass-shootings.

Or Switzerland and Israel: almost no gun-control, easy access to military-grade hardware, and next to no violent street crime, and no incidients of mass-shootings (not counting terorism in Israel; the Israelis classify terrorism separate from crime).

Or Ireland and Mexico: Very stringent gun-control, easy access to firearms through a thriving black market, and serious crime and terrorist activity.

To simply put the blame solely on the availability of firearms without also considering other social issues is nothing more than a paean to populist reactionary politics and simplistic solutions to complex issues, and another attempt to encroach upon the civil liberties this country (not just a few select demographic groups) hold dear.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights (and not just the Second Amendment) are the closest thing I have to a religion; I look with a jaundiced eye at anyone who approaches those documents with white-out or a paper-shredder, with arguments like “it’s outdated”, “it’s an anachronism”, or “it was written 200 years ago by ignorant people”.

The framers of those documents were a lot more intelligent, roundly educated and wiser than many contemporary politicians, legislators and liberal scholars give them credit for. To my way of thinking, it smacks of intellectual snobbery or elitism.

Some solutions that I see as being common-sensical:

  1. More thorough background checks on prospective gun buyers. The ATF Form 4437 asks: “have you ever been judged mentally incompetent”. Many people can truthfully answer “No” to that question while being under psychiatric care or medicated for a mental problem, and pass the background check. Even though I don’t believe waiting periods have done a damned thing to deter crime, and this seems to be confirmed by some initial findings by law enforcement and social scholars, a waiting period could be used to perform the more rigorous background checks.

I see no reason why a law-abiding citizen should mind waiting a few days for a background check to be completed.

  1. More widespread and vigorous application of Project Exile, which specifically targets for investigation and prosecution those who abuse gun laws, or who misuse firearms in the commission of a crime. Like the fellow that purchased the handgun for Harris and Kliebold, know as a “strawman” purchaser. Target these people, they are the criminals.

  2. Firearms pre-emption laws. These laws will make gun-control more uniform throughout the country, and help investigators and law-enforcement track firearms used in crimes, and therefore aid in the apprehension and prosecution of people that abuse and/or break gun-control laws.

  3. Performance-based firearms restrictions (as opposed to appearance-based restrictions). These laws will help to remove the weapons that are (f)actually more lethal/dangerous, as opposed to those that merely look cool.

  4. A ruling by the Supreme Court to the effect that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, and the rigorous application of that ruling by the courts of the various levels of the Judiciary.

  5. A concentrated effort on the part of pro-gun groups, gun-manufacturers and importers, gun dealers, the media and our politicians to reinforce the notion that with Rights comes Responsiblity; that every gun-owner or prospective gun-owner should take every available opportunity to get themselves educated about gun-safety and owner’s responsibilities.

I ardently oppose:

  1. National or State gun registration. This has been used too often in other countries as a precursor to all-out gun-bans, and would allow gun-banners to bypass the Fourth, Fifth and possibly the Sixth Amendments.

Executive “Regulations” are already infringing dangerously on the civil liberties of Americans and come very close to pre-empting Congress’ Legislative powers and violating the Seperation of Powers Doctrine (in my opinion, that line has not only been crossed, but verily obliterated).

  1. National or State Licensing. Licenses may be withheld, structured too rigorously, made prohibitively expensive, or outright revoked. A license implies that a privelege is being granted to an individual at the largesse of the State. It further implies that the privelege may be revoked, not just for criminal misuse of that privelege, but also by the whim of political and/or social pressures. The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant anybody anything; it enumerates and protects against infringement from the Federal Government the inherent rights of American Citizens; and through the Fourteenth Amendment, it also protects the Bill of Rights from the States.

Besides, the Bill of Rights applies to all Citizens, natural or naturalized; not just those who can afford it, or the select few who have the political connections due to professional status or income levels to obtain “waivers” from their political patrons or judicial golf buddies.

I feel that the adoption of some of these methods will help to alleviate the criminal misuse of firearms while at the same time working to protect the rights of law abiding citizens.

It’s a balancing act, and a difficult one at best.

But if we Americans want to try to protect everyone’s rights while simultaneously trying to safeguard our society from both violence and over-eager politicians trying to show their constituents that they are “Doing Something”, then it’s a tightrope that we’d better get some practice at walking.

Or one day we’re going to wake up and realize we’re quite a bit less free than we think.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=“BLUE”>“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”</Font>
Patrick Henry

51

Murder is overwhelmingly a black-on-black crime.

Serial killers, while attracting headlines, are statistically insignificant.

52

Extank: Canada’s rate of mass shootings is higher than the U.S.'s on a per-capita basis. Has anyone forgotten Marc Lepine and the University of Montreal?

53

Small samples make poor statistics. It’s like someone seeing a car crash one day and assuming he must see a car crash a day. Any reasonable sampling will show that Canada has a low rate of gun-related crimes compared with the U.S.

The death of one individual is a tragedy, the death of a thousand is a statistic. Is that why Canada has imposed severe gun control laws after the Lepine incident and the U.S. didn’t after so many gun-related tragedies?

Only humans commit inhuman acts.

54

“Small samples make for lousy statistics”

Great point. Let’s repeat it 100 times, and think again about drawing conclusions based on 3 or 4 mass shootings in a country with a population of 300 million people.