Guns- Putting it in perspective in my real world.

I've found a site that details mass shootings (as distinct from mass murders) but it only begins for 2013.

This is the site http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 and from the downloaded spreadsheets here is a summary:

2013: Number of mass shootings 363number dead 502 and number injured 1266
2014: Number of mass shootings 336, number dead 383 and number injured 1239
2015 (to Oct 10) Number of mass shootings 300, number dead 381 and number injured 1109

There is insufficient data to support or refute the claim that that frequency/rate of mass shootings is in decline, especially as we are only in October for 2015.

Remember that to qualify for this data base there must be 4 or more victims killed or injured. Chris Lane wouldn't count because he was the only one to die or be injured in that shooting.
 

It boils down to one of my bumper stickers..."Gun nuts, are keeping us from protecting ourselves from Nuts with guns"
 

Interesting chart, Warri. The green portion, then, would presumably include guns obtained outside of dealer-purchased channels, such as bought from strangers, inherited, stolen, borrowed, home-made, etc. I'm just deliberating here on the probable definitions in use.

If indeed the majority of guns used in mass killings were "obtained legally", then clearly the route of purchase is being used to pursue illegal use. Now, if we could take the total numbers of firearms legally purchased during the period of stats being considered, my guess would be that during the 30-year interval considered, at least 20 million, very likely much more that even, firearms were purchased in America legally. You studied statistics. 50 mass killing usages in 30 years, considering ONLY the numbers of arms purchased during that time interval, and NOT considering the 100 million or more already having been legally purchased, one should be able to predict that few arms should be so used in the future. Yet, it DON'T work that way.

Thus, is the mindset of the American public becoming les and less hospitable toward itself? Everyday folks have guns. Too many are today using them egregiously. "Mass killing" seems to have come about full-circle during a span covering less than my lifetime. Yet, I suspect the percentage of Americans possessing firearms is no greater today than say, in 1950.

You feel, then, that restricting the ability of all civilians to legally purchase firearms, will quell this killing trend? What if it doesn't? Do you feel that if the purchase of firearms in your country were to become legal, murders would skyrocket? Just wondering. imp
 
imp said:
Do you feel that if the purchase of firearms in your country were to become legal, murders would skyrocket? Just wondering. imp
Click to expand...

I can't answer that question but I can point to something that is currently in the news.

Recently a 15 year old Muslim boy, armed with a revolver, went to the local police station intending to kill a policeman. When a target didn't present itself outside the building he approached a police worker from behind and killed him with one shot. The man was an accountant in his fifties. Then two special police constables came out and the boy was killed in an exchange of gunfire.

The Federal police raided the local mosque, several homes and other buildings and rounded up some men and boys suspected of having a part in this incident. Two have now been charged with terrorism related offences because apart from this incident, they appear to have been recruiting more boys and planning further attacks.

But the significant point is that they have been having great difficulty sourcing another gun. The first was obtained from a ME gang but they have been trying to get another one since January. It's impossible to anonymously obtain a legal gun in Australia and not terribly easy to get an illegal one either.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...tis-cheng-murder/story-fnitcyla-1227570238260
 
"It's impossible to anonymously obtain a legal gun in Australia and not terribly easy to get an illegal one either."

But not impossible to obtain a gun legally, then sell it to another individual? Foolish act, as when the gun happens to be used illicitly, it traces back to the jerk who bought and then sold it.

What about legal purchase using fraudulent ID? We have a rash of Identity Theft going on here the last few years, involving not only personal ID (Social Security Numbers), but also credit cards. My own ID (SS #) employed by an individual 4 states away, who filed with IRS for a Tax Refund, using MY NAME & NUMBER! How obtained, no clues. 2 credit cards have been DUPLICATED, somehow, and used for frivolous, everyday purchases, gasoline, hamburgers, thousands of miles away from the card nestled in my hip pocket!

Obviously, one having ability to duplicate plastic cards accurately, would not personally use them, but rather sell them to miscreants who have no wherewithal of their own. Very few retailers ask to compare name on card to ID name. imp
 
imp said:
"It's impossible to anonymously obtain a legal gun in Australia and not terribly easy to get an illegal one either."

But not impossible to obtain a gun legally, then sell it to another individual? Foolish act, as when the gun happens to be used illicitly, it traces back to the jerk who bought and then sold it. Yes, the guns are registered to the person with the licence.

What about legal purchase using fraudulent ID? We have a rash of Identity Theft going on here the last few years, involving not only personal ID (Social Security Numbers), but also credit cards. My own ID (SS #) employed by an individual 4 states away, who filed with IRS for a Tax Refund, using MY NAME & NUMBER! How obtained, no clues. 2 credit cards have been DUPLICATED, somehow, and used for frivolous, everyday purchases, gasoline, hamburgers, thousands of miles away from the card nestled in my hip pocket!

As far as I know you can't just buy a gun and walk out with it that day. You need a licence or to apply for one. There is a waiting period while police checks are made. Nothing is perfect but this helps.

Obviously, one having ability to duplicate plastic cards accurately, would not personally use them, but rather sell them to miscreants who have no wherewithal of their own. Very few retailers ask to compare name on card to ID name. imp
Click to expand...

In the case of the would be terrorists, several of them were on a watch list and even entering a gun shop might have set off alarms. I have no idea how the surveillance is carried out. The gun was transferred to the boy at the mosque but even there, there are CCTV cameras. The men entered the women's area to make the transfer because there are no cameras there.
 
Imp, since I really don't know what the regulations are I've found a reliablel source.

[h=3]How easy is it to get a firearm in Australia?[/h]A spokeswoman for the Australian Institute of Criminology told SBS a person looking to own a firearm in this country needs both a licence and a permit. To obtain a licence, they must be:

  • 18 years or over
  • Judged as a fit and proper person
  • Have undergone a firearms safety training course and;
  • Have provided documentation about the storage arrangements in which they will secure the firearm.

Licences will not be granted to people:

  • Under the age of 18
  • Who have been convicted in the previous 10 years in the current or another state/territory of an offence prescribed by the regulations
  • Is subject to an apprehended violence order or at any time in the previous 10 years has been subject to an order (unless the order was revoked), or;
  • Is subject to a Good Behaviour Bond to an offence prescribed by the regulations

"In NSW and South Australia, persons under firearm prohibition orders are also ineligible for obtaining a new or renewing a firearms licence," the spokeswoman said.
"Suspensions and revocations of licences occur when subject to an AVO or other prescribed reason."
[h=3]Who is responsible for issuing licences in NSW?[/h]The Firearms Registry, part of the NSW Police Force, is responsible with issuing permits and licences for firearms.
Its website also provides information about how to purchase, safely handle, store and dispose of firearms, as well as the requirements attached to owning a gun.

more info here: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/18/how-easy-it-get-gun-australia
Click to expand...

There are quite a few firearms stolen each year - mostly rifles and shotguns. Details at the link.
 
Warrigal, I depend on the data that was claimed to be government records. That is really the only type of data I will look at. All these other some one sources mean nothing but that someone is trying to make a point. Spot incidents do not make any trend at all. I have posted this list of government sources before with no challenges from anyone that I remember. To me they are much more reliable than any of these twisted minds of the anti gun folks out trying to make an issue.
 
16 pages of comments and no real solutions. The only real answer is to disarm America and if or when that would come about, I will be making reservations to be out of the country. After all, even attempting to scale down to who can and who cannot own guns is a risk that I would not want to take as a politician. Going forward, we may be able to do something by limiting who can and who cannot own a weapon, but everyone else will have to be Grandfathered under the old rules, unless we want to go through another Civil War.

As for me and my guns, I would not want to give them up, but certainly would to comply, if that would be the law. However, I would still rather see us that have guns now be Grandfathered and those coming under any new laws be made to comply. I said this before, maybe in another thread, that I am aware of some people that I know that owns multitudes of guns. One fellow in particular owns 92 rifles and handguns. He says he is a collector, but only maybe 4 or 5 have any actual value as being a collectible gun. We have numerous gun raffles year round here to take a chance on winning new guns. This has been going on for decades. Some guys just keep on winning and stockpiling weapons. I do believe that some rationing of ammo is still in effect, is it not?
 
Law enforcement has some ideas - more effective checks on people wanting to buy guns.

Law enforcement coalition calls on Congress to bolster background checks

Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY 6:08 p.m. EDT October 26, 2015
635814772212821488-policechiefs.jpg

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy speaks at a news conference as police displayed Chicago police display some of the thousands of illegal firearms they have confiscated in 2014 their battle against gun violence.(Photo: M. Spencer Green, AP)


42 CONNECT 114 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 28 COMMENTEMAILMORE

CHICAGO — With President Obama weighing whether to take executive action to expand the nation's gun laws, several high-profile law enforcement officials on Monday called on federal lawmakers to strengthen background checks on gun purchases. Leaders of nine national law enforcement groups made the call at the annual International Association of Chiefs of Police conference the day before hundreds of police chiefs and sheriffs are to hear from President Obama, who has vowed to be more forceful in his push to bolster U.S. gun laws.

The coalition called on Congress to specifically expand background checks to cover all gun purchases. It also asked Congress to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that all states and federal agencies include disqualifying records in the system. The coalition also called for increasing the current time that the FBI has to complete a background check before a sale is automatically completed. Currently, background checks only cover gun purchases made through licensed gun deals, not private sales or purchases made at a gun show.

And under federal law, if there’s a delay in obtaining information from NICS, a gun can be legally transferred after three days. Last year, federal authorities counted more than 2,500 instances when someone who should have been prevented from purchasing a weapon was able to obtain one because three days had passed without the check being completed.

“The common denominator from Chicago to Charlotte is that guns are getting in the hands of the wrong people and lives are being erased, all because easy access to guns by people intent on doing harm to themselves or others,” said Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy.
McCarthy has seen homicides rise 19% and shooting incidents rise by 18% in the Windy City so far in 2015 even as police have made 25% more gun-related arrests in the city so this year.

More than 466,000 people were victims of crimes involving guns in the USA last year, up 40% from the prior year, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Mass shootings, such as this month’s rampage at an Oregon community college that left 10 dead and nine others wounded, are also occurring more frequently. Mass shootings were up 56% in 2014 from the previous year, according to an FBI report published in September.

Obama is expected to talk to the gathering of chiefs on Tuesday in Chicago about the need for tougher gun laws and how police can work more effectively with their communities to combat violence. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is also expected to address the police chiefs’ conference.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...for-expanded-background-checks-guns/74650146/
Click to expand...
 
Interesting side note.. We had a shooting and killing of 3 people at a factory just a few blocks from here yesterday.. Just a big Yawn.... the next one will be bigger and better. /sarcasm
 
Last edited:
BobF said:
Warrigal, I depend on the data that was claimed to be government records. That is really the only type of data I will look at. All these other some one sources mean nothing but that someone is trying to make a point. Spot incidents do not make any trend at all. I have posted this list of government sources before with no challenges from anyone that I remember. To me they are much more reliable than any of these twisted minds of the anti gun folks out trying to make an issue.
Click to expand...


You know what Bob. I think that your comment about people who don't like guns and want them regulated, 'having twisted minds' is kind of offensive! Seriously, you're the one who wants to hang onto something that has a primary purpose of taking lives away......people like me and a bunch of others here are simply the other side of the story and want to SAVE lives.

I watched a news magazine show this morning and they were talking about guns in Canada. A woman did a documentary that's apparently outstanding and spent a couple years talking to both sides. She even let Canada's top 'gun enthusiast' teach her to shoot so that she would know his side of the discussion from a personal standpoint. And she looked at the statistics that are provided by both your government and ours.

According to her research which she based on some US study, there are ten states which are primarily responsible (due to lax/non-existent gun laws) for the weapons that are used in violent crimes. And while Toronto has seen the use of American guns in criminal acts, drop from 70% to 50%, in some cities apparently the rate is 90%.

Later in the program, I was listening to some criminologist in the US being interviewed and he said there is empirical evidence that there are higher rates of death among the population that own guns.....than among the population that don't own guns. So if that is the case, it would appear that the bleating of the NRA about how you need guns to keep you safe from crime, is nonsense......but it's nonsense that's been bought by the public.

The documentary by the way, is called 'Up In Arms' and while I know I can view it in Canada, I don't know if you can in the US. I did find it though and you could try the link:

[video]http://upinarms.ca/#[/video]
 
Last edited:
Later in the program, I was listening to some criminologist in the US being interviewed and he said there is empirical evidence that there are higher rates of death among the population that own guns.....than among the population that don't own guns. So if that is the case, it would appear that the bleating of the NRA about how you need guns to keep you safe from crime, is nonsense......but it's nonsense that's been bought by the public.
Click to expand...

Of course there is a higher gun death rate for gun owners. If there is a gun in the house and there is a domestic dispute.. someone, if they are so inclined will pick up the gun and shoot someone in a rage, and more than likely, that person would die.. as opposed to being stabbed with a knife or hit over the head with a frying pan. AND it goes without saying that the rate of accidental gun homicides is higher in homes with guns.. Also, people would be more inclined to commit suicide with a gun if it was available. Yes.. more gun owners die from guns than non-gun owners.. It does make sense when you think about it.
 
Debby, I just tried to start it and it did come up with a map and instructions to click on a city and then options showed. I backed out as right now I have other interests to work with. Some stuff you posted is just pure nonsense. We have city with some of the most strict gun laws and they are also one of our biggest sources for gun shooting and killings. Mostly criminal. Dumb comments like this from some who claim to be experts is why I say we stick with the more boring government data sets. Most anyone with the ability twist data can make them say what they want to hear.

Big problem for you and a number of other folks is not recognizing our government type and the crossing the border to raise nonsense is not well liked.

Our government type is Republic, not just a Democracy as many folks countries are. A Republic and a Democracy have some fine differences.

A Republic has the power over the government in the hands of the people and a Democracy actually has the government having power over the people. Both have voting power for the people, but there it seems to end.

Crossing borders is not a good thing to do if complaining. It just stirs up a lot of resentment to the folks that don't respect our country and its laws.

After finishing some other items I may come back and look into some of the comments in the link you posted. I hope your government does maintain as you like it and for now our government is maintaining as the majority wants it.
 
oldman said:
16 pages of comments and no real solutions. The only real answer is to disarm America and if or when that would come about, I will be making reservations to be out of the country. After all, even attempting to scale down to who can and who cannot own guns is a risk that I would not want to take as a politician. Going forward, we may be able to do something by limiting who can and who cannot own a weapon, but everyone else will have to be Grandfathered under the old rules, unless we want to go through another Civil War.

As for me and my guns, I would not want to give them up, but certainly would to comply, if that would be the law. However, I would still rather see us that have guns now be Grandfathered and those coming under any new laws be made to comply. I said this before, maybe in another thread, that I am aware of some people that I know that owns multitudes of guns. One fellow in particular owns 92 rifles and handguns. He says he is a collector, but only maybe 4 or 5 have any actual value as being a collectible gun. We have numerous gun raffles year round here to take a chance on winning new guns. This has been going on for decades. Some guys just keep on winning and stockpiling weapons. I do believe that some rationing of ammo is still in effect, is it not?
Click to expand...

I would not comply, if that meant surrendering my weapons. If someone could PROVE to me that the bad guys no longer had weapons, I might consider it -- but until then, no.
 
Butterfly said:
I would not comply, if that meant surrendering my weapons. If someone could PROVE to me that the bad guys no longer had weapons, I might consider it -- but until then, no.
Click to expand...

That would never happen, the criminals and gangs will always have their weapons no matter how hard they try to crack down on the responsible American gun owners...so I wouldn't comply either.
 
BobF said:
Debby, I just tried to start it and it did come up with a map and instructions to click on a city and then options showed. I backed out as right now I have other interests to work with. Some stuff you posted is just pure nonsense. We have city with some of the most strict gun laws and they are also one of our biggest sources for gun shooting and killings. Mostly criminal. Dumb comments like this from some who claim to be experts is why I say we stick with the more boring government data sets. Most anyone with the ability twist data can make them say what they want to hear.

Big problem for you and a number of other folks is not recognizing our government type and the crossing the border to raise nonsense is not well liked.

Our government type is Republic, not just a Democracy as many folks countries are. A Republic and a Democracy have some fine differences.

A Republic has the power over the government in the hands of the people and a Democracy actually has the government having power over the people. Both have voting power for the people, but there it seems to end.

Crossing borders is not a good thing to do if complaining. It just stirs up a lot of resentment to the folks that don't respect our country and its laws.

After finishing some other items I may come back and look into some of the comments in the link you posted. I hope your government does maintain as you like it and for now our government is maintaining as the majority wants it.
Click to expand...


The information in my post was not my own. It was pulled together by people who've researched and come to those conclusions as well as the criminologist out of the US who talked about the empirical evidence. So if you don't want to accept it, well that's your right, but your 'opinion' isn't really in the same league is it? And note Bob, I said the documentary producer didn't say all states are to blame for guns pouring across the states and into Canada, she mentioned that there are 'ten'. So certainly most of the US is functioning pretty well but there are ten states that are not.

Your problem really is that you don't like to have 'your' failures pointed out Bob. Fair enough because nobody likes to be criticized but it's only by acknowledging failure and learning from it that you can improve the situation. And I'm sorry if it botherss you that I'm criticizing but you're right next door and your criminal element is affecting my country's safety by bringing in illegal guns. Besides, I've indicated numerous times that I recognize that Canada isn't above criticism and especially in the last ten years, we've lots to make up for. And I promise to accept said critique in the same spirit that it's given.

I haven't got a big problem with people who want to own guns and go target shooting, etc. But there are ten states in your country apparently who have dreadful laws and regulations and those laws need to be tightened up and regulated so that it's harder for the criminal element to get hold of weapons to sell and harder even more, for people with all sorts of mental problems from resorting to guns to solve the issues that bug them in their lives. See, you can't even accuse me of wanting to 'take all your guns away'!

So let's see some of your boring old government data that says weak laws and poor regulatory processes are not letting those ten states (I'm going to have to watch this documentary I think so that I can name the names) enable violent gun crime in the rest of your country and mine.
 
I found a Youtube link to the news program that I watched about the documentary. Maybe this one will work better:


and here is the portion of that same show where Mr. Paiken talked to the criminologist out of the Indiana University, who talked about the empirical studies that show that gun owners are more likely to die from violent crime than non gun owners.

 
Debby said:
The information in my post was not my own. It was pulled together by people who've researched and come to those conclusions as well as the criminologist out of the US who talked about the empirical evidence. So if you don't want to accept it, well that's your right, but your 'opinion' isn't really in the same league is it? And note Bob, I said the documentary producer didn't say all states are to blame for guns pouring across the states and into Canada, she mentioned that there are 'ten'. So certainly most of the US is functioning pretty well but there are ten states that are not.

Your problem really is that you don't like to have 'your' failures pointed out Bob. Fair enough because nobody likes to be criticized but it's only by acknowledging failure and learning from it that you can improve the situation. And I'm sorry if it botherss you that I'm criticizing but you're right next door and your criminal element is affecting my country's safety by bringing in illegal guns. Besides, I've indicated numerous times that I recognize that Canada isn't above criticism and especially in the last ten years, we've lots to make up for. And I promise to accept said critique in the same spirit that it's given.

I haven't got a big problem with people who want to own guns and go target shooting, etc. But there are ten states in your country apparently who have dreadful laws and regulations and those laws need to be tightened up and regulated so that it's harder for the criminal element to get hold of weapons to sell and harder even more, for people with all sorts of mental problems from resorting to guns to solve the issues that bug them in their lives. See, you can't even accuse me of wanting to 'take all your guns away'!

So let's see some of your boring old government data that says weak laws and poor regulatory processes are not letting those ten states (I'm going to have to watch this documentary I think so that I can name the names) enable violent gun crime in the rest of your country and mine.
Click to expand...

I am saying that those other people can adapt their data to fit their dreams. I prefer our government data for it more comprehensive accuracy from one report to another. Ten states. Unnamed so I can not challenge that. Not in the government data either so check off equals zero. One of our most crime fill cities is also one of our tougher laws cities too. So tight laws and improved safety just do not go hand in hand. Look to Chicago for their laws and stats. So I am not defending from failures but from some radical ones that insist they are right about the US gun data but it does not fit with the government data. Too bad for them.

The data I like, government run, says the USA rate of incidents has been going down for some years now. Not a failure.

I don't care how Canada handles its gun situation one way or the other. I do care how the US handle our gun situation and to me they are doing quite well if the score keeps going down for the rate of incidents. There are some conflicting laws that need corrected. One being medical records are locked so no checks on sanity, mental health, drugs being used, and such never reached the gun controlling area for new owners or previous registered users that my have changed. Personal privacy does need to be protected, but that one seems to be one that needs exception when registering for gun ownership.
 
Also, I just checked those two links you posted and neither one will work. I get voices but no video. That is what is happening all the time now. Those video links would work but now they don't. Not sure if it is a Win 10 problem or just that type of link. Your original link still works, sort of. I guess it is some sort of guessing game as it asks for me to pick a subject and click on a city, or some such thing. May try that tomorrow.

I have been reading about things but this Win 10 is sure confusing to me. Once I wrote code but as it got more developed I had to leave it to others. But in the Win 10 information stuff, lower left corner of the screen, I can't even walk my way along and understand what is happening. I don't know which product I should challenge or which area to select for help or support.

Windows has pretty much taken control of the market and I think they are soon going to want to ask for rent for using their products. How else will they get income to pay for all the employees and their needs. We all got, or will get, a free copy of Win 10 and they will soon need real income to stay in existence. I am thinking of going back to Linux products or maybe to one of the other PC products. I sure don't like Windows any more.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top