10 Killed in Minnesota School Shooting...

[TRF]

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

no guns = no gun deaths.

I hunt for my steak at Wal-Mart.

[reds1869]

no guns = no gun deaths.

I hunt for my steak at Wal-Mart.

No legal guns=plenty of illegal ones.

[zombie-a-go-go]

no guns = no gun deaths.

I hunt for my steak at Wal-Mart.

Wow... it's like you didn't even read what I posted.

Does it matter what weapon a murder is committed with? It's still murder. And England's per capita murder rate has gone up since the gun ban. People assume that there's less violent crime in the UK because of the gun ban. People are wrong.

A pithy comment about hunting at supermarkets isn't going to change that.

[westofyou]

And England's per capita murder rate has gone up since the gun ban.

Is that a "mass" murder increase or a "single" murder increase?

Guns allow killings to multiply in seconds, other weapons don't facillitate destruction as quickly as a firearms do.

You can argue about the parents or the fact that the killings were on a Rez could also lead to stories of poverty, drug abuse, etc... as reasons for the action.

But without guns there would probably be a smaller amount of dead today, to me that can't be debated or defended it's a fact, guns increased the chances that more people would die the minute that kid decided to lash out.

I don't know what should be done, but ignoring the fact that guns and their availablity didn't increased the level of violence in this situation shouldn't be swept under the rug because the kid was whack.

[WVRed]

No legal guns=plenty of illegal ones.

Exactly.

If I was going to rob somebodys house, would I go to a neighborhood that had guns, or one that didnt?

[TRF]

Exactly.

If I was going to rob somebodys house, would I go to a neighborhood that had guns, or one that didnt?

Now this is truly an incredulous statement.

Like if i am going to rob someones house, I know which neighborhood has guns or not.


Guns = many deaths quickly.

This isn't a question of violent crime, it's a question of how violent crime escalates to mass murder.

mass murder with a butcher knife is less likely to happen.

zagg, you may think it's pithy, but that's the defense the gun lobby makes every time a child is killed with a gun. that they are for hunting or other nonsense.

If you let the mothers of this country vote on guns, they would be a memory.

Oh, and i love the illegal guns arguement. like that holds a lot of water. most guns used in any crime are purchased how? ding ding ding. legally.

at wal-mart.
at pawn shops.
at gun stores.

legally. It's an object that has one purpose only. to kill something. that's it's job.

[Red Heeler]

Exactly.

If I was going to rob somebodys house, would I go to a neighborhood that had guns, or one that didnt?

Are you sure about that?

Although similar to Seattle in many ways, Vancouver has adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns. During the study period, both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery. In Seattle, the annual rate of assault was modestly higher than that in Vancouver (simple assault: relative risk, 1.18; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.15 to 1.20; aggravated assault: relative risk, 1.16; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.19). However, the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. Despite similar overall rates of criminal activity and assault, the relative risk of death from homicide, adjusted for age and sex, was significantly higher in Seattle than in Vancouver (relative risk, 1.63; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.28 to 2.08). Virtually all of this excess risk was explained by a 4.8-fold higher risk of being murdered with a handgun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver. Rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities.

[Unassisted]

To steer the thread back to the original topic. The shooter made some posts on a Nazi message board. They are preserved in the Google cache.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Dlr86foA5hcJ:www.nazi.org/current/forum/YaBB.cgi%3Fboard%3Dnativeamerican%3Baction%3Dprint %3Bnum%3D1079672948%20%22jeff%20weise%22&hl=en

[Blimpie]

Exactly.

If I was going to rob somebodys house, would I go to a neighborhood that had guns, or one that didnt?

In addition to England, I believe that there has been some historical data on the effects of limiting personal gun ownership in some Scandanavian countries recently. IIRC, the violent crime rate soared in these areas once the gun ownership restricitions were implemented. It was, in fact, more like a field day for hardened criminals.

The moral of the story is: The only people who obey gun ownership bans are people who would have been law abiding citizens without said ban.

[TRF]

To steer the thread back to the original topic. The shooter made some posts on an Indian Nationalist message board. They are preserved in the Google cache.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:D...weise%22&hl=en

disturbed kid.

[TRF]

In addition to England, I believe that there has been some historical data on the effects of limiting personal gun ownership in some Scandanavian countries recently. IIRC, the violent crime rate soared in these areas once the gun ownership restricitions were implemented. It was, in fact, more like a field day for hardened criminals.

The moral of the story is: The only people who obey gun ownership bans are people who would have been law abiding citizens without said ban.

no guns = no gun deaths.

[Ravenlord]

no guns = happy oppresive government


i actually figured one day in study hall that i could kill more people with a knife than i could with a gun....and increase my likelyhoody of not being killed in the process.

[Blimpie]

no guns = no gun deaths.

I am just curious, but what is it like to live inside a vacuum, anyway?

[Johnny Footstool]

i actually figured one day in study hall that i could kill more people with a knife than i could with a gun....

Not in one sitting.

Unless you're Brock Samson.

[Steve4192]

no guns = no gun deaths.

How exactly do you propose achieving this goal of 'no guns'?

There are millions of guns already spread throughout the US population. A firearms ban would stop any new weapons from entering the pool (at least via legal means) but would do nothing about the millions of guns already in circulation.