Las Vegas

1356789

Comments

  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    twist83 wrote:
    I wonder how many it compares to Smoking, drinking and obesity related deaths.

    Why/how is that relevant?
  • twist83
    twist83 Posts: 761
    Curiosity? If that is ok with you?

    I have never genuinely looked at the stats for gun deaths, smoking drinking etc etc.
  • twist83
    twist83 Posts: 761
    According to CDC - 480,000 Deaths per year smoking. 41000 of those from Secondary Smoke.
    88,000 caused by Alcohol and 300,000 approx for Obesity.
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    Of course. But pardon my ignorance, I still don't see the relevance?
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    Dinyull wrote:
    Of course. But pardon my ignorance, I still don't see the relevance?

    It's a weak attempt at validating private firearm ownership.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • twist83
    twist83 Posts: 761
    I knew it would go this way. It was in no way meant to do this at all. I have openly stated they DO need more regulation. Even as a shooter I can see this. Also I live in the UK not the US so gun ownership does not directly effect me even as a shooter. However I certainly don't need to validate myself to someone on the internet about my choice of sport.

    Regardless if you or I think it is right or wrong for a normal person to own a firearm, the US will never get rid of them completely. So regulation is really the only likely (realistic) potential to save lifes.

    Dinyull, there doesn't need to be direct relevance It was pure curiosity. Brought upon by someone bringing out figures for gun deaths. I was CURIOUS how it compared in the grand scheme. Certainly not as Ben said. I gave up voicing my views on that a long time ago.

    The single act of killing someone with a firearm is always going to be more emotive than someone smoking, drinking or eating themselves to death. So I should not have been surprised by this response.

    Anyway I am out before the pack mob mentality kicks in and more people join the party.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,866
    The difference being everyone now knows that smoking is bad for you, everyone also knows obesity is bad for you. The rest of the world know gun ownership is a bad thing, the gun lobby in the States is the exception to this.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    mamba80 wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Terrifying statistic just quoted on BBC. Last year four times more people were killed by guns in the US than all the fatalities among coalition forces over 16 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Or to put in another way, 10 times the amount who died in the Twin Towers.

    273 mass shootings in the first 275 days this year.

    With millions of weapons and 50 individual states, each with their own laws and geography, i dont see how you can get rid of even the semi automatic weapons - modified - this guy was using, its been illegal to have an automatic weapon since the mid 80s, with big fines and or imprisonment.
    People go one about the size of clips etc etc but instead of killing 58, he might have only killed 38 wow.

    Given that, perhaps more needs to be done on what makes people behave in this manner? there seems to be a complete lack of mental health care in the states, couple this with an equally poor education system.

    Speaking of mental health issues, Stephen Paddock is said to have recently received a prescription for the powerful mind altering drug Diazepam http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.3540386 Panorama recently investigated a possible link between SSRI medications and spree shootings in America and the looked at the astonishing number of perpetrators who were on this kind of medication http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... -thoughts/

    Following the London Bridge atrocity I discussed at length the possible link between mass killings and the fact that so many of the killers were often heavy users of cannabis or anabolic steroids or who had been on SSRIs or other anti depressant drugs. Given that the availability of guns in America has remained more or less constant but the mass use of powerful mind altering drugs both legal and illegal is a more recent phenomenon, isn't it time the authorities looked more closely at this correlation?
  • Frank Wilson
    Frank Wilson Posts: 930
    I may be the only person on here with a bit of sympathy for this Paddock guy, I have to say if some body was playing Country and Western music outside my hotel I think it would drive me to violence!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Shortfall wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Terrifying statistic just quoted on BBC. Last year four times more people were killed by guns in the US than all the fatalities among coalition forces over 16 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Or to put in another way, 10 times the amount who died in the Twin Towers.

    273 mass shootings in the first 275 days this year.

    With millions of weapons and 50 individual states, each with their own laws and geography, i dont see how you can get rid of even the semi automatic weapons - modified - this guy was using, its been illegal to have an automatic weapon since the mid 80s, with big fines and or imprisonment.
    People go one about the size of clips etc etc but instead of killing 58, he might have only killed 38 wow.

    Given that, perhaps more needs to be done on what makes people behave in this manner? there seems to be a complete lack of mental health care in the states, couple this with an equally poor education system.

    Speaking of mental health issues, Stephen Paddock is said to have recently received a prescription for the powerful mind altering drug Diazepam http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.3540386 Panorama recently investigated a possible link between SSRI medications and spree shootings in America and the looked at the astonishing number of perpetrators who were on this kind of medication http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... -thoughts/

    Following the London Bridge atrocity I discussed at length the possible link between mass killings and the fact that so many of the killers were often heavy users of cannabis or anabolic steroids or who had been on SSRIs or other anti depressant drugs. Given that the availability of guns in America has remained more or less constant but the mass use of powerful mind altering drugs both legal and illegal is a more recent phenomenon, isn't it time the authorities looked more closely at this correlation?

    Never heard of Diazepam as mind altering.

    It's also prescribed as a muscle relaxant in the UK, and was given to me after I broke my pelvis. It's not that strong...!
    _
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Terrifying statistic just quoted on BBC. Last year four times more people were killed by guns in the US than all the fatalities among coalition forces over 16 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Or to put in another way, 10 times the amount who died in the Twin Towers.

    273 mass shootings in the first 275 days this year.

    With millions of weapons and 50 individual states, each with their own laws and geography, i dont see how you can get rid of even the semi automatic weapons - modified - this guy was using, its been illegal to have an automatic weapon since the mid 80s, with big fines and or imprisonment.
    People go one about the size of clips etc etc but instead of killing 58, he might have only killed 38 wow.

    Given that, perhaps more needs to be done on what makes people behave in this manner? there seems to be a complete lack of mental health care in the states, couple this with an equally poor education system.

    Speaking of mental health issues, Stephen Paddock is said to have recently received a prescription for the powerful mind altering drug Diazepam http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.3540386 Panorama recently investigated a possible link between SSRI medications and spree shootings in America and the looked at the astonishing number of perpetrators who were on this kind of medication http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... -thoughts/

    Following the London Bridge atrocity I discussed at length the possible link between mass killings and the fact that so many of the killers were often heavy users of cannabis or anabolic steroids or who had been on SSRIs or other anti depressant drugs. Given that the availability of guns in America has remained more or less constant but the mass use of powerful mind altering drugs both legal and illegal is a more recent phenomenon, isn't it time the authorities looked more closely at this correlation?

    Never heard of Diazepam as mind altering.

    It's also prescribed as a muscle relaxant in the UK, and was given to me after I broke my pelvis. It's not that strong...!

    https://www.drugs.com/sfx/diazepam-side-effects.html
    Take a look at some of the side effects. One thing for sure, radical Islam isn't the easy scapegoat for this latest abomination.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,108
    twist83 wrote:

    Firearms deaths and gun crime have risen significantly since the Semi Auto Rifle ban and the Pistol ban in the UK. However you can still purchase a Semi Auto Shotgun which will hold around 12-14 rounds and also have Solid Slug ammunition. I have one of these and it would do far more damage than a pistol. So the UK laws are non-nonsensical and born out of knee jerk reaction.

    .


    The difference being it's difficult to conceal a shotgun and shotguns have a legitimate use whereas other than for target shooting I can't see the reason to carry a pistol.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    I am amazed at in ingenuity of humans and the lack of regulation that would allow it. Imagine creating a bump stop device to turn semi automatic weapons into automatic weapons and no one does anything about this even though they banned the function in law. You don't need to imagine this as we are talking about the USA.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    some interesting gun related stats
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/ameri ... index.html

    It may seem mad to us but the yanks know all of this and it does not bother them so best to leave them to it. If Sandy Hook did not inspire them to legislate then nothing will.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Shortfall wrote:
    Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.

    it is just a matter of making it harder for people.

    Most developed countries see no need for people to own assault rifles or machine guns or would limit the amount of ammo they could buy.

    The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Shortfall wrote:
    Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.

    as a result of which do you just shrug your shoulder sand say what will be will be or do you make it harder to rent large trucks and place physical barriers between large groups of people and vehicles.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    Shortfall wrote:
    Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.

    So it's now becoming slightly more difficult to kill people in this way through restrictions on where you can drive trucks etc.

    It's also a different balance to be struck between the benefit a society gets from trucks and the risks they pose, and the benefit a society gets from semi automatic rifles and the risks they pose.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    Shortfall wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Dinyull wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Terrifying statistic just quoted on BBC. Last year four times more people were killed by guns in the US than all the fatalities among coalition forces over 16 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Or to put in another way, 10 times the amount who died in the Twin Towers.

    273 mass shootings in the first 275 days this year.

    With millions of weapons and 50 individual states, each with their own laws and geography, i dont see how you can get rid of even the semi automatic weapons - modified - this guy was using, its been illegal to have an automatic weapon since the mid 80s, with big fines and or imprisonment.
    People go one about the size of clips etc etc but instead of killing 58, he might have only killed 38 wow.

    Given that, perhaps more needs to be done on what makes people behave in this manner? there seems to be a complete lack of mental health care in the states, couple this with an equally poor education system.

    Speaking of mental health issues, Stephen Paddock is said to have recently received a prescription for the powerful mind altering drug Diazepam http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.3540386 Panorama recently investigated a possible link between SSRI medications and spree shootings in America and the looked at the astonishing number of perpetrators who were on this kind of medication http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017 ... -thoughts/

    Following the London Bridge atrocity I discussed at length the possible link between mass killings and the fact that so many of the killers were often heavy users of cannabis or anabolic steroids or who had been on SSRIs or other anti depressant drugs. Given that the availability of guns in America has remained more or less constant but the mass use of powerful mind altering drugs both legal and illegal is a more recent phenomenon, isn't it time the authorities looked more closely at this correlation?

    Never heard of Diazepam as mind altering.

    It's also prescribed as a muscle relaxant in the UK, and was given to me after I broke my pelvis. It's not that strong...!

    https://www.drugs.com/sfx/diazepam-side-effects.html
    Take a look at some of the side effects. One thing for sure, radical Islam isn't the easy scapegoat for this latest abomination.
    When a medications side effects are listed, the list the common ones first. Then ones that people have reported as experiencing they are not necessarily observed or investigated just listed. So if took medication are reported to my GP I had blue faeces it would go as a side effect. Diazepam tends only cause odd behaviour if mixed with something like alcohol.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.

    it is just a matter of making it harder for people.

    Most developed countries see no need for people to own assault rifles or machine guns or would limit the amount of ammo they could buy.

    The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.

    Don't be such a pr1ck. Nothing I wrote was in support of the existing gun laws, I am just questioning the simplistic idea that banning guns would stop homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. I have also raised the strong correlation between mass killers/spree shooters and the fact that so many of them have used prescription and illegal drugs. It seems like a very common denominator and seems worthy of further investigation. Attempting to blame radical Islam and gun ownership may mean we avoid looking more closely at another possible cause, namely mind altering drugs both legal and illegal. Perhaps we need to control their use more tightly?
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.

    as a result of which do you just shrug your shoulder sand say what will be will be or do you make it harder to rent large trucks and place physical barriers between large groups of people and vehicles.


    See my reply on page 4. Realistically restricting the opportunities for deranged people to cause mass casualties with vehicles would be virtually impossible, and putting a few barriers in public places is just tokenism and an attempt to be seen to be doing something. Assuming such a thing were even possible then these people would find another means. Restricting the amount of illegal mind altering drugs and reviewing the use of SSRIs may on the other hand be beneficial given that so many spree killers have these in their systems or a long history of abusing them.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    Spree killer is a different definition.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,866
    Shortfall wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.

    it is just a matter of making it harder for people.

    Most developed countries see no need for people to own assault rifles or machine guns or would limit the amount of ammo they could buy.

    The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.

    Don't be such a pr1ck. Nothing I wrote was in support of the existing gun laws, I am just questioning the simplistic idea that banning guns would stop homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. I have also raised the strong correlation between mass killers/spree shooters and the fact that so many of them have used prescription and illegal drugs. It seems like a very common denominator and seems worthy of further investigation. Attempting to blame radical Islam and gun ownership may mean we avoid looking more closely at another possible cause, namely mind altering drugs both legal and illegal. Perhaps we need to control their use more tightly?
    Maybe not quite support but you are quite clearly saying there is no point in banning them. So calling someone a pr!ck for a responding to that is a little over the top. If someone wanted to be obtuse they could take your point that if some really wants to kill people they are going to find a way so there is no point in regulating for anything.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Spree killer is a different definition.

    Yes but in many cases both spree killers and those with elements of pre meditation and panning like Nice, London Bridge, and Barcelona the common denominator is often the presence of anti depressant medicine, or the abuse of mind altering drugs like ananbolic steroids or cannabis. If you haven't watched the Panorama documentary I linked to I suggest you catch it on iPlayer if it's still available.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Given that 86 people were killed by a crazed lunatic driving a wagon in Nice last year and similar attacks around the world are growing in frequency, one wonders how effective gun control would be in stopping homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. Any solutions are likely to be far more complex than some unenforceable ban on gun ownership.

    it is just a matter of making it harder for people.

    Most developed countries see no need for people to own assault rifles or machine guns or would limit the amount of ammo they could buy.

    The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.

    Don't be such a pr1ck. Nothing I wrote was in support of the existing gun laws, I am just questioning the simplistic idea that banning guns would stop homicidal maniacs intent on mass slaughter. I have also raised the strong correlation between mass killers/spree shooters and the fact that so many of them have used prescription and illegal drugs. It seems like a very common denominator and seems worthy of further investigation. Attempting to blame radical Islam and gun ownership may mean we avoid looking more closely at another possible cause, namely mind altering drugs both legal and illegal. Perhaps we need to control their use more tightly?
    Maybe not quite support but you are quite clearly saying there is no point in banning them. So calling someone a pr!ck for a responding to that is a little over the top. If someone wanted to be obtuse they could take your point that if some really wants to kill people they are going to find a way so there is no point in regulating for anything.

    I called him a pr1ck because of his suggestion that I didn't care because it wasn't my own kids getting shot. What is important here is doing something that is going to to be effective, not just doing anything regardless of the outcome of effectiveness.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    Why do you think a ban will be unenforceable?
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Why do you think a ban will be unenforceable?

    Because the right to bare arms is so intrinsic to the American psyche and is part of their constitution. Even if a ban on gun ownership were passed onto the statute books there are so many legally and illegally owned guns already in circulation that it would be pretty meaningless in practice. I am absolutely not saying that America shouldn't look long and hard at gun control, but my own belief is that there other factors at play here like the effects on the minds of these killers from illegal and prescription drugs that should be examined at the same time.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,866
    Shortfall wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    The Yanks are happy to accept gun deaths ten times what they would be with comparable legislation in exchange for their right to do what they want. I guess you just assume it will not be your kids who are massacred.

    Don't be such a pr1ck.
    I called him a pr1ck because of his suggestion that I didn't care because it wasn't my own kids getting shot. What is important here is doing something that is going to to be effective, not just doing anything regardless of the outcome of effectiveness.
    I didn't read that as suggesting anything about your children, read it again. Reads to me more like he is saying a person may be able to justify accepting so many gun deaths because they don't expect their kids to be shot.
    I think the name calling was unnecessary.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,227
    Shortfall wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Why do you think a ban will be unenforceable?

    Because the right to bare arms is so intrinsic to the American psyche and is part of their constitution. Even if a ban on gun ownership were passed onto the statute books there are so many legally and illegally owned guns already in circulation that it would be pretty meaningless in practice. I am absolutely not saying that America shouldn't look long and hard at gun control, but my own belief is that there other factors at play here like the effects on the minds of these killers from illegal and prescription drugs that should be examined at the same time.

    I presume you can't legally own surface to air missiles and the like, so it's just about where you draw the line. Saying it is difficult is different to saying it would be meaningless.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Why do you think a ban will be unenforceable?

    Because the right to bare arms is so intrinsic to the American psyche and is part of their constitution. Even if a ban on gun ownership were passed onto the statute books there are so many legally and illegally owned guns already in circulation that it would be pretty meaningless in practice. I am absolutely not saying that America shouldn't look long and hard at gun control, but my own belief is that there other factors at play here like the effects on the minds of these killers from illegal and prescription drugs that should be examined at the same time.

    I presume you can't legally own surface to air missiles and the like, so it's just about where you draw the line. Saying it is difficult is different to saying it would be meaningless.

    There'd be running gun battles with militias in big parts of the US if you forced people to give up their guns.

    The entire attitude of the NRA is born out of a conspiracy that the state is out to get you, and only by having a population with an ability to fight a war against them if they get out of hand can you keep the state in check.

    They want guns SPECIFICALLY to make sure the gov't doesn't go too far.
    _

Categories