The gun thing - a question from a European

[TimeEntrance]

So what’s your point? That mass shooters simply randomly select locations and would be as likely to start firing in the middle of a police precinct as an elementary school? Surely you jest.

Lisa

You keep going back to the police station as an example and model of the U.S. workforce. Fort Hood is more representative of the U.S. workforce. Short of the Federal Government making it law all U.S. citizens must carry firearms cities, states, employers and their companies will have greater leeway on setting policies about carrying guns.

The United States is pretty lawsuit crazy too. I can just imagine someone walking into some building in downtown Milwaukee and being shot by some employee inside that building. The company would be sued into the high millions by having officially allowed its employees to be carrying guns on them.

You are correct. Guns abound on a US Military base. But if you read my statement and George’s, you will note that the AMMO is restricted. Even as an Officer, I could not regualry carry a loaded pistol.

Even when I brought my Troops tanks through the base to the range, we had no ammo. That was issued at the range and returned at the range.

There could have been a whole battalion of M1A1 Abrahms in the parking lot outside of shooting, and they could have done nothing other than provide a secure place to for the people to hide around.

The ammo is accounted for. I recall more than once walking around for hours during the day or even at night (with flashlights) looking for a single bullet some Marine dropped [chuckles]. No one being allowed to go to sleep until the bullet was found.

But my experience in the Marine Corps was through Security Forces which I was accepted into after volunteering for the duty and MOS while in the School of Infantry. Mind you… Fleet Marines like to say barracks duty of Security Forces is not the real Marine Corps. There is truth in that. My Security Forces duty stations were all Naval. The U.S.S. Wisconsin and then the small base of CINCLANT compound.

And in Security Forces we were routinely armed with weapons loaded. Even many magazines loaded full of ammo. I think at the “Wire” were we guarded Naval tactical nukes we each had 6 magazines of M-16 ammo loaded, all on our flack-jackets, with rifles placed up on racks right in the area we slept in. Even then I was aware that a Marine that snapped could have grabbed his or another’s rifle, loaded it, and systematically shot everyone sleeping until someone on post (armed) stopped him.

On the battleship we would go to .50 cal watch with a 9mm pistol (3 mags), our M-16 (6 mags I think), and we had an obsolete Law rocket (if I recall correctly) already on the post. Few Americans - not even cops - are armed to the teeth, loaded, and ready to rock and roll like that.

I went from that to the civilian workforce were I never saw a single employee carrying even a little .22 caliber pistol on them while at work.

So, my memory of the military was one of sleeping in rooms with guns, living with guns. We used the M-60, M-16, 9mm, and shotguns in Security Forces. For some reason we often shot M-14s out at the ranges too, when it was only Fast Company that seemed to have those things for their Designated Marksmen (pretty much urban snipers).

 

[LisaA]

Originally Posted by liturgyluver
Law abiding citizens in the UK do not carry guns and never have. Even before additional restrictions were put in place. I call 39 gun homicides a year a great success and crime is now at its lowest level for 30 years. It is disingenious of the US gun lobby to use UK stats over a limited period to support its aims. Bottom line is in Europe gun homicides low, in USA gun homicides, (and general homicides) high -simple as that…

Just a point of fact. The USA is a HUGE country, certainly in comparison to the UK. If you check you’ll find that the claim that USA gun homicides are “high” is misleading. Yes high in certain small pockets of this country and the VAST majority of these homocides are gang violence where one gang banger shoots another or robs a gas station. Gun homocides are NOT high in most of America. In fact one of the notable facts about the Newtown shooting was there hadn’t even been a violent CRIME, much less a homocide in years. OTOH looking at Chicago (Obama’s hometown), Detroit, Baltimore etc there are high rates of gun violence in certain pockets of these cities.

Thus the proposed gun grab, the fingerprinting and registering of Mike Millworker’s guns, is ridiculous. Average gun owning Americans are not the problem. As usual in the rush to “do something” Congress is bound to do something a) ineffective b) expensive and c) a violation of basic freedoms.

But hey they will FEEEEEELLLLL better and that’s all that matters.

Lisa

 

[TimeEntrance]

You obviously haven’t bothered to study it.

As someone with formal training in statistical analysis, and who makes his living using statistical methods of analysis, I can confidently say that that’s absolute, utter and complete hogwash.

What you describe is the abandonment of statistical methods.

Semantics.

Statistics are used to support peoples hypothesis of a genetic heritability of homosexuality. You can use it to support your proposition that more guns on the street reduces crime or gun crime.

That has to do with politics and ideology. I’m free of both. I was shot at by a member of the Vice Lords around 1st and Burleigh in Milwaukee while driving while armed. They - like others - are aware a person on the streets of Milwaukee potentially has a firearm. They - like me - could give a rats behind.

You think that Matix and Platt were looking to get into it with the Feds? That’s preposterous, you’re quite simply ignorant of the events. I’m from Miami, was living there at the time, and a close friend was literally the fourth house down on 122nd Street (there were bullet holes in some of the trees in her yard).

There had been a robbery and shooting at a rockpit (a popular place to target practice, I’ve been there many times); the victim survived and contacted police. The victim’s car was used in a robbery at the Barnett Bank in Pinecrest a week later, and the Feds were looking for the vehicle. When they saw it, they began to follow.

After the shootout it was discovered that Matix and Platt were responsible for a series of robberies, and a murder that had happened previously at the rockpit.

This is readily available and easily understood information, and you got it wrong. This had nothing to do with wanting to challenge the police in gun battle, and the fact that you characterize it as such reflects poorly on your grasp of the issues in general.

They got into a gun fight with law enforcement agents. Period. And their military training arguably helped. They did not not get into a gun battle with law enforcement agents. They did not just simply throw down their weapons because they encountered armed men.

And it’s you that fails to “grasp the issues in general.”

I was raised in area with frequent gun fire and with people being shot and with homicides. Arguably, more people with guns in that area increased the shooting and homicides. But this was in area of ethnic Black-Americans (largely a predominately middle-class neighborhood) that saw a sharp rise in gun violence through the 1980’s onward–at least from that of what was norm during in the black community among young men during previous generations. My father would tell you that when he was a child he could remember kids could leave their toys and bikes out sitting all night. And that was in a low-income area. And that was with few blacks armed with guns in those areas.

Eh… I even recall when gangs (like the 2-7 and 2-4 Boys) were fighting with baseball bats. That actually as I recall it, was were the term “gang banging” originated from, the actual gang fights with no guns. But when gangs got into the selling of crack cocaine all that changed.

My personal experience - and I would argue the experience of the ethnic Black-American neighborhoods in general - contradict the views more guns = less gun related crime.

You don’t need to bring up to me the statistics of homicides in Milwaukee or other cities per a decline (as though some of those drops were all that sociologically significant). Those statical averages include whole cities, areas that never really had homicide problems or gun violence along with areas that have frequent problems with them. It wouldn’t surprise me if certain neighborhoods in Milwaukee (and in other cities) have homicide rates of 80 or so or more per 100,000 people even though their city homicide rates may be around 10 per 100,000.

There are areas of Milwaukee that might as well be in Europe. There are other areas where violence probably would make some areas of small Third World towns blush (small, family oriented towns, not there more violent cities).

 

[ProVobis]

As someone with formal training in statistical analysis, and who makes his living using statistical methods of analysis, I can confidently say that that’s absolute, utter and complete hogwash.

This statement is of little value unless you assign a numerical value/level to “confidently.” Just saying, I’ve studied a little bit of statistics myself.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Yes high in certain small pockets of this country and the VAST majority of these homocides are gang violence where one gang banger shoots another or robs a gas station.

I think you are correct. However, in some cities homicides more often have less to do with gang rivalries.

In Chicago I think I read or heard to current rise n murders are largely due to gang disputes.

That’s not really the case in cities like Milwaukee.

Old article dated 2006 but it’s still relevant in 2012 or the beginning of 2013 I would say.

nytimes.com/2006/02/12/national/12homicide.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

**Violent Crime Rising Sharply in Some Cities

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: February 12, 2006**

MILWAUKEE — One woman here killed a friend after they argued over a brown silk dress. A man killed a neighbor whose 10-year-old son had mistakenly used his dish soap. Two men argued over a cellphone, and pulling out their guns, the police say, killed a 13-year-old girl in the crossfire.

And while such crime in the 1990’s was characterized by battles over gangs and drug turf, the police say the current rise in homicides has been set off by something more bewildering: petty disputes that hardly seem the stuff of fistfights, much less gunfire or stabbings.

Suspects tell the police they killed someone who “disrespected” them or a family member, or someone who was “mean mugging” them, which the police loosely translate as giving a dirty look. And more weapons are on the streets, giving people a way to act on their anger.

Police Chief Nannette H. Hegerty of Milwaukee calls it “the rage thing.”

“We’re seeing a very angry population, and they don’t go to fists anymore, they go right to guns,” she said. “A police department can have an effect on drugs or gangs. But two people arguing in a home, how does the police department go in and stop that?”

The underlined my emphasis.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am convinced that people from Europe or just about anywhere else in the world, will not EVER understand our mindset because they do not have our constitution and have not had our history. We are not Europe, and they are not us.

 

[Cristiano]

I am convinced that people from Europe or just about anywhere else in the world, will not EVER understand our mindset because they do not have our constitution and have not had our history. We are not Europe, and they are not us.

I think that this is a really bad generalization like the one made by people that pretend to speak for all the Europeans. I was raised in a gun friendly culture, where guns had a proper need of existence to protect the citizens from invading forces, from dictatorships, and later from terrorist groups threatening family members.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think that this is a really bad generalization like the one made by people that pretend to speak for all the Europeans. I was raised in a gun friendly culture, where guns had a proper need of existence to protect the citizens from invading forces, from dictatorships, and later from terrorist groups threatening family members.

I said, “just about” anywhere in the world. Your country or region may be the exception.

 

[liturgyluver]

Just a point of fact. The USA is a HUGE country, certainly in comparison to the UK. If you check you’ll find that the claim that USA gun homicides are “high” is misleading. Yes high in certain small pockets of this country and the VAST majority of these homocides are gang violence where one gang banger shoots another or robs a gas station. Gun homocides are NOT high in most of America. In fact one of the notable facts about the Newtown shooting was there hadn’t even been a violent CRIME, much less a homocide in years. OTOH looking at Chicago (Obama’s hometown), Detroit, Baltimore etc there are high rates of gun violence in certain pockets of these cities.

Lisa

Lisa, population-wise the US is 5 times larger than the UK but even if you multiply our 39 gun homicides by 5, it doesn’t approach the US rate of 9,000 which adjusted for population is 45 times higher. The same is true elsewhere in Europe.

I am sure that gun homicides (and crime generally) are concentrated in certain areas, but the same is true in Europe where crime is concentrated in big cities. But just because it is concentrated doesn’t mean it should be discounted from statistical analysis.

Happy New Year: let’s hope that in 2013 crime continues to fall in both our continents.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Semantics.

Statistics are used to support peoples hypothesis of a genetic heritability of homosexuality. You can use it to support your proposition that more guns on the street reduces crime or gun crime.

That has to do with politics and ideology. I’m free of both. I was shot at by a member of the Vice Lords around 1st and Burleigh in Milwaukee while driving while armed. They - like others - are aware a person on the streets of Milwaukee potentially has a firearm. They - like me - could give a rats behind.

They got into a gun fight with law enforcement agents. Period. And their military training arguably helped. They did not not get into a gun battle with law enforcement agents. They did not just simply throw down their weapons because they encountered armed men.

And it’s you that fails to “grasp the issues in general.”

I was raised in area with frequent gun fire and with people being shot and with homicides. Arguably, more people with guns in that area increased the shooting and homicides. But this was in area of ethnic Black-Americans (largely a predominately middle-class neighborhood) that saw a sharp rise in gun violence through the 1980’s onward–at least from that of what was norm during in the black community among young men during previous generations. My father would tell you that when he was a child he could remember kids could leave their toys and bikes out sitting all night. And that was in a low-income area. And that was with few blacks armed with guns in those areas.

Eh… I even recall when gangs (like the 2-7 and 2-4 Boys) were fighting with baseball bats. That actually as I recall it, was were the term “gang banging” originated from, the actual gang fights with no guns. But when gangs got into the selling of crack cocaine all that changed.

My personal experience - and I would argue the experience of the ethnic Black-American neighborhoods in general - contradict the views more guns = less gun related crime.

You don’t need to bring up to me the statistics of homicides in Milwaukee or other cities per a decline (as though some of those drops were all that sociologically significant). Those statical averages include whole cities, areas that never really had homicide problems or gun violence along with areas that have frequent problems with them. It wouldn’t surprise me if certain neighborhoods in Milwaukee (and in other cities) have homicide rates of 80 or so or more per 100,000 people even though their city homicide rates may be around 10 per 100,000.

There are areas of Milwaukee that might as well be in Europe. There are other areas where violence probably would make some areas of small Third World towns blush (small, family oriented towns, not there more violent cities).

I, too, equate average citizens to gang-members and drug-dealers. Legislation aimed at criminals wouldn’t make sense. They wouldn’t listen. Taking firearms away from citizens who are inclined to obey the law, however, is an excellent method of reducing gang and drug related gun violence. Proof of this is cities such as Chicago and LA, where violent crime is almost non-existent thanks to gun legislation.

 

[neophyte]

This statement is of little value unless you assign a numerical value/level to “confidently.” Just saying, I’ve studied a little bit of statistics myself.

 

[neophyte]

Semantics…

No, it’s not semantics at all. You’re copping out on your responsibility to evaluate the evidence based on valid statistical methods, using as an excuse that there are people who report nonsense disguised to look like they were the result of valid statistical methods.

They got into a gun fight with law enforcement agents. Period. And their military training arguably helped. They did not not get into a gun battle with law enforcement agents. They did not just simply throw down their weapons because they encountered armed men.

You put up Matix and Platt as an example of wanting to challenge the police in a gun battle (your words, not mine), when in fact they were quite intent on eluding the police. The battle erupted only when the Feds performed a felony stop on their vehicle and trapped it up against a tree - they were cornered.

Your sloppy evaluation of the facts in this specific example is indicative of your sloppy evaluation of the facts in general.

You don’t need to bring up to me the statistics of homicides in Milwaukee or other cities per a decline (as though some of those drops were all that sociologically significant). Those statical averages include whole cities, areas that never really had homicide problems or gun violence along with areas that have frequent problems with them. It wouldn’t surprise me if certain neighborhoods in Milwaukee (and in other cities) have homicide rates of 80 or so or more per 100,000 people even though their city homicide rates may be around 10 per 100,000…

This is exactly what I’m talking about: you’re not interested in actual analyses, nor are you interested in carefully studying what poses as them to make sure they’re valid. You’d rather rely on what you wouldn’t be surprised at, or some vague impression you have of gun fights in general without evaluating any single one of them in enough detail to even know what actually happened. I’m willing to bet that you’ve used the “guns are more likely to be used on someone you know than on a stranger” line without ever having bothered to find the report that it came from, much less gone on to actually read it to figure out if it was valid.

Such sloppy thinking is guaranteed to arrive at sloppy results.

 

[Irritator]

To follow up on the OP, do all those Americans that use the right to bear arms as excuse to arm themselves to the teeth, truly believe that since the USA is almost the only democracy in the world that has that right, the USA is therefore also the best democracy of all?

Or, in other words, do you really consider it impossible that actually other countries (in this case: almost ALL other democratic countries) might be smarter than you on this point?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

To follow up on the OP, do all those Americans that use the right to bear arms as excuse to arm themselves to the teeth, truly believe that since the USA is almost the only democracy in the world that has that right, the USA is therefore also the best democracy of all?

Or, in other words, do you really consider it impossible that actually other countries (in this case: almost ALL other democratic countries) might be smarter than you on this point?

1. Not necessarily that. For other reasons, yes.
2. Not for us. We’re not you, and you’re not us.

 

[Irritator]

1. Not necessarily that. For other reasons, yes.
2. Not for us. We’re not you, and you’re not us.

That’s of an honest arrogance… so the Americans are in some way special that they need special rights? Or the American government has more chance of becoming despotic against its citizens? Or you somehow think that the English will actually still try to get the colonies back?

And if you acknowledge that the rights of Americans are so clearly different from the rights of the rest of humanity, why exactly do you feel the need to intervene in the rest of the world “to defend democracy”?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That’s of an honest arrogance… so the Americans are in some way special that they need special rights? Or the American government has more chance of becoming despotic against its citizens? Or you somehow think that the English will actually still try to get the colonies back?

And if you acknowledge that the rights of Americans are so clearly different from the rights of the rest of humanity, why exactly do you feel the need to intervene in the rest of the world “to defend democracy”?

Since your “questions” are merely meant to irritate and provoke, I won’t dignify them with an answer. Have a great day!

 

[LisaA]

To follow up on the OP, do all those Americans that use the right to bear arms as excuse to arm themselves to the teeth, truly believe that since the USA is almost the only democracy in the world that has that right, the USA is therefore also the best democracy of all?

Or, in other words, do you really consider it impossible that actually other countries (in this case: almost ALL other democratic countries) might be smarter than you on this point?

I see you’ve picked an appropriate name. I always wonder if it’s simply entertainment or do you really think anyone is convinced by your persuasive arguments

Let’s see…strawman…Americans ‘arm themselves to the teeth’…well not exactly. I don’t know what percentage of Americans own guns but most of us defend the right rather than exercising it.

America is a Republic not a Democracy. We don’t CARE if other countries don’t have the right to bear arms. That’s their business and their choice. We don’t presume you are foolish for NOT enshrining that right so please don’t presume anything about us.

But yes we DO think our Republic IS the best. God shed his grace on thee…

Good luck in your attempts but here’s a hint, don’t demean our country and expect us to take you seriously

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, population-wise the US is 5 times larger than the UK but even if you multiply our 39 gun homicides by 5, it doesn’t approach the US rate of 9,000 which adjusted for population is 45 times higher. The same is true elsewhere in Europe.

I am sure that gun homicides (and crime generally) are concentrated in certain areas, but the same is true in Europe where crime is concentrated in big cities. But just because it is concentrated doesn’t mean it should be discounted from statistical analysis.

Happy New Year: let’s hope that in 2013 crime continues to fall in both our continents.

It’s not simply the size but also the huge variation in terrain, in cultures, in demographics, in our neighbor to the south with its drug culture and trade that influence the number of gun crimes. I will try to find the article I read recently but if you removed gang related gun crimes, the rate would be significantly lower. Much of this is related to the drug trade as well.

I don’t discount the theory there is more gun crime in America than in some other countries but I don’t think it’s because of our 2nd Amendment rights or because average citizens are engaged in gun violence. Thus I don’t think the recent cries to limit guns or to register and fingerprint all gun owners will have the slightest impact on the rate of gun related homocides.

Interestingly as I understand it, violent crime is continuing to drop. I recall past presidential campaigns where crime was a huge issue. In the past few, I don’t even recall a mention.

Lisa

 

[Irritator]

I see you’ve picked an appropriate name. I always wonder if it’s simply entertainment or do you really think anyone is convinced by your persuasive arguments

The name might indeed be appropriate - but, far from it being entertainment (I happened to have done humanitarian work for about 7 years in African war zones, so I have seen first-hand what guns do - and no, this does not mean that I want to compare Africa with America, for the record, so no need to go there), it is a topic that strikes my deepest emotions. As for my arguments, the funny thing is that a sufficient part of Europeans do fully agree with what I say. So yes, I would beg to say that some people are convinced by my arguments, depending on the audience.

Let’s see…strawman…Americans ‘arm themselves to the teeth’…well not exactly. I don’t know what percentage of Americans own guns but most of us defend the right rather than exercising it.

That was indeed a wrong statement from my side, and I do thank you for the correction.

America is a Republic not a Democracy.

There, you honestly lost me. While I agree that not every Republic is by definition a Democracy (Republic of China being one example), I would love to hear your arguments that show that the USA is not a Democracy.

But yes we DO think our Republic IS the best. God shed his grace on thee…

That needs no further explanation - and, I think everyone is entitled to think that of his or her state. But it might sometimes be good to be humble enough to look at how others look at things…

 

[LisaA]

The name might indeed be appropriate - but, far from it being entertainment (I happened to have done humanitarian work for about 7 years in African war zones, so I have seen first-hand what guns do - and no, this does not mean that I want to compare Africa with America, for the record, so no need to go there), it is a topic that strikes my deepest emotions. As for my arguments, the funny thing is that a sufficient part of Europeans do fully agree with what I say. So yes, I would beg to say that some people are convinced by my arguments, depending on the audience.

That was indeed a wrong statement from my side, and I do thank you for the correction.

There, you honestly lost me. While I agree that not every Republic is by definition a Democracy (Republic of China being one example), I would love to hear your arguments that show that the USA is not a Democracy.

That needs no further explanation - and, I think everyone is entitled to think that of his or her state. But it might sometimes be good to be humble enough to look at how others look at things…

Guns in Africa are a completely different issue. Failed states like Somalia can hardly be compared to America’s most violent areas. We do have laws against gun violence. It’s just that those pesky criminials don’t pay much attention.

Our country’s legislation is enacted by elected representatives. While looking at some of the stupid laws recently (Obamacare comes to mind here) it might be better if everything were done by direct vote of the people but even our President is not based on a popular vote.

Oh and I’ve looked at they way Europe operates. The recent legislation, the social changes I most detest are imports from Europe. NO THANK YOU! I just hope we dont’ follow Europe’s path on social issues or financial ruin.

Lisa