Lonan3 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Just to put it in perspective, a few facts about guns in the USA from TODAY'S INDEPENDENT : Roughly 29,000 people are killed by firearms every year - 10 times as many as died on September 11, 2001. Of the victims: some 11,000 are murdered, 17,000 use a gun to commit suicide, and almost 1,000 die in accidents. Some sub-statistics are even more disturbing. Every day three children under 19 die from a gun wound. Across the country, roughly 1,000 crimes involving firearms are committed every 24 hours. The rampage of Cho Seung-Hui, the deadliest mass shooting in US history, will merely add one suicide and 33 murders (at the latest count) to these grim totals. Laws vary from state to state but, for example, in Alabama there is no limit on handgun sales, no state checks on guns, no registration requirements, no restrictions on minors possessing handguns, and not even curbs on so-called "Saturday Night Special" junk guns. If Killeen, Columbine and the Amish school murders made no difference, why should Virginia Tech? In fact, the danger is that saturation TV coverage will have other deranged, would-be gunmen believe they, too, can have their day of glory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I know a lot of yanks and they seem polarised on this isuue as well. The anti-lobby quote all the stats per Lonan3. The pro-lobby then mention places like Kennesaw where mandatory gun ownership reduced the burglary rate by 89% - allegedly but it kind-of makes sense. But, of course, like all stats nerds will try and knock them down. I recall one lot of US firearm restrictions which seemed to say "If you're going to use a bayonet then you can't fix the grenade launcher" or some-such nonsense. It certainly makes you realise how powerful the pro lobby is. I think that Lonan3 is right about the culture but that doesn't explain this as I believe it was carried out by a Korean? Also there is a great deal of firearm ownership in places like Belgium and Switzerland, Scandawegia has a distinct hunting culture and in France you can buy a .22 firearm, quite lethal by the way, over the counter with no questions asked. So at the end of the day I think it is simply down to the individual involved, which pretty much makes it impossible to legislate against. I would often visit a customer in Hungerford which is a really nice place. Walking around it's hard to believe that Michael Ryan shot the place up killing 14 including his own mother. "He was a quiet boy, bit of a loner" etc etc because, of course, he was a complete gun nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I think that Lonan3 is right about the culture but that doesn't explain this as I believe it was carried out by a Korean? I think he'd lived in the USA for 15 years though. Seems like he already owned a gun, but bought another one a few days before he began shooting. Apparently there were signs of concern over his mental state as well. Why are the Americans shocked with a nutter with a gun kills people, it's happened before and it will happen again and again until they do something about gun ownership. I know gun can be legally bough in the UK, but nothing like as easily as in the USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 It appears the guy had written two plays before going on a rampage - both of which are already online (no surprise). I'm guessing everything will run as it always does in cases like this - there's the villain, a hero here or there, plenty of mourning and memorials, cries for investigations and law changes - then it gets quiet, until it happens again - sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tucker Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Always remember ,gun control laws do not apply to criminals and lunatics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Is it just me, or does anyone else find the publishing of the pictures of this bloke brandishing his weapons just voyeurism of the worst tabloid kind. I'll read the transcripts - but I gain little insight in seeing him in standing there in all his macho power - and feel it sends quite the wrong message about this tragedy. His was a little life, and a death all the smaller for the pain he decided to add to it - giving him the front page give him a status he should not have. The story is the failure to identify and treat someone either socio-pathic or mentally unsound - and the consequences of uncontrolled weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I couldn't agree more. This kind of rambo-esque posing will only serve to inspire other nutcases to emulate or even exceed his 'achievement.' In my opinion, anything more than a head and shoulders picture of him is totally irresponsible - but when did the media ever put responsibility above sensationalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Is it just me, or does anyone else find the publishing of the pictures of this bloke brandishing his weapons just voyeurism of the worst tabloid kind. I'll read the transcripts - but I gain little insight in seeing him in standing there in all his macho power - and feel it sends quite the wrong message about this tragedy. His was a little life, and a death all the smaller for the pain he decided to add to it - giving him the front page give him a status he should not have. The story is the failure to identify and treat someone either socio-pathic or mentally unsound - and the consequences of uncontrolled weapons. I also find the media quite racist. They produce hours and hours (over several days) of news on this one event - yet 200 people blown up in the streets of Baghdad (which happens practically every day) get little coverage, as does a plane crashing full of indonesians etc. British forces killed get but a few minutes. Stories about middle class British and American whites always take precedence it seems, and the more violent or sickening the more coverage. Like has been mentioned - many more Americans have died from guns in the following days - the average there seems to be around 33 gun deaths a day. IMO, the media has changed the way most people view the world, people's general perceptions of risk, and even how people even view other people - with many damaging effects on society - including the general dumbing down of the populace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossils Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't George Bush still at large? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't George Bush still at large? Alcohol had briefly numbed me, but you've reminded me again Ah well... what further damage can he possibly do in the 19 months he has left in office? ... ... ... bugger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 I see the Times and other British online newspapers issued some links to his "plays" yesterday. I read them (don't ask why, I was bored) and it does beg the question how it is possible to be mentally subnormal and yet also "majoring in English" at a US University. If he didn't get kicked off the course for his mental problems, he should have been kicked off for being illiterate. The plays are real primary school stuff you'd expect the average 8 year old to churn out (minus the swearing) I can't believe that this is the standard of literacy that would be acceptable to keep you on an English course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarBee Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 I think automobiles should be banned, why look at the statistics: According to the National Safety Council, every 12 minutes, someone dies due to a motor vehicle accident. When death does not occur, a disabling injury does occurring every 14 seconds. Just last year alone, motor vehicle accidents cost Americans approximately $12 billion dollars in lost wages, employer costs, medical expenses, and property damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 I think automobiles should be banned, why look at the statistics: According to the National Safety Council, every 12 minutes, someone dies due to a motor vehicle accident. When death does not occur, a disabling injury does occurring every 14 seconds. Just last year alone, motor vehicle accidents cost Americans approximately $12 billion dollars in lost wages, employer costs, medical expenses, and property damage. So you're suggesting that without motor vehicles the US economy would be better off? You're not doing much to dispell the image of stupid America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarBee Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 It would stop the senseless killing of Americans via automobile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Much as I detest automobiles, I have to admit that weren't actually designed to kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.