Isn’t gun crime terrorism?

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Here is something to think about –

“The same day of the marathon bombing in Boston, 11 Americans were murdered by guns. The pregnant Breshauna Jackson was killed in Dallas, allegedly by her boyfriend. In Richmond, California, James Tucker III was shot and killed while riding his bicycle – assailants unknown. Nigel Hardy, a 13-year-old boy in Palmdale, California, who was being bullied in school, took his own life. He used the gun that his father kept at home. And in Brooklyn, New York, an off-duty police officer used her department-issued Glock 9mm handgun to kill herself, her boyfriend and her one-year old child.
At the same time that investigators were in the midst of a high-profile manhunt for the marathon bombers that ended on Friday evening, 38 more Americans – with little fanfare – died from gun violence. One was a 22-year old resident of Boston. They are a tiny percentage of the 3,531 Americans killed by guns in the past four months – a total that surpasses the number of Americans who died on 9/11 and is one fewer than the number of US soldiers who lost their lives in combat operations in Iraq. Yet, none of this daily violence was considered urgent enough to motivate Congress to impose a mild, commonsense restriction on gun purchasers.”
Why does America lose its head over 'terror' but ignore its daily gun deaths?
By Michael Cohen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law

 

because the gun nuts want you to focus on the bad guys- the ones with the brown skin- instead of their precious guns.

 

Every Country in the world has its quirks , America has them by a factor of ten ! Barely much more than a single line written over 200 years ago the Constitutional 'Right to bear Arms' is part of the USAs idealised image of itself,like actually believing its the 'greatest democracy on earth'.

Its no accident that Americans invented the 'Theme Park' or that the worlds leading fantasy factory , Hollywood, is based in the States. Americans are probably the most dynamicly pragmatic people on earth,they get things done-but there has to be a pay-off,a positive gain in acting. Gun control is an issue they ignore,in the main, its a lota hard work,smacks of interference with individual freedom,no bodys gona get rich...naw,fuck it!
Their arguments for gun ownership dont run much deeper than their second ammendment. Nor do their arguments against public health care ('sounds to me like Big Government Socialism-the hell with THAT') reflect a deep empathy with their fellow citizens. Similarly the death penalty & foriegn policy . What seems to govern American thinking on issues around the welfare of their fellow man appears to be the shortest route to the easiest solution.

Of course not all Americans are like that,the aboves a charicature, but enough are to make it one of the most screwed up countries in the world.

 

Do you have the numbers on how many people were killed by bare hands and blunt objects during the same time frame? Swimming pools?

 

'Murica

 

I always hear about plenty of stabbings that take place in China. Even if you take away all the guns people are still going to find ways to kill each other, it's in our nature sadly.

 

Ahh, Balbus, at it again...

or auto accidents, medical errors, prescription drug overdoses, home accidents, alcohol, tobacco, etc., etc.

Seriously, when the numbers are looked at within the context of ALL causes of death and things such as population numbers/density, the number of gun deaths pales in comparison to other preventable causes.

 

damn straight. there's no point introducing any legislation to help lessen the instances of one kind of death because other kinds of death will still happen.

 

dont forget the Texas fertilizer plant.. Its just be everyday bullshit we've grown accustomed too. its meaningless. Sid is back on the ice, go watch a game bah bah bah..

 

it is more about the hyperbole and hysteria over it.
alcohol kills people daily, yet I am still assailed by enticements to purchase and consume it multiple times a day.
I don't get confronted with gun ads driving down the street.



On a related note, what is going to happen to some of the members of HF and others of like mind when they do enact real gun control, are they going to be happy guns are not easy to get or be angry at further governmental control.

Man, I think we are going to see some hippie's having schizophrenic episodes as their brains flip back and forth between which ideal is more important. :dizzy2:

 

frankly, mate, it's your country and i'm sure you'll sort it out amongst yourselves, i wouldn't have stuck my oar in only i was tipsy (and am now quite smashed) thing is, while i'm perfectly willing to accept that any form of gun control can be construed as an attack on the freedoms which define your nation (fair play to ya) and are therefore worth fighting (valid argument) i do reject this assertion that there is a sort of "murder quota" for every nation which inevitably WILL BE fulfilled no matter what tools are available, until i see good evidence for it, cos it sounds fucking unlikely. (presupposing that the availability of firearms has no effect on anything- whether you think the effect will be inconsequential in relation to its effect on your freedoms is a separate issue, but to assert that gun control will have no effect at all as murder is inevitable and bears no relation to the availability of the simplest means of dealing it seems a little extreme, and disavows the crux of the issue. )

 

again, you missed my point.
The degree of hysteria surrounding gun deaths is disproportionate when compared to the death numbers from other things that don't elicit such emotional responses, alcohol for example.

 

no, i got that.

okay, we should give more of a shit about alcohol related deaths than we currently do. and economic complicity in death should be regarded as more heinous than it currently is, granted.

 

Terrorism may at the least pretend to have a purpose ,this is Insanity !

 

Oh no, not again -

This is just the old ‘natural born killers’ argument – that claims that it is not the easy with which guns kill or the ease of access to them that is the cause of the deaths but the much more violent and murderous nature of Americans.

This often seems to be the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens - that they’re so violent and murderous that the same amount of carnage would go on even without the ease of access to guns.

When you think your fellow citizens are like that it is no wonder that so many Americans are so frightened.

But why do they think that is it true?

Are Americans truly that different than other people, so much more violent and murderous?

Now if things are looked at in those terms (that Americans are murderous savages that are just waiting to kill people) then when crime figures are looked at they seem to back up that view.

For example

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city - Philadelphia – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions* (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

So the question is - are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons.

 

Now this is interesting – you are putting gun related murder on a level with accidents or errors.

So for example, the unintentional outcome of say slipping off a stool while reaching for something resulting in a knock to the head that kills you is exactly the same as someone pointing a gun, a weapon designed to maim and kill at someone and pulling the trigger?

OK let us look at ‘auto accidents’.

First the car is not a weapon designed specifically to kill and maim, it can cause injury to the driver and others but its function is as a means of transport.

Then it has to be said that there are many laws and regulations covering driving in place to try and reduce the numbers of accidents, are you suggesting similar rules and laws for gun ownership? For example in the UK you need a driving licence before you can drive, and to get one you have to pass examinations, I’ve suggested the same for gun ownership but this has often been rejected by gun supporters.

Are you suggesting gun licences and tests and examinations before being able to get one?

Also a lot can be done to lesson such auto accidents; one major development was the introducing of drink driving laws. If caught in driving after drinking you can be fined, jailed and you licences to drive taken away, maybe this could be extended to gun ownership?

That say if you are convicted of a drunk related offence you’d get banned from owning a gun maybe?

Again accident levels in UK urban areas have been reduced through traffic calming, road improvements etc, records are kept to spot accident hotspots so ways can be found to reduce them etc. And every year the car has to be checked to see if it is road worthy.

I think many of these things could be adapted to gun control and I have suggested some in the past.

Again interesting this seems to see gun related crime in the context of healthcare.

The thing is that things can be done to reduce the harm of such things.
In the UK a lot has been done to try and reduce smoking through public education programmes and legislation. All tobacco advertising and sponsorship on television has been banned within the European Union since 1991, and there have been a number of other restrictions on advertising since then. At the same time there are publically funded advertising promoting the benefits of giving up and programmes helping people to do so for the example the NHS gives out free nicotine replacement products.

I suppose some of these could be used in relation to guns.
[FONT=&quot]*


[/FONT]

 

Well here in South Jersey USA we have babies shooting babies; where in Toms River, NJ a Four Year old shot a Six year old in a back yard firearms accident. Law enforcement removed approx. 12 firearms from the house.

And of course everyone is devastated.

And yeah people here are dying from car accidents and overdoses, but this thread is about firearms.

We can propose all kinds of new legislation but folks need to respect the existing legislation and We need to enforce existing laws.

 

The NRA is a very powerful machine...pretty much comes down to lobbyists.

 

No,"terrorism" must be either politically or ideologically motivated.
Otherwise it's just plain ol' crime.

 

Terrorism ,if it means killing innosents, is crime. Motivation becomes irrelevant.

 

guns don't kill, people kill, people can kill without guns