Another Mass Shooting In The Us...

[wineguy999]

Just seen a short clip of a 13 year old boy in Virginia trying to buy a few products wearing a hidden camera. He was point blank refused service, and even laughed at, when he tried to buy beer, cigarettes, porn, and a lottery ticket. Then he went into a gun store. "Sure son, how many do you want?".

If you're referring to the same video I saw (sounds like it), the kid absolutely did not go into a gun store. He went to a private owner at a gun show.

Just keeping you honest.

 

[StevePalermo]

If you're referring to the same video I saw (sounds like it), the kid absolutely did not go into a gun store. He went to a private owner at a gun show.

Just keeping you honest.

Sorry for my 'dishonesty'. I didn't have my hearing aid in and heard 'show' as 'shop', very careless of me I admit, but my excuse is that I'm getting old. I'll reword my original post and replace 'shop' with 'place where he can legally purchase guns" I hope that will suffice! The point I was trying to make was the absurdity of allowing a child to purchase guns when it is illegal for him to buy a lottery ticket, as I'm sure you know. But thanks for putting me right. For those (not aiming this at you Wineguy) that believe supplying the next potential perpetrator of a Columbine type incident is acceptable, fair enough. Y'all can do some praying afterwards and everything will be all right.

Here's the clip if anyone is interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIFiJdw0uME

 

[StevePalermo]

And a voice of reason from the Senate:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/13/sen-chris-murphy-takes-apart-nra-s-good-guy-gun-lie/211541

"Or how about the study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that showed that people living in a house with a gun are 90 percent more likely to die from a homicide than people who live in a house without a gun?" I must admit I prefer studies from reputable independent research organisations than personal anecdotes when debating a subject like this.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

And a voice of reason from the Senate:

http://mediamatters....-gun-lie/211541

"Or how about the study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that showed that people living in a house with a gun are 90 percent more likely to die from a homicide than people who live in a house without a gun?" I must admit I prefer studies from reputable independent research organisations than personal anecdotes when debating a subject like this.

Hi StevePalermo,

I happen to agree 100% with your comments on kids buying firearms or kids picking up firearms in the house. No kid should ever "discover" a gun. It is murder by irresponsibility. And no kid should ever be able to buy a gun. I would expect that 100% of law-abiding gun owners would agree.

Regarding the study in the American Journal of Epidemiology, was there a causal relationship between gun ownership and homicide, or is there simply a correlation between the two variables? Are the people living in the house with a firearm more likely to die from the/a firearm, or is it all homicides? From personal experience and knowing the sheer number of people in the US who live with a gun in the house - like 80% of all rural America - I find the study results hard to believe.

I would think that if the study group was limited to inner city, and knowing the population of gangs in the inner city, that might make sense.

By the way, I find lots of study results that show that firearms create a 'safe environment" hard to believe, as well. I'm not partial.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

I just read through the American Journal of Epidemiology study on guns in the home, homicide and suicide risk. Where did you get the "90% more likely to die from homicide" part? If you were referring to a 90% confidence interval that doesn't mean there is a 90% increased risk of x variable. The confidence interval is the confidence of the odds ratio (OR).

Please read through the entire study, including the discussion and limitations at the end. It doesn't conclude what you reported here.

 

[StevePalermo]

I just read through the American Journal of Epidemiology study on guns in the home, homicide and suicide risk. Where did you get the "90% more likely to die from homicide" part? If you were referring to a 90% confidence interval that doesn't mean there is a 90% increased risk of x variable. The confidence interval is the confidence of the odds ratio (OR).

Please read through the entire study, including the discussion and limitations at the end. It doesn't conclude what you reported here.

I couldn't access the article directly and had to subscribe, I'm waiting for access atm. I took the quote from the article I linked. I assumed that a Senator quoting verbatim from a published source wouldn't misquote as he could be discredited pretty easily if he did. Maybe the NRA hasn't fact checked this speech yet. If Senator Murphy had got his facts wrong I'm sure we would have heard from the NRA by now.

As a statistician perhaps you could give us a critique on the otter statistic he quoted " the New England Journal of Medicine that showed that a gun in your house doesn’t make you less likely to be killed, it isn’t even risk neutral, having a gun in your home actually increases your chance of getting killed by a gun by anywhere from 40 percent to 170 percent". That is a pretty wide margin, but I have read similar studies over the years and all have similar conclusions. I've never seen one suggesting anything to the contrary.

 

[scotttswan]

Sorry for my 'dishonesty'. I didn't have my hearing aid in and heard 'show' as 'shop', very careless of me I admit, but my excuse is that I'm getting old. I'll reword my original post and replace 'shop' with 'place where he can legally purchase guns" I hope that will suffice! The point I was trying to make was the absurdity of allowing a child to purchase guns when it is illegal for him to buy a lottery ticket, as I'm sure you know. But thanks for putting me right. For those (not aiming this at you Wineguy) that believe supplying the next potential perpetrator of a Columbine type incident is acceptable, fair enough. Y'all can do some praying afterwards and everything will be all right.

Here's the clip if anyone is interested. https://www.youtube....h?v=PIFiJdw0uME

The USA is mental.

 

[Noesdeayer]

ejcot en argentina :
"The USA is mental" and Canada is also "mental" but about other things.
I am totally in favor of stronger gun control laws in the US.However,you read and commented about the "trigger happy" police shooting in Toronto I commented on a few weeks ago.Canadian police do,,indeed,have a smaller but real problem with using guns instead of persuasion in crime inforcement
When I hear that someone I meet whether alone or in a group is Canadian or Australian,a small amber light goes on in my mind-caution.I continue to make normal,civil conversation.However,I remain cautious due to numerous situations I have had in the past.More often than not,after a given amount of time the Canadian will begin to preach to me about something they percieve to be better in or about Canada than the US.This also happens to me with Austrailians but somewhat less.
In these situations,if I feel obligated, because in truth I'd rather avoid it,I give them the 2 main reasons that I feel Canada is in no position to preach.They are ;
1) The Canadian Gov't policy for temporary Mexican laborers who are contracted in Mexico as single individuals-not families,flown to Canada on Air Canada ,returned to Mexico and only once there are paid in Mexican pesos.If this policy has been changed,I stand corrected and profusely apologize.
2) The Canadian Supreme Court Ruling on the culpability of knowingly spreading HIV. by having unprotected sex with an uninfected person.An HIV positive person can not be prosecuted under Canadian law for doing the aforementioned which across the border in NY state is a criminal offense.
If both Canada and Australia had much larger populations and as many undocumented immigrants entering their countries by land crossing they just might have a few more problems like "the good old USA".

 

[semigoodlookin]

Apparently you think the same thing over and over again. When I refer to multiple media I am referring to major news networks, printed newspapers from around they US, and records gleaned from police reports. Hardly random websites. So, big whoop, Harvard has done firearms research. Did you know that the world doesn't revolve around just one website? Sure the website references different fields that research was done, so what?

You keep banging on these supposed "random" websites; would you consider the FBI who compiles firearms usage (and other weapons) data to be random? I don't; it's just one of many sites.

I'm not a member nor supporter of the NRA - but a retired public servant with 41+ years of experience in law enforcement including maritime law enforcement.

I don't know, perhaps it helps to see it from someone you are not arguing with. I have no side in this battle. However, yes, national news organizations are random, no matter how big the organization may be. A scientific study is much more reliable of course, I am not sure why you have failed to acknowledge it. Should a peer-reviewed study be treated as the definitive answer? No, but it should be a first port of call before heading to see what was reported on Fox, CNN, or whatever reputable news source you have in mind.

 

[cwo4uscgret]

Semigoodlooking - the question was raised saying to the effect that citizens with guns don't stop bad guys. They do.

On the issue of "scientific studies" especially on gun control/gun related issues for everyone stating one result there are probably two with differing opinions; and not from the NRA.

However I'm done ith this discussion other then there's an unanswered question I asked several times, quite appropriate to BAEXPATS - what will or can you do in BA if a violent criminal - with or without a gun but some weapon breaks into your home or apartment?