Side story on the recent gun spree

[Dayuhan]

Urban drug traffickers and gang bangers use handguns for obvious reasons. Most homicides are in the bad neighborhoods in urban areas. Crime in the US is not, repeat not, evenly distributed. It is concentrated in urban neighborhoods were civic society has collapsed.

Yes, that's why I suggested the urban/rural distinction as a reason why handguns are used more than rifles. I'm guessing that rifles are more heavily concentrated in rural areas.

Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

I'm guessing - and again, only a guess - that weapons intended for sporting use are more likely to be locked up, often with ammunition separately locked up, than weapons intended for defense, which would add a small level of opportunity for second thoughts.

I think a certain number of weapons nominally intended for "protection" are actually bought, owned, and all too often carried as ego props, as sort of a surrogate phallus. Typically this involves people who buy a gun but never bother to learn to use it. The ability to use it isn't that important to them, what they're after is the way having it makes them feel. That IMO is a dangerous combination.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of killings are actually planned, in any coherent sense. i dislike the term "crime of passion" because it sounds like an excuse, but arguments do get out of hand and people do stupid things when they are angry. It may be different there, but here the "typical" murder - you can find them in the newspaper on almost any given day - is an argument that got out of hand, and often involves friends, neighbors, or family. Alcohol is consistently involved. Whether or not these people are "evil" is open to interpretation, but I'm not sure their actions are planned.

[carl]

I'm guessing - and again, only a guess - that weapons intended for sporting use are more likely to be locked up, often with ammunition separately locked up, than weapons intended for defense, which would add a small level of opportunity for second thoughts.

Weapons are locked up, from my observation, for two reasons. The first is to keep the children from getting into unsupervised mischief when they are young. The second is to make it harder for burglars to steal them. Burglars LOVE guns more than just about anything because are easy to sell to other hoods. Nobody I ever knew stored ammo away from the gun for any reason other than convenience.

My point was killers don't have second thoughts about what they do. They want to do it. They don't snap. They kill because they want to. It makes them feel better. If they had a pile a parts and had to assemble the weapon they wouldn't have a second thought. They would just be ticked off at being inconvenienced. These aren't normal guys pushed too far. Normal guys pushed to far go and cool off at their brother's house. These are bad, bad people.

I think a certain number of weapons nominally intended for "protection" are actually bought, owned, and all too often carried as ego props, as sort of a surrogate phallus. Typically this involves people who buy a gun but never bother to learn to use it. The ability to use it isn't that important to them, what they're after is the way having it makes them feel. That IMO is a dangerous combination.

Perhaps they are used for ego props. But if they are I think that is going to be much more likely to be an action of a gang banger type. Yo, dude, I'm strapped. I'm something. That is the action of a a person who is already criminally disposed.

Most law abiding people buy weapons, in my opinion, because they are interested in shooting as a sport, hunting or protecting themselves or a combination thereof.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of killings are actually planned, in any coherent sense. i dislike the term "crime of passion" because it sounds like an excuse, but arguments do get out of hand and people do stupid things when they are angry. It may be different there, but here the "typical" murder - you can find them in the newspaper on almost any given day - is an argument that got out of hand, and often involves friends, neighbors, or family. Alcohol is consistently involved. Whether or not these people are "evil" is open to interpretation, but I'm not sure their actions are planned.

I hope Slap will get into this, but these actions don't come from nowhere. These killers almost always have a criminal past of some kind or a history of violence or something.. They aren't good guys. I read a book about the NYPD cold case squad and one of the detectives said most all killings have to do with face. The killer figured he got dissed and wants some back. Normal people don't murder because they got dissed.

I don't think much Filipino crime patterns have much to do with American ones.

[Firn]

Natural curiosity and technological opportunities have driven me again:

Urban–Rural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results

Objectives. We analyzed urban–rural differences in intentional firearm death.

Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141 US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category urban–rural variable.

Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide.

Conclusions. Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important a public health problem as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.

Firearm suicide rates showed an increasing trend from urban to rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 2.09 times the firearm suicide rate of the most urban counties before adjustment. After adjustment, the most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the firearm suicide rate of the most urban (P<.001). Conversely, firearm homicide rates showed a decreasing trend from urban to rural counties. The most urban counties experienced 3.04 times the firearm homicide rate of the most rural counties before adjustment. After adjustment, the most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the firearm homicide rate of the most rural counties (P<.001; Figures 1 [triangle] and 2 [triangle]).

This case shows pretty well the law of small numbers as it is called by Kahnemann, and why we should be aware of it. This is the reason why cancer rater are both highest and lowest in small. poor rural areas voting Republican. Homicides happen thankfully very rarely even in the US, making it difficult to get big numbers for small counties. It would have very interesting to see the study without those two:

Code 10 Completely rural or less than 2500 urban population, adjacent to a metro area. 8.1 1.1
Code 11 Completely rural or less than 2500 urban population, not adjacent to a metro area. 17.0 1.5

Those 25% percent of the US counties contain just 2% of the population, bringing in the fearsome law of small numbers big time into the study. If you look closely this would mean however that we completely loss the only completely rural population codes.

A second paper, Deadly Violence in the Heartland: Comparing Homicide Patterns in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties shows the very danger of this approach.

Similarly truncated variation may be found with other variables commonly associatedwith homicide, including poverty and percentage of the population that is African American (Kposowa & Breault, 1993). By including rural cases in the study of homicide, many problems resulting from truncated variation can be resolved. Significantly,the authors also found that of the 30 United States counties withthe highest homicide rates, 23 had populations of fewer than 20,000 people. Thus, although the most rural counties had lower homicide rates overall, there was substantial variation amongrural counties in the rate of homicide, a range of variation unmatched in purely metropolitan samples.

Later there is a nod to that problem...

A second impediment is methodological and reflects the added measurement difficulties of including rural areas in analyses because of their small populations and relatively small number of rare but important events, such as homicide. The results of this study affirm that including such areas is analytically, as well as empirically, important.

Time has run out. So I just will throw a couple of questions into the virtual room about crime (and guns). Tend certain crimes to be more of an urban problem because it is there 'where the money is'? Do rural and semi-rural areas lack a critical mass of say young men and good criminal business opportunities? Does a demographic adjustment with age groups in mind change relationships between more or less urban counties?

[slapout9]

Slap probably has great experience in dealing with lethal domestics so I would be interested in what he has to say but, I think if a guy (and they are almost always guys) decides to take a domestic to a lethal level, it is not a spur of the moment decision. He has made the decision over the course of time and then carries it out. Loaded and convenient makes no difference. Besides, it take a whopping few seconds to load any cartridge firearm.

Same thing goes with neighborhood disputes.

Killers don't just 'snap'. That is a misconception promulgated by defense attorneys to garner sympathy for their clients. Killers have a history and they make the decision. They are evil. They are not 'there but for the grace of God go I' types. They make the decision, do the deed and are glad they did. They do regret being caught.

I would say DV Homicides are all planned, never heard or seen one that wasn't, often over a fairly long period of time. Never heard of a snap I think I will kill my wife, or other close relative, just a big myth. That is correct they absolutely DO NOT SNAP!!!!It is more like the "straw that broke the camels back." The pressure builds and builds until it blows.

[slapout9]

I hope Slap will get into this, but these actions don't come from nowhere. These killers almost always have a criminal past of some kind or a history of violence or something.. They aren't good guys. I read a book about the NYPD cold case squad and one of the detectives said most all killings have to do with face. The killer figured he got dissed and wants some back. Normal people don't murder because they got dissed.

Just take a look at the most recent school shooting. The suspect had a long history of mental problems and had been in and out of treatment until his mother became so disenchanted with the supposed treatments she attempted to take care of her child herself. Hopefully more will come out about the total lack of appropriate public psychiatric care in this country.

Dr. Park Dietz has been one of the lone forensic Psychiatrist with the courage to come out against the Republican budget cutters who are the REAL PROBLEM to the mass violence problem, not gun control and not the NRA. As Dietz has bravely pointed out this started with the Reagan revolution to destroy the public mental health system and give tax cuts to rich people and has continued on to create the problem we have now, up to the point where we basically no longer have a public mental health system worth anything.

If you haven't noticed this is real sore spot with me. To include my own Governor who just recently closed one of the last physical mental health hospitals that LE would have access to as far as getting people the treatment they needed and keeping THE PUBLIC TRULY SAFE by controlling sick people and criminals instead of this left over commie gun control stuff. The greatest threat to Americans is not people with guns it is pinheads with college degrees that can make or influence public policy in this country.

Since the most recent shooting several people have asked for my opinions and advice and I still give the same advice which is something I learned long ago from a training officer. "Never fear the weapon, but always fear the man, because a man can always find a weapon" still very true and still very good advice. The only thing I would add is to be especially scared of people with college degrees that think they are smarter and know what is best for you and know more about making the proper policies of this country............they don't.

Roll Tide....

[Ken White]

However, in fairness to the Politicians, Republican and Democratic, their failures in this regard were broadly supported. One shouldn't forget that the Psychiatric and Psychologist communities were broadly but actively and decisively supportive of that dismantling for 'professional' -- or financial due to our terribly flawed medical insurance model (and the ever changing, ever interesting DSM) -- reasons...

Like any foul up, there's egg for a lot of faces

[carl]

Slap:

To further what Ken said, the de-instutionalzation (sic) movement was in full force long before Reagan came. It started just after WWII gained steam in the 50s and 60s (thank you Ken Kesey) and really took off in the 70s.

http://www.crimeandjustice.org/councilinfo.cfm?pID=55

[Firn]

However, in fairness to the Politicians, Republican and Democratic, their failures in this regard were broadly supported. One shouldn't forget that the Psychiatric and Psychologist communities were broadly but actively and decisively supportive of that dismantling for 'professional' -- or financial due to our terribly flawed medical insurance model (and the ever changing, ever interesting DSM) -- reasons...

Like any foul up, there's egg for a lot of faces

I wonder what kind of system is in place in the US to help persons with mental problems and thus also society as a whole. Here in Italy, as far as I know it is not seen as terribly effective and it is very difficult to 'measure' that 'objectively'. The recent cuts have also put considerable strain on it.*

*Public organisation seem sometimes more prone to cut effective elements to make a statement for more funds rather then becoming more efficient. I have no idea if this is the case right now.

Homicide Trends in the U.S

As it is per a 10000 capita, the demographic change is partly fitted in. I guess the urban population is younger, which would affect of course the rate of urban homicide relative the rural ones and thus also gun violence.



The urban areas certainly suffer much more from various crime forms.



The biggest differences:

..................Urban Small City Sub-urban Rural
Drug related 67.4% 9.9% 18.1% 4.5%
Gang related 69.3% 13.1% 16.9% 0.7%

Intimate 40.7% 14.5% 28.0% 16.8%
Family 38.7% 13.2% 29.1% 19.0%
Workplace 31.4% 13.4% 37.2% 17.9%

Note: Large cities have a population of 100,000 or more while small cities have a population of less than 100,000.

[Firn]

As I have too much images posted I have to double-post:

Check how the overall fall in handgun homicides coincides with the fall of homicides in larger cities. There are of course other factors at work, but there seems to be a pretty strong relationship, which would be not surprise much. To honest it looks like too good of a fit which makes me almost doubt graph 1. I guess that is the result if you had correct the works/papers of other students...

[Firn]

A look at Canada:

Study: A comparison of urban and rural crime rates

Of the 658 homicides in Canada in 2005 with a known location, 427 were committed in large urban areas, 95 in small urban areas and 135 in rural areas.

Taking population into account, the homicide rate of 2.5 homicides per 100,000 people in rural areas was actually higher than the rate of 2.0 in large urban areas and the rate of 1.7 in small urban areas. This pattern has held constant over the past decade.

However, robbery and motor vehicle theft were much more likely to occur in big cities than in small cities or rural areas. The robbery rate for large urban areas was more than double that for small urban areas and almost 10 times that for rural areas. The motor vehicle theft rate in large urban areas was about 25% higher than in small urban areas and 80% higher than in rural areas.

If you read the bit about the laws of small numbers and keep in mind the differences in (medical) infrastructure between the larger urban areas compared to say rural areas then you will be quite careful at reading too much into this result as well. It is much safer from a statistical point of view to work with (much) larger samples. So it is important to be sceptical when faced with this kind of graphs - without going too far into the other extreme.

Handguns are the firearm of choice in big-city homicides

In 2005, just over one-third of all homicides in both large urban areas and rural areas were committed with a firearm, compared with less than one-quarter of homicides in small urban areas.

Handguns were the weapon of choice in large urban areas, used in 76% of all firearm homicides. In rural areas, rifles or shotguns were the most prevalent; they were used in 65% of firearm homicides.

Weapons more common in large urban areas in Quebec and Ontario

In Quebec and Ontario, the only provinces where data on weapon use in violent crimes were available for both urban and rural areas, about 1 in 6 violent incidents involved a weapon of some sort, most commonly a knife.

Weapons were present more frequently in large urban areas than in small urban areas and rural areas of these two provinces. About 1 in 5 violent incidents in large urban areas involved a weapon, compared with about 1 in 8 in small urban areas and rural areas.

The proportion of violent crimes involving a firearm was about two to three times higher in large urban areas. In 2005, 3.2% of violent crimes in the large urban areas of Quebec and Ontario involved a firearm, compared to 1.1% in small urban areas and 1.4% in rural areas.

When a firearm was present, handguns were more prevalent in large urban areas than in the other areas. Handguns were used in three-quarters of crimes committed with a firearm in big cities compared to about half in small cities and one-third in rural areas.

The difference between the use of firearms in homicides between Canada and the US is very considerable indeed. Firearms account for the clear majority of US homicides, while in Candada it is roughly a third. Rifles and shotguns seemed to used much more in relative terms in rural Canada compared to the US but we need more data on that.

Note to readers

Large urban areas are defined as Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs). A CMA represents one or more adjacent municipalities centered on an urban core of at least 100,000 persons. Based on police boundaries, large urban areas accounted for 65.5% of the Canadian population in 2005.

Small urban areas are defined as any urban area not part of a CMA that has a minimum population of 1,000 persons and a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometer. Small urban areas accounted for 17.4% of the population in 2005.

Rural areas are defined as all areas of the country not falling into either the large urban or small urban categories. In 2005, rural areas accounted for 17.1% of the population.

All in all it is remarkable how little violence is done by so many humans with so many weapons. The drop in homicides in larger cities, especially those over a 1,000,000 is highly interesting and IIRC another topic discussed it already. NYC and Los Angeles account of course for a majority of the population of those 9 cities with the effectivness of it's policies having a massive impact on the aggregate.

[KenWats]

Dr. Park Dietz has been one of the lone forensic Psychiatrist with the courage to come out against the Republican budget cutters who are the REAL PROBLEM to the mass violence problem, not gun control and not the NRA. As Dietz has bravely pointed out this started with the Reagan revolution to destroy the public mental health system and give tax cuts to rich people and has continued on to create the problem we have now, up to the point where we basically no longer have a public mental health system worth anything.

A bit of a thread derailment, and I apologize in advance.

As a man whose wife has worked as a psychologist in both a State Prison and now, a State Mental Institution, I can agree with you that the system needs to be improved somehow. It's scary and sad to me who ends up out in the community. It's also very surprising to me who ends up "sane enough for trial". There's a lot of crazy in prison. Also, a lot of sane jerks (she uses a different word) trying to look like they're crazy. I don't know which stories she tells me are funnier.

[slapout9]

However, in fairness to the Politicians, Republican and Democratic, their failures in this regard were broadly supported. One shouldn't forget that the Psychiatric and Psychologist communities were broadly but actively and decisively supportive of that dismantling for 'professional' -- or financial due to our terribly flawed medical insurance model (and the ever changing, ever interesting DSM) -- reasons...

Like any foul up, there's egg for a lot of faces

You know something, as usual You are absolutely right!!!! My own Governor, who I voted for, is not just a Republican, but he is a Doctor.... a Medical Doctor!! and he went to the only proper University in the world, The University of Alabama but he thinks what he did is a good thing....I just can't figure these people out, somehow they think by simply ignoring and not properly funding things that somehow things are just going to magically fix themsleves......it's the invisible hand theory of Mental Health and the role of Government.

[slapout9]

A bit of a thread derailment, and I apologize in advance.

As a man whose wife has worked as a psychologist in both a State Prison and now, a State Mental Institution, I can agree with you that the system needs to be improved somehow. It's scary and sad to me who ends up out in the community. It's also very surprising to me who ends up "sane enough for trial". There's a lot of crazy in prison. Also, a lot of sane jerks (she uses a different word) trying to look like they're crazy. I don't know which stories she tells me are funnier.

Not a derailment at all!!! It is spot on, and it is much more of a step to finding a solution then just saying...... It's all the Guns fault it!

[slapout9]

Everybody needs to watch this for some real truth about gun violence.
You are far more likely to be killed by a medical error than any type of gun violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK7WrsnuDPc

[Fuchs]

Everybody needs to watch this for some real truth about gun violence.
You are far more likely to be killed by a medical error than any type of gun violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK7WrsnuDPc

Rankings of causes of death are useful for a rational allocation of attention (I attempt to divert attention away from errorists with 'em).

This specific video on the other hand has a strong smell of propaganda and partiality.

[streamfortyseven]

Gun prohibition only works if there aren't many guns in circulation to begin with, and it's quick and easy for law enforcement/military to pick up those guns, and the law enforcement/military people aren't corrupt or infiltrated by criminals. For example, Mexico has nearly absolute gun control, with only one legal gun store in the country, but it's pretty easy to get a gun (illegally) there - you just go to a cop, pay the requisite amount of money and the cop delivers the gun and ammo to your door, and he'll even teach you how to fire it. There's a separate marketplace for drug gangs, some of which have infiltrated the army or local police forces, or both.

That's not the situation in the US, we have an estimated 300 million guns in circulation, almost one for every person in the US. A "War on Guns" would have the same success as the "War on Drugs" and enforcement would be costly in terms of dollars and human lives, not to speak of the political effects amongst the population. With gun prohibition, there'd probably be a resurgent militia movement, and troops going house to house to seize guns might kick off a domestic insurgency, especially if people were killed in the process.

School shooters tend to be individuals who are socially isolated, odd, intelligent, and who have been severely bullied, and it's that last part which is not really being mentioned in the most recent controversy. In the case of Adam Lanza, when he was still in school, when he'd walk down the hall, if he encountered students walking towards him, he'd flatten himself against the wall, and hold his briefcase up in such a manner as to shield himself. It strikes me that this is a learned behavior - probably he'd been repeatedly punched.

A rabbi in Newtown stated that:

I personally know from a classmate and neighbor of Adam Lanza that he was brilliant, odd and severely bullied.

From:http://www.thejewishweek.com/editori...cies-are-vital)

Lanza was referred to a school psychologist because it was thought that he *might* be a target for bullies, but it strikes me that there is a good amount of denial going on here, in retrospect. Instead, Lanza, like the other school shooters, is characterized as "evil" and the blame is set squarely on him. That's the easy way out.

Here's another case which, thankfully, did not result in a school shooting:

I stood out like a black thumb; I was the most bizarre-looking kid in town. My style was met with equal parts disgust and fascination by my classmates, and the bullying predictably escalated—I was verbally and physically assaulted on a regular basis, receiving death threats at least once a month. Teachers not only didn’t bother to defend me, they would often chime in with comments about my appearance, maybe in an effort to impress the more popular kids, who were usually the offspring of the grown townspeople with high standing in the community.

The bullying was not only halted by the people whose job it was to do such things, it was actively encouraged. Once again, the victim of the bullying was sent to the school psychologist:

I was also informed that I was emotionally disturbed and I was ordered to undergo sessions with the school therapist twice a week. I hated him. He was smarmy and condescending, and when I told him I was tired of being harassed he told me that the other kids were just blowing off steam, that their reactions were normal. He also claimed that people probably weren’t picking on me as much as I imagined. When he walked me out after that session, two people yelled “psycho” at me in front of him.

The bullying didn't stop, with this result:

Thus, my clothing and behavior became increasingly bizarre—I felt that upping the ante was the only reasonable solution to the cards I had been dealt. I wanted to create a persona that would help to minimize my harassment, which I figured would be a hyper-real, meaner version of myself. I grew tired of trying to do damage control so I figured I may as well give them what they wanted. Every step I took caused a scene—all I had to do was show up at a school function and people would get visibly upset. I once made a brief 15-minute appearance at a formal dance wearing a short silver dress, and those 15 minutes resulted in weeks of chatter—tales of my “insane” dress circulated until it was said that it had spikes and squares sticking out of it. It was like being a celebrity. A PTA meeting was held, and one of the topics debated was whether I could be banned from all dances and after-school functions.

Luckily, she was able to get out of that town, and get some insight as to what she had gone through, and was able to make a decent life for herself. Here's the whole article: http://www.vice.com/read/i-was-a-sus...school-shooter

It's not gun control which needs to be addressed here, because desperate people, people driven crazy with a need for revenge, will always find a means to bring it about. Mental health screenings might help, but as above, if the underlying causes of the problem are not addressed, those will be of little use as well.

[carl]

Welcome aboard streamfortyseven.

Many, many people are bullied in school. Not many turn into criminal murderers. To that extent the bullying victims who turn to mass murder can, and in my opinion should, be considered evil. They most certainly are cowardly. The planning and execution of their crimes show that with certainty.

I don't know how many of these criminals have been bullied. I do know that the two criminals who murdered at Colombine were not. Within the school crowd they fit in pretty well. The problem was one of them was very well developed psychopath/sociopath and the other was a follower. They formed one of those criminal pairs that sometimes occur.

The approaches to bullying that I have read about go after the wrong targets. Bullies can't be got to. They have to much fun doing it to give it up sans some kind of immediate penalty or possibility of an immediate penalty. Adults won't be on the scene when they are needed. I think what should be concentrated on are the good kids and this is where the adults come in.

The adults, teachers and parents, should make it clear that we are all our brothers keeper and if somebody is bullied somebody else should stand up for them. There is honor in that. Honor in the strong protecting the weak. That is the key to the thing. For if the bullies know that some of the other kids are going to intervene if they cross the line, they won't do it.

My Mom told me a story once about bullying. She was in 5th or 6th grade and was walking home with my aunt who was two years younger. They saw a 7th or 8th grade boy picking on a 2nd grade girl. They told him to knock it off or else. He didn't think much of that coming from two girls so he continued bullying. They then lit into him beat him some. He stopped his bullying. That is the kind of thing that should be encouraged.

(The 8th grade boy told his brother that the bruises on his face came from a fall. His brother was friends with my uncle and when my uncle heard the 'fall' story he said 'Well let me tell you what really happened.' That 8th grade boy didn't do much bullying after that.)

The other thing that can work is teaching the bullying victims to fight. I don't mean turning them into Seagal, I mean some judo or boxing lessons. That gives them just enough confidence that they are more likely to stand their ground which has a hugely dissuasive effect on bullies, who are cowards.

Adults can help with that too. Another story, I like stories.

My aunt (see above) was a phys ed teacher in the 60s and 70s. She taught the boys boxing and set up some intramural matches. She, not by accident, matched a bully with his victim. The victim had the advantage of some fighting lessons and a situation that encouraged him to fight. He whaled on the bully. Of course my aunt didn't happen to see any infractions that might have been committed against the bully. "Ain't ya gonna call that?" "Shut up and fight." The bully didn't pick on the former victim after that.

Those old fashioned things worked. I don't know if they can be done any more.

[carl]

This specific video on the other hand has a strong smell of propaganda and partiality.

Here ya go Fuchs. A Wall Street Journal article quite soberly written. 98,000 annual deaths in the US from preventable medical mistakes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...334441352.html

[Firn]

As Fuchs says proper ranking is important to support an efficient allocation of ressources. I remarked how little homicides are actually comitted with the vast arsenal of firearms dispersed in Western countries. Still far far more then by terrorists but overall we have surprisingly peaceful societies, at least compared to the some in which our ancestors lived.

In this context the graphics I posted show that for some reasons gun homicides dropped a great deal roughly twenty years ago. Almost all of it is due to fewer killings done with handguns in bigger cities, especially the biggest, with both the victim and shooter relative likely to have a criminal record. From a police and political point of view curbing this type of homocide should be the 'easiest' to target for obvious reasons. In this case focused gun control and police/government action can be quite efficient.

It is much more difficult to curb the type of shooting which has restarted the debate about gun laws. Far fewer dots to connect, no links to typical criminals. Health care and social support are of great importance. A low amount of firearms per capita makes it obviously much harder for such mentally disturbed persons to do such terrible things, but in a country like the US simply the vast amount of firearms in circulation makes it very difficult that moderate laws reduced that risk by a significant degree. (Especially since the most commone homicide weapon is a simple, run-of-the-mill handgun which works well enough without some easily banable evil feature.) The harsh UK approach on handguns must have consumed very considerable public ressources. Maybe somebody with knowledge on it could step in.

[Fuchs]

The focus on 'assault weapons' is probably a cultural one.

"Team pro AR-15" appears to have in part a mindset that the a powerful government if powerful against its people, not for its people. They seek to weaken this government by making themselves more powerful, albeit hoarding mere rifles is clearly an illusory attempt at it.

The less extreme part of "Team pro AR-15" seems to have simply developed a huge affection for warlike and automatic weapons, and the area of convergence seems to be the market for the 'tacticool' equipment that flooded the arms market after the appearance of the picatinny rail (and thus the realization that guns can be pimped by laymen, too). Same for "hello kitty" or generally pink-themed AR-15s.


Team "counter AR-15" doesn't see an actual use for such weapons except killing people. They don't have an affection for the guns and seem to prefer the modern European view that in a civilised country the individual gives up his armament (so for example doesn't carry a dagger when he enters a bar as was usual only 200 years ago even in European metropolises). They bet instead on being safer when others aren't armed to the teeth because the state has a monopoly on force and almost-monopoly on firearms. A conversion to this state is probably hopeless with about 200 million firearms in private hands, but the least tolerable threat -the 'assault weapons' - is a logical target for an at least partial implementation.
They don't stare at their own (non-existing)AR-15 as provider of security, but are scared by the others' AR-15s as sources of insecurity.


There also seems to be a rural-urban divide, with rural people having good reasons to not trust the timely reaction of government security officials in case of emergency and having good practical uses for firearms (hunting, self-protection against animals). Urban people meanwhile have emergency services ~ 5 minutes away (or could at least), not going hunting much but experiencing a lot of firearm-empowered crime (on their TV screen).
___________

I wonder why the U.S. got the crime and firearms thing so wrong. I've yet to hear about rural Frenchmen placing much emphasis on having semi-auto spitzer bullet carbines (and they're got some really lonely places!).
Quite the same goes for Canada; they don't happen to have such a huge conflict either as far as I know.