Six Sigma, collect the data, drill down to the finest resolution you can, i.e. what specific types of firearms, number of deaths, individual circumstances relating to the deaths etc. identify the common factors and address these. Be impartial and ruthless in the process as often the assumed cause is different to what you expect. Identify your overall problem and then define the scope of what you need to do, are you trying to stop all killings, just firearm related killings or even more specifically mass killings using firearms. Different problems have different solutions.
Ways and means to prevent a future mass active shooter incident in the US
- Thread starter Todjaeger
- Start date
- Status
An example that comes to mind of what I am suggesting in the need for research and analysis is the post WWII cancer epidemic. A spike in the number of cases and deaths from cancer was noticed post WWII, there was a level of concern, in some areas almost panic, many different things were blamed; atmospheric nuclear testing etc. the root cause was determined to be a dramatic increase in tobacco consumption, yet people still argue that point. The interesting thing is a correlation between cancer and tobacco use was identified over 250 years ago before smoking became popular and well before cigarettes were issued to service personnel and them being encouraged to smoke to help their nerves etc. Real hard data had to be developed and analysed before anything was done and even now people still argue the point. http://med.stanford.edu/biostatistics/abstract/RobertProctor_paper1.pdf
Mitigation to prevent innocent people from becoming victims included restricting where and when people who choose to smoke can smoke dramatically reducing the exposure of those who choose not to. Education programs to discourage people from smoking at all have also had an impact.
What needs to happen is the problem needs to be identified and the people shown the facts for them to decide what they need to do or more to the point what they will support their government doing for the greater good.
Mitigation to prevent innocent people from becoming victims included restricting where and when people who choose to smoke can smoke dramatically reducing the exposure of those who choose not to. Education programs to discourage people from smoking at all have also had an impact.
What needs to happen is the problem needs to be identified and the people shown the facts for them to decide what they need to do or more to the point what they will support their government doing for the greater good.
Motor vehicle accidents are another killer that comes to mind. Evidence shows that alcohol consumption impairs a persons ability to safely operate machinery yet it took years to change attitudes and while some people still do it most realise it is stupid and dangerous. A key result on regulation and enforcement has been a reduction in the overall road toll.
Here is something I understand very well, wearing seat belts in motor vehicles saves lives. If you are properly restrained in the event of an accident your injuries will be less severe than if you are unrestrained in the same accident. It could be argued that you need to prevent all accidents from occurring rather than having to wear seat belts but the fact is prevent all accidents is not on the cards anytime soon so mitigation is the name of the game. You do what you can when you can to reduce the risk.
Don’t get me started on the current government initiatives to reduce the road toll through targeting even low level “speeding” though or I will rapidly take on the persona that would make the most ardent NRA supporter blush. I do understand where you guys are coming from, you are being attacked because of the actions of an individual over which you had no control who did something you would never do. You are being ranted and raved at by many who are clueless and have no right to tell you what to do, they are not supported by data or analysis, they have an agenda and cherry pick facts to support their arguments while ignoring equally valid facts that support your stance.
This is where real unbiased analysis is required, this is where the nutters on both sides of the argument (be it gun control, climate change, road toll etc.) need to be side lined and reasonable people need to look at the data and what it tells us. By all means take obvious action to mitigate harm but what really needs to happen is the Pareto 80/20 rule needs to be applied, find the 20% that causes 80% of the problem and address that. It may well turn out to be limiting magazine capacities gets you 80% there, it may not. Same for annual psyche testing for permit holders or restriction on specific types of weapons, again I don’t know. The thing is I don’t think anyone really knows, which is why the research and analysis has to happen, identify the factors that have the greatest impact and address those.
Here is something I understand very well, wearing seat belts in motor vehicles saves lives. If you are properly restrained in the event of an accident your injuries will be less severe than if you are unrestrained in the same accident. It could be argued that you need to prevent all accidents from occurring rather than having to wear seat belts but the fact is prevent all accidents is not on the cards anytime soon so mitigation is the name of the game. You do what you can when you can to reduce the risk.
Don’t get me started on the current government initiatives to reduce the road toll through targeting even low level “speeding” though or I will rapidly take on the persona that would make the most ardent NRA supporter blush. I do understand where you guys are coming from, you are being attacked because of the actions of an individual over which you had no control who did something you would never do. You are being ranted and raved at by many who are clueless and have no right to tell you what to do, they are not supported by data or analysis, they have an agenda and cherry pick facts to support their arguments while ignoring equally valid facts that support your stance.
This is where real unbiased analysis is required, this is where the nutters on both sides of the argument (be it gun control, climate change, road toll etc.) need to be side lined and reasonable people need to look at the data and what it tells us. By all means take obvious action to mitigate harm but what really needs to happen is the Pareto 80/20 rule needs to be applied, find the 20% that causes 80% of the problem and address that. It may well turn out to be limiting magazine capacities gets you 80% there, it may not. Same for annual psyche testing for permit holders or restriction on specific types of weapons, again I don’t know. The thing is I don’t think anyone really knows, which is why the research and analysis has to happen, identify the factors that have the greatest impact and address those.
A bit of back ground. I am not an anti gun zealot and to be honest am not anti gun at all. I used to actively involved in competition shooting in the Army and then in civilian life and once the kids are older and I have the spare time and money (and also grow the balls to defy she who wears the pants) I will likely get back into it.
When I was actively involved in shooting as a sport, a mentally disturbed relative with an extensive criminal record would often call around the house. As a result I never stored ammunition at home and rarely ever had a gun at home preferring secure storage at the club. I never, not even once had a gun at home when I was not. Risk mitigation, I knew he would flip out one day and if he had access to a gun people would die. He has flipped out a number of times and has never, fortunately, had a gun at the time. It has actually saved him too as if he had been armed with a gun while going through an episode the police would have been justified in shooting him.
Back on to the issue at hand, you have to ask would / could this have happened if Lanzas mother been more responsible i.e like Blaec Lammers's mother Blaec Lammers's mothers foils Twilight film massacre at Bolivar cinema in Missouri | News.com.au
Maybe that is part of the solution, family friends, colleagues need to step up and say hey this person I care about is not well and he has guns. This could be the cultural change that is needed the acknowledgement that the 2nd amendment should not be used to protect the rights of an individual who is a danger to themselves and others.
When I was actively involved in shooting as a sport, a mentally disturbed relative with an extensive criminal record would often call around the house. As a result I never stored ammunition at home and rarely ever had a gun at home preferring secure storage at the club. I never, not even once had a gun at home when I was not. Risk mitigation, I knew he would flip out one day and if he had access to a gun people would die. He has flipped out a number of times and has never, fortunately, had a gun at the time. It has actually saved him too as if he had been armed with a gun while going through an episode the police would have been justified in shooting him.
Back on to the issue at hand, you have to ask would / could this have happened if Lanzas mother been more responsible i.e like Blaec Lammers's mother Blaec Lammers's mothers foils Twilight film massacre at Bolivar cinema in Missouri | News.com.au
Maybe that is part of the solution, family friends, colleagues need to step up and say hey this person I care about is not well and he has guns. This could be the cultural change that is needed the acknowledgement that the 2nd amendment should not be used to protect the rights of an individual who is a danger to themselves and others.
Agree entirely. Australia did not ban guns just ownership of certain type. Further to own a gun it must be secure to limit the risk that it may fall into the hands of those not permitted to use a gun.
The other bit is concealed carriage, fine for the law but why is it 'necessary' for the general public.
One thing about this topic is it has shown quite clearly the cultural differences between the Australian Nation and those American Nations represented here (probably predominately Appalachian). Where the Americans see the threat of crime as something an individual has to respond to armed in his household the Australians see the solution as a collective one based on wider societal organisation. The amazing thing is these cultural differences were established long ago via such things as the crisis organisation of the starving convict colony in Sydney and the individualist defences of the log cabins of Scots-Irish borderers pioneering across into Indian Appalachia. The dictum of first effective settlement means the rest of us inherit these cultural norms. Fascinating stuff.
Indeed and that's been my point all along. I don't advocate a complete ban on firearms in the USA or anywhere else, even Australia. I've no problem at all with responsible gun ownership, being a former sporting shooter (IPSC matches) myself.
The problem is irresponsible gun ownership and use and the tools of the trade for the irresponsible are invariably handguns and large magazine semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
I've also previously opined that a whole raft of societal changes appear to be needed in the USA from legislative down to cultural acceptance changes. Reducing the "crazies" access to firearms however definitely has to be part of the solution though and not just the mass shooting types, but even suicidal types. They need help other than that, which found down the barrel of a weapon too...
Actually Appalachia is a relatively small, and under populated, area. It is statistically unlikely that more than 1 person on this board hails from there.
In the US major metropolitan areas strongly support gun control, the rural areas strongly oppose it, and the suburban areas split about 60-40 against. Part of the difference I suspect lies in the perception of what a gun is and is used for. When you say ‘gun’ city dwellers usually thing criminal with handgun in a stickup, while rural people think rifle and the 1st day of deer season.
As for the “the individualist defences of the log cabins of Scots-Irish borderers pioneering across into Indian Appalachia”, that is mostly Hollywood hype. I am not saying that it didn’t happen, but it wasn’t that important. Guns, specifically long guns, were 1st and foremost a way to put food on the table, and it many rural areas still are.
“Appalachia” is a widely accepted name for a cultural nation of America that stretches from Pennsylvania to north Texas and southern Illinois. “Borderlander” is another widely accepted name for this nation. Cultural geography is a serious social science that has had in America huge funding boosts in recent years from political campaign professionals looking for some serious research. Some of the results are startling especially just how strong these nations are in aligning a whole range of social values.
“American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America” by Colin Woodard is the current go to book on this topic.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #90
Umm no Abe, it is not. Appalachia, at least as it is commonly thought of, refers to certain hilly/mountainous areas of the Eastern United States whose primary geologic features are the Appalachian Mountain Range, or one of the subsidiary ranges. More specifically, since the Apalachian Mountains run essentially parallel to the eastern seaboard from Georgia north to Maine, the region known as Appalachia is usually referring to the more remote central and southern regions of the Appalachian Mountains. It would usually be thought of as covering parts of northern Alabama and Georgia, northwestern South Carolina, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, eastern Kentucky, western Virginia, and much of West Virginia.
I have never heard of anything north of the Mason - Dixon Line being considered part of Appalachia, nor anything on the western side of the Mississippi. Some people might have chosen to name such areas as part of Appalachia, but those areas are certainly not what comes to mind when someone mentions Appalachia to most Americans. Having been to all those areas excepting Illinois, Texas is quite different, in terms of terrain, climate and personality, from what can be found along the Appalchians Mountains, and having backpacked over 1,100 miles along the Appalachian Trail which runs along the Appalachians, there is a distinct difference between what can be found north of Harpers Ferry, WV and points south of that.
EDIT: Slight correction, I have also not been in northern Alabama or eastern Tennessee.
It is in cultural geography. Which BTW is a little bit different to physical geography. But I'm sure that you would have read my post and got the point.
BTW cultural geographers are pretty thorough in their assessments of local culture and plotting it on maps, far more so than a typical backpacker.
In Ameria we have the Appalachian mountains. There is an Appalachian culture that is unique, and fairly small. Mr. Woodard chose to use the term Appalachian to paint with a broad brush however to Americans, Appalachian describes a very specific culture and region most frequently associated with the term "hillbilly". Tidewater? Ask an American if they are from Tidewater and they will look at you like you have a 3rd eye. You may not understand this fully but your comment that many of us here are probably from Appalachia would be preceived by us as an insult ie we are uneducated backwards living people from the hills of Appalchia. Those people exist, they are small in number and probably aren't going to have a computer and if they do, will call it an "interwebs machine" or something like that.
I'm from Michigan so according to Woodard, a Yankee. Toadjaeger is from Connecticut and you don't get more Yankee than that. Woodard's using terms that have had a deep rooted and understood meaning for centuries and given them new meaning, for the sake of describing broad culture. Don't be surprised if when discussing culture with Americans they don't understand what you're talking about because very few people have ever heard of Collin Woodard or the names of various "cultures" he has rebranded with old and new names.
I'm from Michigan so according to Woodard, a Yankee. Toadjaeger is from Connecticut and you don't get more Yankee than that. Woodard's using terms that have had a deep rooted and understood meaning for centuries and given them new meaning, for the sake of describing broad culture. Don't be surprised if when discussing culture with Americans they don't understand what you're talking about because very few people have ever heard of Collin Woodard or the names of various "cultures" he has rebranded with old and new names.
Yeah fair enough. Personally I think the original national name, in line with the first effective settlement, is the best so “Yankeedom” would be “Puritan New England” and “Deep South” would be “Barbadian Carolina” but that might just be as confusing. The “Borderlander” term is probably better than “Appalachia” as that is a geographic term and the former explains the settlement origin (British and Irish borderer populations) as well as location. But all this is gold for outsiders trying to understand why America is so heterogeneous. Especially a place like Australia which despite its huge size and low population density has almost no noteworthy regional variations.
And for the sake of conversation I'm not saying I disagree with Woodard.
I think folks believe Americans are fairly homogenous. In reallity we are probably more like western europe with a common language. My neighbor was over today, she immigrated from South Africa 5 years ago. I asked her how America compared to what she expected. She said she didn't reallize that the laws of each state would be so different and that they are almost like their own countries. She was also surprised by the level of freedom we enjoy.
I think folks believe Americans are fairly homogenous. In reallity we are probably more like western europe with a common language. My neighbor was over today, she immigrated from South Africa 5 years ago. I asked her how America compared to what she expected. She said she didn't reallize that the laws of each state would be so different and that they are almost like their own countries. She was also surprised by the level of freedom we enjoy.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Interesting that you bring up South Africans.
From the info that I have, there are approximately 160,000 South Africans living here in Australia (second only to the UK with 200k+), in the US there are approximately 80,000, roughly double living here in Australia compared to the USA.
And a lot of them have chosen to live here in Sydney, I know quite a few and have worked with many too.
Here are some stat on gun deaths on some selected countries:
Statistics on Gun Violence in South Africa
Yes they are figures from 1998, but interesting all the same.
I'll repeat the stats below:
Country..........Firearm homicides..........Per 100,000 of population
Australia..................64...................................0.36
Brazil.......................41 000............................25.78
Canada...................176.................................0.6
Columbia................19 336............................53.99
South Africa............11 044...........................26.63
UK............................72...................................0.13
USA.........................16 524...........................6.24
So no doubt your South African friend is "surprised" by the level of freedom that you in the USA enjoy, and no doubt safety too, well that is, at least compared to their own country where gun deaths were "only" second to that of Columbia (per 100K of population) of all places!!!!
Whereas when they were living in SA, they had 26.63 gun deaths per 100K of population, now your SA friend "only" has to confront the issue of 6.24 gun deaths per 100K of population!!
By the way, in the same survey, in Australia it was 0.36 per 100K of population
And of all the South Africans that I know, they love it here too, the freedom that we enjoy in Australia, but especially the issue of guns in the community.
Yes its a hell of a lot harder for them to own guns like they did in SA, but do you know what?? They know they DONT need the same access to guns here because there isn't as many in circulation and they don't fear for their lives as they did back in SA!!!
Last edited:
Except for the South African family that was attacked by a psychotic neighbour, in Adelaide South Australia, who was armed with his father’s improperly stored shot gun.
Hectorville shooting family fled life of violence in South Africa | adelaidenow
Though we should be thankful he didn't have access to a semi auto 5.56 or 7.62mm rifle with detachable high capacity magazines.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes true,
Unfortunately that would fall into the 0.36 of gun deaths per 100K of population in Australia.
But if they were back in South Africa they may have been part of the 26.63 per 100K of the population.
No one here has suggested for one minute that gun crime doesn't continue to exist here in Oz, it has happened in the past, is still happeninge now and will into the future too.
Though as you and I know, at least the chance of a "crazy" going on the rampage with the sort of firepower available in both the USA and South Africa is pretty damm low.
And the other point you made was the lack of proper storage of the gun too.
Last edited:
Firearms in the U.S. has a history that goes back to the beginning of our nation, and even prior to that. While Europe was considered a civilized land, the America's were a wild and dangerous place. You used a gun for protection.
Our nation was founded by force, initially by civilians with arms that compared to what the English armies used. Civilians and Soldiers had similar weapons.
A large portion of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure this fact: Citizens have the right to overthrow a government that has stopped serving the people. Those who feel this is not the case need only to read beyond the Bill of Rights to see proof of what I say. Read the excerpts from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and the other founding fathers and the discussion on the 2nd Amendment. Is this thought still relevant today? Ask any Syrian or Libyan rebel that same question and listen to their response.
So we decided not to ban weapons based on the 2nd Amendment, fine. Lets just restrict them some more? Many of the proponents of more gun restriction seem very ignorant of the restrictions we already have. Such as the definition of an "Assault Weapon", which has already been explained and discussed. You cannot easily obtain an automatic weapon in this country. You CAN obtain one though, if you have many thousands of dollars, pay a $200 tax, and find one registered prior to 1986. As a civilian, I have fired several civilian owned and fully automatic weapons; from AK's to HK 23e's. No one died and none were used to kill anyone.
In most states it is legal for me to sell one of my weapons to someone else without any registration or paperwork. As the owner, I am responsible to have no reasonable doubts as to the mental condition or legal status of the person to whom I am selling. This usually means I ask for a drivers license. This will prove that they are sane, and legal to buy a firearm in my state. This is what many call the "Gun Show Loop Hole", and it applies to non-dealers selling guns to non-dealers. Any other firearms purchase requires a background check.
Many states require a cooling down period, politically called a waiting period. It was originally required for the dealer to have time to get the background check completed, but with electronic communications, it now only takes minutes to completed rather than days. This is why some states no longer have this waiting period.
It has been interesting to read some of the perspectives of our EU. and other cousins. In the U.S., many consider the EU. to be more violent than we are. We acknowledge that we are less likely to be shot in the EU., but more likely to be mugged, raped, stabbed, or beaten. Rates of violent crime per 100,000 people are much higher there than here. The same day of our school massacre, a Chinese man went into a school and slashed 20 students and a teacher with his knife. Some will point out that most people survive these attacks, but I prefer to count violence based on the number of victims, not simply by the number of survivors.
Now, all that I have said can be considered biased by many. I am a registered firearms collector with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I own many firearms, and several thousands of rounds of ammunition. Most are military weapons from World War I up to and including the cold war. All are in their original configuration and I have fired all my weapons and do so frequently. Why do I have so many you will ask? I love target shooting and I love history. I do not hunt. I am not a maniac and I have never killed anyone. I owned no firearms when I had small children in my house. I am extremely safety minded and require it of others who are around me, or I leave the area when they are present. I carry a legal weapon on my person nearly all the time.
As an American, I consider it wrong to penalize a law abiding citizen due to the actions of others who may be lawless, clueless, or insane. I have made the decision to be responsible for my own protection, and feel that others have also made a decision to NOT protect themselves. It is their choice guaranteed by the same 2nd Amendment. As others have stated, I do not feel the problem is the gun, but the people. I feel we need to have better enforcement of the laws we already have in place, and harsh punishment for those who knowingly sell to those who are ineligible. Let the ones who are part of the problem pay for the problems that they create. Not everyone else.
Our nation was founded by force, initially by civilians with arms that compared to what the English armies used. Civilians and Soldiers had similar weapons.
A large portion of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure this fact: Citizens have the right to overthrow a government that has stopped serving the people. Those who feel this is not the case need only to read beyond the Bill of Rights to see proof of what I say. Read the excerpts from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and the other founding fathers and the discussion on the 2nd Amendment. Is this thought still relevant today? Ask any Syrian or Libyan rebel that same question and listen to their response.
So we decided not to ban weapons based on the 2nd Amendment, fine. Lets just restrict them some more? Many of the proponents of more gun restriction seem very ignorant of the restrictions we already have. Such as the definition of an "Assault Weapon", which has already been explained and discussed. You cannot easily obtain an automatic weapon in this country. You CAN obtain one though, if you have many thousands of dollars, pay a $200 tax, and find one registered prior to 1986. As a civilian, I have fired several civilian owned and fully automatic weapons; from AK's to HK 23e's. No one died and none were used to kill anyone.
In most states it is legal for me to sell one of my weapons to someone else without any registration or paperwork. As the owner, I am responsible to have no reasonable doubts as to the mental condition or legal status of the person to whom I am selling. This usually means I ask for a drivers license. This will prove that they are sane, and legal to buy a firearm in my state. This is what many call the "Gun Show Loop Hole", and it applies to non-dealers selling guns to non-dealers. Any other firearms purchase requires a background check.
Many states require a cooling down period, politically called a waiting period. It was originally required for the dealer to have time to get the background check completed, but with electronic communications, it now only takes minutes to completed rather than days. This is why some states no longer have this waiting period.
It has been interesting to read some of the perspectives of our EU. and other cousins. In the U.S., many consider the EU. to be more violent than we are. We acknowledge that we are less likely to be shot in the EU., but more likely to be mugged, raped, stabbed, or beaten. Rates of violent crime per 100,000 people are much higher there than here. The same day of our school massacre, a Chinese man went into a school and slashed 20 students and a teacher with his knife. Some will point out that most people survive these attacks, but I prefer to count violence based on the number of victims, not simply by the number of survivors.
Now, all that I have said can be considered biased by many. I am a registered firearms collector with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I own many firearms, and several thousands of rounds of ammunition. Most are military weapons from World War I up to and including the cold war. All are in their original configuration and I have fired all my weapons and do so frequently. Why do I have so many you will ask? I love target shooting and I love history. I do not hunt. I am not a maniac and I have never killed anyone. I owned no firearms when I had small children in my house. I am extremely safety minded and require it of others who are around me, or I leave the area when they are present. I carry a legal weapon on my person nearly all the time.
As an American, I consider it wrong to penalize a law abiding citizen due to the actions of others who may be lawless, clueless, or insane. I have made the decision to be responsible for my own protection, and feel that others have also made a decision to NOT protect themselves. It is their choice guaranteed by the same 2nd Amendment. As others have stated, I do not feel the problem is the gun, but the people. I feel we need to have better enforcement of the laws we already have in place, and harsh punishment for those who knowingly sell to those who are ineligible. Let the ones who are part of the problem pay for the problems that they create. Not everyone else.
Well, Europe is a very diversified continent and you are painting with a broad brush here. For example Germany has roughly half the violent crimes per 100k people as the US with a comparable status of development and wealth. And I for one have no idea how violent crimes are statistically defined in every single country...
As for measuring a country by this number is IMO a rather dubious way of asserting it's safety while leaving the number of fatal violent crimes aside.
And you reasoning for having small arms is not logical either. In order to be able to topple a tyrannic government people need to have the means to overcome the executive organs especially the military because if the bulk of the armed forces is on the side of the people there won't be a reason for the people to rise up in arms as the armed forces will take care of the tyrannic government.
But if the military is on the side of the tyrannic government small arms won't save your day and any uprising of the people will be flattened by heavy arms.
So why is not legal to buy AT-mines, ATGMs and MANPADs as these are the tool one needs to overthrow a government by force? Ask the Syrians...
As for measuring a country by this number is IMO a rather dubious way of asserting it's safety while leaving the number of fatal violent crimes aside.
And you reasoning for having small arms is not logical either. In order to be able to topple a tyrannic government people need to have the means to overcome the executive organs especially the military because if the bulk of the armed forces is on the side of the people there won't be a reason for the people to rise up in arms as the armed forces will take care of the tyrannic government.
But if the military is on the side of the tyrannic government small arms won't save your day and any uprising of the people will be flattened by heavy arms.
So why is not legal to buy AT-mines, ATGMs and MANPADs as these are the tool one needs to overthrow a government by force? Ask the Syrians...
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Of all the forums and discussions I've read or participated in here on DT I have never seen one where the lines are so clearly drawn.
On the one side the Americans say, "yes, lets discuss this and find a solution", but as long as it doesn't impede my rights under the constitution to arm myself to the hilt.
The, I'm a law abiding citizen, it’s all someone else’s fault, guns don't kill people, people kill people, it's the crazies, etc, etc.
And on the other side, there are the Europeans and quite a few of us Australian's too.
Our line has been more around, not saying that guns should be banned totally, but the volume and types of weapons loose in the American society, (280M+ guns, nearly one gun for every man, woman and child), should be reduced in both type and quantity and also access to.
We think restrictions on types, numbers and storage is a possible solution, but again the Americans say, first and foremost, No! That impinges on my constitutional rights, and on it goes.
So the solution is simple.... for the US, there is no solution.
Here in Australia it took the Port Arthur massacre of 16 years ago to be our "wake up call".
That event changed everything, there had to be change, and it was painful for those who were pushing pro gun lines to accept the changes that were introduced, but here we are 16 years later and a similar event has not occurred.
Yes of course there continues to be issues of violence, in general, and illegal guns in the Australian community too, there always will be some forms of violence in our society, but I think for the most part the "fear" of a "Port Arthur" type event happening again has past.
The point was made claiming that "many in the US consider the EU more violent", why is that? Fact or ignorance?
Here is a stat on World violence by country:
VIOLENCE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY
As can be clearly seen this is not the case for Western Europe, yes there is increased violence in Russia and the former Soviet Union (for many reasons), but for the most part Europe is a less violent place than the USA, Australia ranks in amongst the Euro countries too.
Ten years ago my daughter, 18 at the time, went to live in the UK for a year and backpack around Europe, as so many Aussie kids do, it’s like a right of passage for Aussie teens to do.
Did she feel unsafe or threatened? No she didn't, she grew up here in Sydney, 4.5 million people, she knew there, as here, not to go to the more seedy parts of towns and cities, especially at night, her and her friends were safe and had a ball.
A few years ago, when I worked in the Real Estate industry here in Australia, I was looking at some of the US Real Estate web when I came across this "feature" when searching:
Detroit, MI crimes - Trulia.com
It blew my mind, I though "what the F&^K!", I couldn't believe that when searching a particular city or region of the US, that the Real Estate websites, of all places, would have stats on "crime" for that particular area, not something that is on Australian Real Estate sites, but I suppose that is "just the way it is, part of the way of life" for the US, sort of says it all don't you think?
I hope the US can find a way, but I fear it won't, simply because of the mindset of the American people.
What is it going to take to make a change? Maybe sometime after the next and the next and the next massacre? Maybe when a 100 or a 1000 people (or children) are murdered by their own, what?
Sadly I can see it now:
The year is 2099, someone breaks into a home, the home owner blows the intruder away with his large array of “home defence” weaponry, all that is left of the intruder is chunks of meat splattered around the entry hall.
The home owner proclaims that he was glad he could defend his home, it was his Constitutional right to bear arms, unfortunately there is no one left in the US to hear his words, they were the last two Americans standing after everyone else had blown each other away!!!
On the one side the Americans say, "yes, lets discuss this and find a solution", but as long as it doesn't impede my rights under the constitution to arm myself to the hilt.
The, I'm a law abiding citizen, it’s all someone else’s fault, guns don't kill people, people kill people, it's the crazies, etc, etc.
And on the other side, there are the Europeans and quite a few of us Australian's too.
Our line has been more around, not saying that guns should be banned totally, but the volume and types of weapons loose in the American society, (280M+ guns, nearly one gun for every man, woman and child), should be reduced in both type and quantity and also access to.
We think restrictions on types, numbers and storage is a possible solution, but again the Americans say, first and foremost, No! That impinges on my constitutional rights, and on it goes.
So the solution is simple.... for the US, there is no solution.
Here in Australia it took the Port Arthur massacre of 16 years ago to be our "wake up call".
That event changed everything, there had to be change, and it was painful for those who were pushing pro gun lines to accept the changes that were introduced, but here we are 16 years later and a similar event has not occurred.
Yes of course there continues to be issues of violence, in general, and illegal guns in the Australian community too, there always will be some forms of violence in our society, but I think for the most part the "fear" of a "Port Arthur" type event happening again has past.
The point was made claiming that "many in the US consider the EU more violent", why is that? Fact or ignorance?
Here is a stat on World violence by country:
VIOLENCE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY
As can be clearly seen this is not the case for Western Europe, yes there is increased violence in Russia and the former Soviet Union (for many reasons), but for the most part Europe is a less violent place than the USA, Australia ranks in amongst the Euro countries too.
Ten years ago my daughter, 18 at the time, went to live in the UK for a year and backpack around Europe, as so many Aussie kids do, it’s like a right of passage for Aussie teens to do.
Did she feel unsafe or threatened? No she didn't, she grew up here in Sydney, 4.5 million people, she knew there, as here, not to go to the more seedy parts of towns and cities, especially at night, her and her friends were safe and had a ball.
A few years ago, when I worked in the Real Estate industry here in Australia, I was looking at some of the US Real Estate web when I came across this "feature" when searching:
Detroit, MI crimes - Trulia.com
It blew my mind, I though "what the F&^K!", I couldn't believe that when searching a particular city or region of the US, that the Real Estate websites, of all places, would have stats on "crime" for that particular area, not something that is on Australian Real Estate sites, but I suppose that is "just the way it is, part of the way of life" for the US, sort of says it all don't you think?
I hope the US can find a way, but I fear it won't, simply because of the mindset of the American people.
What is it going to take to make a change? Maybe sometime after the next and the next and the next massacre? Maybe when a 100 or a 1000 people (or children) are murdered by their own, what?
Sadly I can see it now:
The year is 2099, someone breaks into a home, the home owner blows the intruder away with his large array of “home defence” weaponry, all that is left of the intruder is chunks of meat splattered around the entry hall.
The home owner proclaims that he was glad he could defend his home, it was his Constitutional right to bear arms, unfortunately there is no one left in the US to hear his words, they were the last two Americans standing after everyone else had blown each other away!!!
Last edited:
- Status