Five dead in Las Vegas shootings

[Ulysses G.]

Yeah...OK...so armed gang members in Chicago who regularly exchange armed gunfire against other armed gang members are for some reason going to now be frightened because somebody might legally be carrying a concealed weapon? Thats where you lose me.

Criminals much prefer to rob people who are not armed and they often target civilians. It is not that hard to figure out.

Two armed trained cops got killed. Fat lot of good guns did them.

It probably would have helped if the two trained cops had seen the nutcases who ambushed them for no reason at all. Unfortunately. carrying a gun legally does not make one psychic.

Guns are used 2 million times a year for self-defense. Firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

[venturalaw]

More people die in motor vehicle "accidents" but the governments want to keep people driving when they have absolutely no idea of what they are doing. Maybe we should ban cars as well ?

Judging by the intelligence of the electorate in this country, not many people should drive.

JMHO

The topic is death due to gun violence, not motor vehicle accidents. Both are problems, but are completely unrelated, as are the solutions to these problems. Surely you can see that.

It's pretty obvious where you stand on the gun control issue. Do you think there is any correlation at all between the availability of guns in America and death/injuries due to guns? Just a yes/no answer would suffice.

Recent Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.

You convieniently forgot this bit from the link you provide:

"It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates"

Hope you aren't a real lawyer...

I didn't quote the article in its entirety because we are not allowed to per TV rules. However, you can pick those parts that favor your position. The article points out that its conclusion generally goes against the position of its authors. You chose to cherry-pick part of a single paragraph that states the authors' position ignoring the concluding sentence in said paragraph, and the article's conclusion to wit: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should."

Throughout the years I practiced and since I often encounter individuals who lash out. Frequently they were law school dropouts who seek to elevate their self-loathed insecurity by attempting to prove an unsupported position. Good luck to you.

[samran]

I didn't quote the article in its entirety because we are not allowed to per TV rules. However, you can pick those parts that favor your position. The article points out that its conclusion generally goes against the position of its authors. You chose to cherry-pick part of a single paragraph that states the authors' position ignoring the concluding sentence in said paragraph, and the article's conclusion to wit: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should."

Throughout the years I practiced and since I often encounter individuals who lash out. Frequently they were law school dropouts who seek to elevate their self-loathed insecurity by attempting to prove an unsupported position. Good luck to you.

really? No effect hey?

Law school drop out. Funny...

[venturalaw]

I didn't quote the article in its entirety because we are not allowed to per TV rules. However, you can pick those parts that favor your position. The article points out that its conclusion generally goes against the position of its authors. You chose to cherry-pick part of a single paragraph that states the authors' position ignoring the concluding sentence in said paragraph, and the article's conclusion to wit: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should."

Throughout the years I practiced and since I often encounter individuals who lash out. Frequently they were law school dropouts who seek to elevate their self-loathed insecurity by attempting to prove an unsupported position. Good luck to you.

really? No effect hey?

Law school drop out. Funny...

Comparing the U.S. to Australia is comparing apples to oranges. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who could demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms could petition for exemptions from the law. Bottom line - there is no comparison.

[Chicog]

Guns are used 2 million times a year for self-defense. Firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

It would be nice to see the source for that please.

[samran]

I didn't quote the article in its entirety because we are not allowed to per TV rules. However, you can pick those parts that favor your position. The article points out that its conclusion generally goes against the position of its authors. You chose to cherry-pick part of a single paragraph that states the authors' position ignoring the concluding sentence in said paragraph, and the article's conclusion to wit: "But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should."

Throughout the years I practiced and since I often encounter individuals who lash out. Frequently they were law school dropouts who seek to elevate their self-loathed insecurity by attempting to prove an unsupported position. Good luck to you.

really? No effect hey?

Law school drop out. Funny...

Comparing the U.S. to Australia is comparing apples to oranges. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who could demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms could petition for exemptions from the law. Bottom line - there is no comparison.

What a pathetic response.

'Won't work cause we're different'

Except no one is talking about an outright ban.

You sound like one of those Thai PDRCers who like to tell foreigners they'll never understand Thai politics.

[Chicog]

Ah right so police aren't the "Good guys" with guns. NRA members are.

<sigh>

evidently

Oklahoma, who'd have thought it?

[Ulysses G.]

Guns are used 2 million times a year for self-defense. Firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

It would be nice to see the source for that please.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

[boomerangutang]

It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.

I agree that mental illness is a big part of the equation, and so are pharma drugs, which a 'doc' mentioned earlier. Indeed, it's been shown that pharma drugs contribute to more deaths than all illegal drugs combined.

However, the claim that "cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns" can't be true. Half the countries in Africa have abysmal track records of shootings by the minute, every day. If there are any 'gun control laws in those places, they're laughed at. Saying that 'gun-control laws contribute to higher gun violence is like saying laws against extra-marital sex contribute to higher extra-marital sex.' If people want to &lt;deleted&gt; with other people, they're going to do it, regardless of laws.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.

[Bwanatickey]

29 people shot in Chicago over the weekend, but you won't find that on the front page. Not even page 3 or 4.

It was worse when El Capone and the St Valentines massacre happened in 1930's Chicago.

Them was really bad days.

[tw25rw]

More people die in motor vehicle "accidents" but the governments want to keep people driving when they have absolutely no idea of what they are doing. Maybe we should ban cars as well ?

Judging by the intelligence of the electorate in this country, not many people should drive.

JMHO

The topic is death due to gun violence, not motor vehicle accidents. Both are problems, but are completely unrelated, as are the solutions to these problems. Surely you can see that.

It's pretty obvious where you stand on the gun control issue. Do you think there is any correlation at all between the availability of guns in America and death/injuries due to guns? Just a yes/no answer would suffice.

Recent Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.

Yep, take away their vote.

[folium]

More people die in motor vehicle "accidents" but the governments want to keep people driving when they have absolutely no idea of what they are doing. Maybe we should ban cars as well ?

Judging by the intelligence of the electorate in this country, not many people should drive.

JMHO

The topic is death due to gun violence, not motor vehicle accidents. Both are problems, but are completely unrelated, as are the solutions to these problems. Surely you can see that.

It's pretty obvious where you stand on the gun control issue. Do you think there is any correlation at all between the availability of guns in America and death/injuries due to guns? Just a yes/no answer would suffice.

Recent Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.

Would you care to provide some evidence to back up this claim?

Also 2 places with appalling levels of gun crime are Chicago (as you point out) and Mexico. Now where do the guns used in these gun crimes come from? That's obviously ignoring ludicrous farces such as the Fast & Furious fiasco, though even that that does highlight where the Mexican narco-gangs source much of their weaponry...

[Chicog]

Guns are used 2 million times a year for self-defense. Firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

It would be nice to see the source for that please.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

"probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year, representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs."

By my calculations, 3,000 is 1/1000 of three million, not two. In fact the whole article seems to be an unholy mishmash of loaded interpretations of surveys. You can almost cherry pick what you like from that paper.

Have you got something a little more tangible, like police records for example?

You would think most people who use their guns "to protect the lives of honest citizens" would at least give a statement to the police (although maybe not in Oklahoma).

[BwindiBoy]

In less than one week, we had the gunman on the Seattle Campus.

We had the gunman at the Georgia courthouse.

And now we have this heartbreaking cold-blooded mass shooting.

When is the senseless gun violence going to stop?

What is it going to take for Americans to recognize they have a serious problem and it needs to be treated?

Unfortunately they will never treat it...and yet they will try to tell the rest of the world they should live their way... :-(

Who is this "they"? Are you talking about "all" 314-million American citizens? Where specifically do you see that "they try to tell the rest of the world they should live their way...?"

Life and people are much more complex and variable than your simplistic comments infer.

The US government, elected by the US people. That's who "they" are. "They" are the ones who have sanctioned the invasion of 20 odd countries since the end of world war II when "they" really should be focused on the problems in "their" own back yard!!

[NeverSure]

In less than one week, we had the gunman on the Seattle Campus.

We had the gunman at the Georgia courthouse.

And now we have this heartbreaking cold-blooded mass shooting.

When is the senseless gun violence going to stop?

What is it going to take for Americans to recognize they have a serious problem and it needs to be treated?

Unfortunately they will never treat it...and yet they will try to tell the rest of the world they should live their way... :-(

Who is this "they"? Are you talking about "all" 314-million American citizens? Where specifically do you see that "they try to tell the rest of the world they should live their way...?"

Life and people are much more complex and variable than your simplistic comments infer.

The US government, elected by the US people. That's who "they" are. "They" are the ones who have sanctioned the invasion of 20 odd countries since the end of world war II when "they" really should be focused on the problems in "their" own back yard!!

The British have invaded nine out of ten countries in the world.

"Every schoolboy used to know that at the height of the empire, almost a quarter of the atlas was coloured pink, showing the extent of British rule.

But that oft recited fact dramatically understates the remarkable global reach achieved by this country.

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe.

The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British."

LINK

Hypocrites.

[Ulysses G.]

You can almost cherry pick what you like

That goes for anything as you have proven here and many times before. It is a national survey, not an "article" and it refutes the narrative that you want to create. The fact is that a lot of people successfully defend themselves from criminals with legal fire arms every single year. You can quibble about exactly how many if you like.

[NeverSure]

Guns are used 2 million times a year for self-defense. Firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

It would be nice to see the source for that please.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

"probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year, representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs."

By my calculations, 3,000 is 1/1000 of three million, not two. In fact the whole article seems to be an unholy mishmash of loaded interpretations of surveys. You can almost cherry pick what you like from that paper.

Have you got something a little more tangible, like police records for example?

You would think most people who use their guns "to protect the lives of honest citizens" would at least give a statement to the police (although maybe not in Oklahoma).

"Killed." Got any stats for the wounded? Got any stats for how many citizens with a gun ran off a criminal without firing a shot? Got any stats about how many crimes were stopped by the mere presence of a gun?

"The latest prisoners surveys estimate that 3,600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victim either showed a gun, said she had a gun, or the rapist though the victim had a gun for some other reason.

So one way or the other, guns prevent 3,600 rapes a day, or more than 1.3 million rapes a year. That is an enormous amount of human misery prevented by the mere presence of a gun." LINK

[ClutchClark]

You can almost cherry pick what you like from that paper.

That goes for anything as you have proven here and many times before. It is a national survey, not an "article" and it refutes the narrative that you want to create. The fact is that a lot of people successfully defend themselves from criminals with legal fire arms every single year. You can quibble about exactly how many if you like.

And alot of innocent people are shot with firearms every year.

And therein lies the problem with the pro gun advocate viewpoint. They pretend none of the negatives exist.

How you doin' today UG? Finally getting over your bad spell?

[Ulysses G.]

You can almost cherry pick what you like from that paper.

That goes for anything as you have proven here and many times before. It is a national survey, not an "article" and it refutes the narrative that you want to create. The fact is that a lot of people successfully defend themselves from criminals with legal fire arms every single year. You can quibble about exactly how many if you like.

And alot of innocent people are shot with firearms every year.

Apparently, you did not bother to actually read the survey that you are commenting on. The conclusion was that Firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

How you doin' today UG? Finally getting over your bad spell?

We have been warned to stop the baiting comments. I'm pretty sure that includes you too.

[NeverSure]

You can almost cherry pick what you like from that paper.

That goes for anything as you have proven here and many times before. It is a national survey, not an "article" and it refutes the narrative that you want to create. The fact is that a lot of people successfully defend themselves from criminals with legal fire arms every single year. You can quibble about exactly how many if you like.

And alot of innocent people are shot with firearms every year.

And therein lies the problem with the pro gun advocate viewpoint. They pretend none of the negatives exist.

How you doin' today UG? Finally getting over your bad spell?

Dear friend, You are getting your tail kicked. Do you know when to quit?

No hard feelings of course.

[ClutchClark]

You can almost cherry pick what you like from that paper.

That goes for anything as you have proven here and many times before. It is a national survey, not an "article" and it refutes the narrative that you want to create. The fact is that a lot of people successfully defend themselves from criminals with legal fire arms every single year. You can quibble about exactly how many if you like.

And alot of innocent people are shot with firearms every year.

And therein lies the problem with the pro gun advocate viewpoint. They pretend none of the negatives exist.

How you doin' today UG? Finally getting over your bad spell?

Dear friend, You are getting your tail kicked. Do you know when to quit?

No hard feelings of course.

Ofcourse not.

Its been fun sittin' next to you while we both get schooled on American history by a British professor ;-)

[ClutchClark]

You can almost cherry pick what you like from that paper.

That goes for anything as you have proven here and many times before. It is a national survey, not an "article" and it refutes the narrative that you want to create. The fact is that a lot of people successfully defend themselves from criminals with legal fire arms every single year. You can quibble about exactly how many if you like.

And alot of innocent people are shot with firearms every year.

Apparently, you did not bother to actually read the survey that you are commenting on. The conclusion was that Firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

How you doin' today UG? Finally getting over your bad spell?

We have been warned to stop the baiting comments. I'm pretty sure that includes you too.

UG, I had thought I read in one of your posts you had some health issues.

It am certainly saddened my sense of fellowship is not shared by you.

[Ulysses G.]

UG, I had thought I read in one of your posts you had some health issues.

Sure you did.

[Scott]

Again, please stay on topic. Some posts have been deleted. This thread is not about Chicago, or any other city. If you are going to use examples, be sure and use a comparison to the situation in Las Vegas.

[Chicog]

You can almost cherry pick what you like

That goes for anything as you have proven here and many times before. It is a national survey, not an "article" and it refutes the narrative that you want to create. The fact is that a lot of people successfully defend themselves from criminals with legal fire arms every single year. You can quibble about exactly how many if you like.

Well OK, if we are taking surveys and analyses as being reasonable evidence, there are four here from Harvard:

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Details here

Some more:

Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide and nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide as someone who does not have access, according to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide

Doesn't sound so safe to me!

Probably the most relevant quote is from an interesting comparison of both sides' arguments which can be found here

But among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”

Says Wintemute: “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”

That last statement is probably the most important. If you have guns everywhere, they are going to get used and needless deaths result.

The day Adam Lanza shot 27 people dead at Sandy Hook School, a deranged Chinese man went on the rampage at a school and attacked 23 people - with a knife. Guess how many died?

[ClutchClark]

Latest news reporting states that the 3rd shooting victim, a female civilian, was armed and attempted to exchange gunfire with the man/woman couple who had just shot down 2 Law Enforcement Officers. She was killed moments later.

[chuckd]

Latest news reporting states that the 3rd shooting victim, a female civilian, was armed and attempted to exchange gunfire with the man/woman couple who had just shot down 2 Law Enforcement Officers. She was killed moments later.

Wrong again.

The "female civilian" was a man.

-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deadly rampage in the aging shopping center about 5 miles northeast of the Las Vegas Strip unfolded in a matter of minutes.

The suspects then fled on foot to a nearby Wal-Mart, where Jerad Miller fired a single shot upon entering, police said. A patron at the store who carried a firearm confronted Jerad Miller, not realizing that he was accompanied by Amanda Miller, who shot and killed the man, police said. He was identified as 31-year-old Joseph Wilcox of Las Vegas.

“Joseph died trying to protect others,” Sheriff Doug Gillespie said.

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/09/neighbor-gunman-dressed-up-as-slenderman-joker/

[Diablo Bob]

More people die in motor vehicle "accidents" but the governments want to keep people driving when they have absolutely no idea of what they are doing. Maybe we should ban cars as well ?

Judging by the intelligence of the electorate in this country, not many people should drive.

JMHO

The topic is death due to gun violence, not motor vehicle accidents. Both are problems, but are completely unrelated, as are the solutions to these problems. Surely you can see that.

It's pretty obvious where you stand on the gun control issue. Do you think there is any correlation at all between the availability of guns in America and death/injuries due to guns? Just a yes/no answer would suffice.

Recent Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.

You convieniently forgot this bit from the link you provide:

"It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates"

Hope you aren't a real lawyer...

Interesting...... even more interesting is the conclusion drawn by Prof. Kates and Mauser:

"

CONCLUSION

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international

sources.

Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection

that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the

persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.

Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death

and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to

be based on that mantra.

To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with

more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have

achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).

But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across

the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook

an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada

to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence.

When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did

not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate”

handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure,

but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution.

It directs us where not to aim public health resources.

Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[capcc76]

Looks like another school shooting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/shooter-portland-oregon-high-school-confirmed-dead-police-n127401

Shooter at Portland, Oregon, High School Confirmed Dead: Police

collapse story

A shooting suspect at a suburban Portland, Oregon, high school was confirmed dead Tuesday morning, authorities said.

Police said the situation at Reynolds High School in Troutdale was "stabilized" an hour after initial calls came in at 8:07 a.m. PT (11:07 a.m. ET).