Shootings in US schools

[Frothingslosh]

Oh, also, with a few strict exceptions, all weapons firing more than one shot per trigger pull are illegal for civilian ownership in the US. That's why the Las Vegas shooter was using a bump stock to fake it. If you see someone walking around with an SMG, get the hell out of Dodge, because something's about to go down.

 

[NauticalGent]

The Bible has been altered and changed so much over the years, with words being used as a closest translation, it's far from its original form anyway. Can you really call it "God's word" when it's been changed and interpreted by people, of which the Bible says are not perfect?

A to the Men on that...

 

[NauticalGent]

The translation SHOULD read "Thou shalt not commit murder." The Bible allows self-defense,

My devout Christian (Pentecostal preacher’s daughter!) wife and I have had more than one “discussion” on this bit. We have agreed to disagree and moved on...

 

[ColinEssex]

I heard the news today. They said about the recent Boeing plane crash where 150 people were killed, they also referred to the previous air crash 9 months ago by the same make of plane making the total killed around 350 people. So Boeing grounded all planes of the same make, which runs into hundreds worldwide. Plus there is a big enquiry etc etc.

Strangely, around 350 people are shot and killed (or murdered) in the USA every week - yet nothing is done to stop this, it's as if the Americans just accept it.

How can this be?

Col

 

[Frothingslosh]

Saying that Americans just accept gun violence is much like saying that Brits just want a hard exit from the EU.

 

[kevlray]

And over 100 people die every day in the US from auto accidents, but no one is banning cars yet.

 

[Mark_]

Col,

From the looks of it, the 157 died because the aircraft struck something on takeoff.
https://nypost.com/2019/04/04/initi...or-may-have-doomed-ethiopian-airlines-flight/

For your numbers, you would be looking for about 211 per week in a population of 328 odd million. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....17/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

Though if you put it in context, much as Essex is relatively safe from knife crime, London isn't.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

It is similar in the United States. Most gun violence is in major cities with the strictest laws regarding firearms, and for many of the same reasons as you'd find in London.

As such, Americans are about as accepting of gun violence as the UK is of knife crime.

I DO hope you've turned all of your sharp pointy things in, hate to think you would be hoarding edged weapons...

 

[ColinEssex]

Ok, let's change the perspective. It's obvious from the last couple of posts that Americans have little value on life and accept death by whatever means as the norm.
So, why react in such an extreme fashion of grounding all planes of the same type just because 300 odd people died? That's just 2 or 3 days car deaths apparently.
Is it because the deaths were foreigners? Therefore Boeing could lose sales? Therefore the USA could lose billions in overseas money?
No, it can't be the foreigners- most people in the USA have no idea there is life outside the picket fence.

Actually, talking of fences, Trump got 1 billion dollars to build part of the wall on the Mexican border. It was reported that would fund 57 miles of wall. Trump wants 4 billion to do the whole lot - we are told that's 2000 miles.
So, if it costs 1 billion to do 57 miles the remaining 1900 ish miles will cost more than the 3 billion left. Is an American billion different? Who does the maths? In my mind it's not going to work out.

Oh, and in the UK, it's illegal to carry a knife. It doesn't stop the knife crimes but it cuts down on gun crimes.
Col

 

[Mark_]

Col, so are you actually asking for an lesson in construction costs? Not sure if you are at all familiar with anything related to actual physical labor, construction techniques, impact of terrain and soil composition on construction, environmental impact studies and their costs, project management, or governmental spending. As you are a product of the British educational system I am rather unsure if you are at all familiar with anything required to evaluate any of the factors involved in "the wall", so if you could share which aspects you are competent to discuss and which you are unfamiliar with I may be able to answer better.

Still totally unsure with why carrying a knife being illegal would impact gun violence. Probably something to do with "And if you have an onion in your belt, as was the style at the time" being relevant to gun violence.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Col, so are you actually asking for an lesson in construction costs?

No, he's trolling you.

 

[Mark_]

No, he's trolling you.

I've learned not to attribute to malice that which I may attribute to stupidity or ignorance. As such, I would never accuse Col of posting in malice.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I know for a fact that he's just a troll, but no skin off my hide if you want to feed him.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin, we are aware that there are gun deaths in various places in the USA. It is tragic, but the answer that everyone throws at us is ALWAYS wrong. Guns will always be available to those who want them badly enough. We need to have a society that watches for behavioral issues and makes a call to police when someone is acting like they are about to do something bad.

We need to address school bullying. We need to find a way to reach out to excluded kids because that exclusion is too often the first step towards on the path to a serious headline-making event. Everyone says "get the guns off the street." Nobody is paying attention to the real problem - hatred caused by religion, ethnic issues, cultural issues... anything that strives for "the ascendancy of me and mine over thee and thine." (Can't remember where that was a quote, but it came from a novel I read some time ago.)

Religion won't do the job because it is more often than not an exclusionary thing. School would do it but we tie the teachers' hands on the issue of conflict resolution and besides, we also allow home schooling and private or parochial schooling, where the parents get to pay to determine the curriculum.

I don't claim to know the answer either - but I have seen a lot of things that I know are NOT the answer. Taking away guns won't work because (a) you can't do it completely and (b) a determined individual will just use something else to perpetrate evil.

 

[Mark_]

Doc,

I think you miss something. If your country does horrible horrible things to its neighbors, that can very much bring violence to your own doorstep. Need not be a gun. London has been targeted for centuries by violence by those who oppose parliament's policies regarding how others in their own land are treated.

Solving much of the violence would require people to respect each other. Once you decide someone isn't worth while because of the colour of their skin, colour of their politics, or social/wealth level, you get horrid acts regardless of what laws says is or is not allowed. This is much worse when you do have sub-cultures that embrace violence and criminal behavior as a "Norm".

Once that is addressed, you can start worrying about the individual who does horrid things because they are mentally disturbed. Seems most concentrate on the "Lone lunatic" that kills a few or a few dozen, not the systemic killing in the name of <insert reason here>.

Per capita, I'd not be surprised if health care in the UK kills more than guns do in the America.

 

[isladogs]

Taking away guns won't work because (a) you can't do it completely and (b) a determined individual will just use something else to perpetrate evil.

Using a similar argument on two very different scenarios
1. We know that illegal drugs which cause many deaths each year can never be eliminated so by the same argument these should all be legalised
2. We know that no Access database can ever be 100% secure, so that argument would suggest its pointless adding any security to our apps

Both of those are clearly absurd arguments but that's also how the US gun legislation appears to many of us with much more restrictive gun laws

Per capita, I'd not be surprised if health care in the UK kills more than guns do in the America.

Any evidence for that rather odd statement?

 

[Mark_]

Like this? about 30 seconds of searching...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13487/NHS-causes-40-000-deaths-year.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...emy-hunt-york-university-health-a8224226.html

 

[ColinEssex]

No, he's trolling you.

No I am not. If you read my post you will see.
For the likes of you I will put it in simple terms.

We are told by Mr Trump, it will cost 4 billion dollars to build a wall between Mexico and the USA.
We are told that the distance is 2000 something miles.

Mr Trump has had 1 billion dollars for the wall, we are told this will do 57 miles.
That leaves 3 billion dollars left. In total that makes 228 miles for 4 billion dollars.
Given that the distance is 2000 odd miles, how are the other 1800 odd miles going to be funded?

I am not interested in construction methods, they can build it of foam rubber for all I care.

Do the maths - 4 billion dollars does not cover 2000 odd miles given that 1 billion dollars only does 57 miles.

Clear enough for you Frothy? Or shall I make it even more simple?

Col

 

[Mark_]

Colin.

Per capita, if there are over 2100 deaths in the UK from medical negligence, then the UK heath system is technically more lethal.

I do know that health systems world wide are plagued by issue due to the nature of health care. Human bodies are not simple and medicine is not as easy as "Check if the light is on". It is a world wide issue that is improving every year. It is also true that more deaths are attributed to health care negligence than due to many other causes though.

Part of the problem with a topic like this is the concept that "This is an earth shattering problem that needs to be addressed right now by laws". Deaths due to gun violence, especially in schools, is so rare that it does make national headlines. If the same standard were applied to other sources of death, you'd never see the tiny listing for "Homicide - Fire are related" due to the volume of other causes.

 

[isladogs]

The UK NHS is chronically underfunded and far from perfect.
There is no doubt that mistakes do occur and some have serious consequences.
Every unnecessary death is of course a tragedy but just reading the headlines of the two links gives very different statistics:
Daily Mail: NHS (mistakes) causes 40,000 deaths a year
Independent: prescribing mixups contribute to 22,300 deaths a year
Further on the article, it says "The number of deaths where medication errors played a part ranged from anything between 1,700 to 22,303".

So which is correct? Probably the wording of the second article is more accurate whatever the statistics.

And would the unnecessary deaths across the entire population be higher or lower with the US health system?

This Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States has data for total gun deaths in the US annually and comparative data for the US and other developed countries per 100,000 population.

US gun deaths were almost 40,000 in 2017 (taking both murder & suicide combined). Proportionately many times higher per capita in the US than elsewhere.

Any comments on my earlier analogies?

I think with both myself & CE now responding this could get very confusing

EDIT:

Per capita, if there are over 2100 deaths in the UK from medical negligence,

Where did 2100 come from? I guarantee there aren't 2100 deaths per capita!

 

[Mark_]

The UK NHS is chronically underfunded and far from perfect.
There is no doubt that mistakes do occur and some have serious consequences.
Every unnecessary death is of course a tragedy but just reading the headlines of the two links gives very different statistics:
Daily Mail: NHS (mistakes) causes 40,000 deaths a year
Independent: prescribing mixups contribute to 22,300 deaths a year
Further on the article, it says "The number of deaths where medication errors played a part ranged from anything between 1,700 to 22,303".

So which is correct? Probably the wording of the second article is more accurate whatever the statistics.

Both? First lists ALL. Second is subset. Medication related issues are a major cause of death, but not the only one.

And would the unnecessary deaths across the entire population be higher or lower with the US health system?

Good question, but not relevant to my original post.

This Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States has data for total gun deaths in the US annually and comparative data for the US and other developed countries per 100,000 population.

US gun deaths in 2017 almost 40,000 in 2017 (taking both murder & suicide combined). Proportionately many times higher in the US than elsewhere.

3 out of 4 of the deaths you list are suicide. Statistics for homicide are closer to 11,000. That is the number most relevant when discussing gun control.

Dealing with suicide should be a mental health issue. One who has decided to end it all is most likely not going to say "Oh dear, I can't shoot myself as that would be illegal, so I'd best not end it all". It could reduce the numbers for individuals who use them as an immediate and permanent solution to a temporary problem, how ever that logic would also require all building to be under ground (to avoid someone jumping off of them) and other measures.

Any comments on my earlier analogies?

And with both myself & CE now responding this could get very confusing

EDIT:

Where did 2100 come from? I guarantee there aren't 2100 deaths per capita!

2100 would be Homicides by firearms in America/Population of America = Minimum deaths due to UK health care/Population of UK.

11000/328000000 is about 2100/65000000, so I got 2100 as a minimum. To many, this would be more useful than saying "If you have greater than a .00336% chance of being killed due to negligence in the UK health system".