Another Ft. Hood shooting

[Tempest]

Quote:
A female military police officer, whose name has not been released, arrived four minutes after the 911 call. The gunman approached her, stopping about 20 feet away, and pulled the gun from his jacket, Milley said. The officer opened fire, and Lopez shot himself in the head, he said. It was not clear if Lopez, who died, was also shot by the officer.


Quote:
Milley said the gunman, dressed in military fatigues, opened fire about 4 p.m. The initial shots came inside the 1st Medical Brigade Area, he said, then the gunman got into a vehicle and went to a second building where he continued shooting.

Within 15 minutes military police responded. Milley said the female officer confronted Lopez in a parking lot near the second building. He approached the officer but stopped about 20 feet from her and put his hands up. Then, Milley said, the gunman reached into his jacket and pulled out his weapon. As the officer opened fire, the man shot himself in the head.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fort-hood-shooting-20140403,0,864732.story?page=1#axzz2xxNaAaY5

Once again, the shooter is stopped as soon as he is confronted by someone with a weapon.

Gun Free Zone = Victim Rich Zone

Killing unarmed people was his goal.

 

[Tempest]

Crime way down in Chicago after Concealed Carry law enacted:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/126664-c...ts-immediately/

 

[Astro14]

I drew from several sources, including the official FBI crime site, Wikipedia and others. There have been dozens of studies on the subject, and shock in the UK (reflected in the newspaper articles) at being the most violent of nations in Europe. None of those studies, or the media reporting them, were able to find causality, only correlation in statistics.

The debate becomes visceral - with strongly held beliefs on both sides. What I find disappointing in the discourse is the "nobody needs a gun" tenet. That ignores the right to self defense, a right enumerated in our constitution. Actually, people do have a right to self defense, and that right is simply non-existent without the means to that defense. Martial arts, strength training, and other preparation for a violent encounter simply aren't feasible for much of the population. Frankly, they're no good against an armed attacker anyway, and as we've seen in other nations, criminals tend to bring a gun to the fight. The only proportional, viable, reasonable means of opposition to that threat is a gun.

So, yes, Virginia, there is a need for a gun in the hands of the reasonable, law-abiding citizen who chooses to take responsibility for their own defense.

 

[Mystic]

I don't think that 80,000 soldiers on an army base need to be carrying handguns, concealed or out in the open. But I do think that a certain percentage of officers and NCOs with the proper training should be allowed to carry handguns in each major area of the base.

And notice I said handguns. I am not talking about soldiers walking around with automatic M-16s.

It has been proven time and again that the criminal does not want to face an armed person. In this incident at Fort Hood, as soon as the female MP with the handgun showed up, he took his gun and shot himself. That was the end of the fight. Up until that it had been a free fire zone, with this guy shooting at anybody he saw. It probably would have continued for a while like that if the MP had not shown up and confronted the guy.

Those are the simple facts. Maybe this guy was mentally disturbed and so forth. But when an armed person showed up he shot himself.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I drew from several sources, including the official FBI crime site, Wikipedia and others. There have been dozens of studies on the subject, and shock in the UK (reflected in the newspaper articles) at being the most violent of nations in Europe. None of those studies, or the media reporting them, were able to find causality, only correlation in statistics.


If you are talking about 'violent crime' the problem arises in how you define violent crime.
In the UK there is a very broad definition that in some studies includes 'uttering threats'
Regardless, violent crime seems to have peaked in the UK around 1995 (much as it did in the U.S.) and has been falling just about every year since since.

The Homicide Rate is probably a better indicator, as it is more easily defined and more accurately reported. It also paints a very different picture:

“You’ve got 10 times the likelihood of being killed in violent crime in the U.S. than you have in the U.K.,” Steve Killelea, the founder of the institute, told the BBC today. “The strict gun controls in the U.K. are one of the reasons you’ve got such good homicide rates.”

According to the institute, if the U.S. homicide rate were the same as the U.K.’s, it would prevent 12,000 deaths a year."


Now. Having said all this. If I were to live in some places in the U.S.
Would I own a Gun (for Self defense reasons)?

I would have to answer Yes!

Am I glad I live in parts of the world where it is (realistically) unnecessary to own a gun in order to protect myself?

YES!

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: expat
The Homicide Rate is probably a better indicator, as it is more easily defined and more accurately reported. It also paints a very different picture:

“You’ve got 10 times the likelihood of being killed in violent crime in the U.S. than you have in the U.K.,” Steve Killelea, the founder of the institute, told the BBC today. “The strict gun controls in the U.K. are one of the reasons you’ve got such good homicide rates.”


Downunder, and I'm not sure about the UK, but given that we share so much, we probably share definitions too.

Down here, suicide with a firearm is a homicide committed with a firearm, a violent crime etc. etc...

Naturally, after the 1996 gun ban in Oz, the number of guns used in suicide dropped as they were less available, while the suicide rate remained the same (people found other means of doing it, balconies and ropes became popular...my neighbour's sister took home some green liquid and a syringe from the vet surgery, my Dad's brother had his lunch pail packed with rope, and stopped somewhere on the way to work).

However, the Howard Government used their numbers to prove that "gun violence" was down after their gun bans...firstly, they haven't had a Port Arthur since (they didn't have one before either), and secondly, firearm homicides were down markedly.

Overall homicides didn't shift. The majority of them were suicides, and the perpetrators of those homicides chose other means of doing it.

 

[Shannow]

e.g.

See how this page looks
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Versus this page
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html