Another Ft. Hood shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
my son is in the Nat Guard he is a medic. i went to his house this afternoon , his wife told me he was very upset. an other medic he knows was shot, but not badly. my son was trying to get more info. he told me the shooting was done at the medical battalion. WOW O WOW. thats to close to home.
 
I can empathize. My brother was attached to the 1st Calvary division during the terrorist shooting. This was the first and only time that I was happy my brother was still deployed in Iraq.

Just sad there is no other way I can express this.
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
There's the problem right there. The instant ANYONE is deemed to have mental health issues, or is even suspected as being mentally unstable, there must be some type of security measure in place to make sure this individual does not have access to any weapons...this is the failure point in our security system...

In theory, I agree, but it's unworkable up here, let alone in a country like the States where firearm ownership is more common. If we don't have the mental health resources to properly assess and treat people, how are we going to get information to other authorities about their condition, and then translate that into preventing access to weapons?

If everyone who ever had a mental health issue at one point in their life was blocked from access to weapons, gun ownership would be under 5% in North America and we'd have unarmed police.
wink.gif


Up here even, that's been an issue. They were flagging anyone with mental health issues (of which the police were aware) for their firearm licensing. But, it got to the point where anonymous, unsubstantiated reports could be made against someone that would red flag their file. Ex spouses, disgruntled employees and coworkers, and other assorted enemies could make up an accusation and cause a gun owner problems without any consequences for false reporting.
 
An armed base would have been less deaths but does not eliminate the possibility of deaths by a shooter. The truth is a well placed shooter could do plenty of damage with better weapons for the task.

I know it makes you guys feel better and justified if everyone is armed. The end reality is people still die.

People are quite adaptive and smart and simply find ways around. It is simple thinking to think being armed is the answer.

I don't get our country at all.
 
To pass laws restricting a class of objects in the hope that this legislation will stop psychopaths from killing others is equally simple thinking.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
An armed base would have been less deaths...


Hey, I'm all for fewer deaths, aren't you?

You're right, an armed populace generally means mess like this happens less frequently. Which is precisely the point.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
An armed base would have been less deaths but does not eliminate the possibility of deaths by a shooter. The truth is a well placed shooter could do plenty of damage with better weapons for the task.

I know it makes you guys feel better and justified if everyone is armed. The end reality is people still die.

People are quite adaptive and smart and simply find ways around. It is simple thinking to think being armed is the answer.

I don't get our country at all.


Every angle is simple thinking at best, currently. The issue is too broad to just make simple statements like being armed or disarmed will help prevent stuff from occurring.

Look at china, they've had at least two pretty nasty knife attacks that I'm aware of, in a pretty short while (like since around the time of Newtown). Then go back to the Bath school massacre. Unarmed but crazy will still cause calamity.

But in reasonably established and functional societies where there is greater control, disarmed populations appear to have lower incidences of this kind of effect (note see above about disarmed crazies still doing damage). And a main element of that is that there is a far greater assurance of someone armed with a firearm taking more life, easier, than someone with, say, a knife. It's all about reach and lethality, which is really why guns are popular for anything from hunting to self defense to target shooting, to begin with. The other side of this is that a military base is NOT a cross section of even the USA really. There are far fewer illegals, junkies, and completely disconnected, dis functional people there than a standard cross section of the population. Yes, there certainly are all of those (less the illegals) even in the military, and it is well known that in some military basing areas and the surrounding towns, crime can be high. But overall, communities with high military integration have lower crime rates.

Quote:

So why do these ten neighborhoods have such high crime rates? According to Andrew Schiller, founder and president of NeighborhoodScout, the answer may lie in the demographics of the American military. Military bases tend to have high concentrations of young, single men living together in very close quarters. Schiller has also found similar property crime spikes in other areas -- like college student neighborhoods -- that have large concentrations of single males living together. One possible explanation for these surges in crime rates could be that young men, separated from their parents, wives, families and communities, may feel more temptation to commit certain types of crimes.

Ironically, NeighborhoodScout reports that military neighborhoods as a whole tend to be considerably safer than most of the country. America has 300 neighborhoods in which at least 20% of the population is in the military. In these areas, the median property crime rate is 32 per 1,000 residents, which is 7% below the national average. The violent crime rate is even more striking: at 1.55 crimes per 1,000 residents, it is an impressive 67% lower than the average.



http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/16/most-dangerous-military-towns/

Perhaps it is because of an assumption of armament, training, or willingness, or perhaps it is because, again, it isn't a suitable cross section of America, when professional military personnel are present. So then one has to go back to the aspects of mental health, availability of treatment, use of treatment, etc. to properly assess. And that's far more complex than just saying that being armed or disarmed, military base or elsewhere, is the answer. Unfortunately until were willing and able to make some likely non-PC assessments come out into the open, it will all go nowhere.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013...1993-study-says

Not making a call one way or another on these data, but looking at functional and equivalent countries with similar wealth (forget Honduras and South Africa and places with no analog to the us society and wealth level) and the results are interesting. Again, not making a claim one way or another based upon these, but it would be logical for things like base arming regulations to be made per the best available data they have, which may be something like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...t-of-the-world/

The comments above I posted about young single male crime rates also aligns to why, perhaps, the firearm rules on bases are what they are, and would also confirm why in other subsections of the USA (eg inner cities) why the crime rate also is so high.
 
Military life is stressful even in peace time. Every day 22 military personnel take their own lives.

When a person reaches the point in their mind that their lives or the lives of others no longer matter, no law will stop them.

On an individual level, we decide how we will defend ourselves, or even whether we will defend ourselves and others, in this situation or any other situation. I refuse to walk through life unarmed, unaware, and unprotected. Relying on the odds may be good for herds of antelope and schools of fish...not for me.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: rjundi
An armed base would have been less deaths...


Hey, I'm all for fewer deaths, aren't you?

You're right, an armed populace generally means mess like this happens less frequently. Which is precisely the point.



Dó you have ANY stats to back that up?

Or are you talking only about militariy bases.K

I admit, I think it a little ironic that SOLDIERS on a MILITARY BASE are un-armed, when the civilians outside can be.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: expat
Dó you have ANY stats to back that up?


The rest of the world has far, far, far fewer guns - legal or otherwise - circulating around their societies; and, coincidentally or not, who's to say, do not seem quite as plagued with gun violence as the U.S. Perhaps it is more a cultural condition than a legislative one?

Either way, stats can be incomplete when trying to gain a perspective on something. (Stats indicate that almost everyone in Canada, for example, has more than the average number of legs.) Stats can also indicate that nations with stricter legislation have fewer instances of firearms violence; but if there are underlying causes and conditions for this violence, then both those who favour stricter laws governing the sale and possession of firearms and those who oppose them may have some valid points.

Guns are the most heinous, humanity-destroying way that the illnesses of people can manifest; but their (hypothetical) removal still leaves the illnesses. I think any effort a nation expends in alleviating disenfranchisement and strengthening communities will pay off in a natural (read: not requiring legislation, which is invariably ineffectual) decline in people's *intentions* toward violence. Thinking about achieving that one, though, makes legislation seem like the easy way!
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more

Guns are the most heinous, humanity-destroying way that the illnesses of people can manifest;


I think there are quite a few others that are worse than guns. Bombs kill more, per incident, than guns for example. And then there is the loss of limbs and other things that go along with that.

Quote:
but their (hypothetical) removal still leaves the illnesses. I think any effort a nation expends in alleviating disenfranchisement and strengthening communities will pay off in a natural (read: not requiring legislation, which is invariably ineffectual) decline in people's *intentions* toward violence. Thinking about achieving that one, though, makes legislation seem like the easy way!


Yup, you have to deal with the root of the problem, which is mental illness. Banning rulers because Timmy smashed Jimmy with one doesn't solve the problem about Timmy's violent tendencies.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Even the Secretary General of Interpol is coming to the realization that Gun Free Zones cost lives:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-...ory?id=20637341

Gun free zones only cost lives if they are surrounded by gun infested zones... Also unjust international policies do tend to create terrorists. Propping up dictators, or leaders who can be bought, tends to make the oppressed people vunerable to be recruited for terrorism activities.
Why we let our governments create the conditions for terrorism against us to grow is beyond me. I guess alot of influential people most profit from it.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Why we let our governments create the conditions for terrorism against us to grow is beyond me. I guess alot of influential people most profit from it.


The "why" may not be as beyond you as you think!
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Even the Secretary General of Interpol is coming to the realization that Gun Free Zones cost lives:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-...ory?id=20637341

Gun free zones only cost lives if they are surrounded by gun infested zones... Also unjust international policies do tend to create terrorists. Propping up dictators, or leaders who can be bought, tends to make the oppressed people vunerable to be recruited for terrorism activities.
Why we let our governments create the conditions for terrorism against us to grow is beyond me. I guess alot of influential people most profit from it.


What are your thoughts on the Toronto Court House shooting that happened recently? I mean Canada is, in the sense that we aren't allowed to carry hand guns, a "gun free zone" but that didn't seem to prevent this guy from coming into a court house and gunning down a police officer, before being shot dead himself by several other officers
21.gif


I would imagine that there are a few areas in Toronto that might classify as "gun infested", despite the fact that the people there are prohibited from owning the types of firearms they possess. Regent Park is an example I can think of immediately.

However, if somebody wants to kill somebody else, gun or no, they are going to find a way. If it isn't a gun, it'll be a knife, bat, fire poker, axe, club, machete or maybe even a bomb. If somebody is bent on ending the life of another that's the issue, not the device they choose to do it with. The guy with the gun could have very easily shanked the same officer in the kidney with something too.

EDIT:

Just to add something here, I am not wanting my fellow Canadians to be walking around with handguns. I am quite happy with our current setup in terms of gun ownership and I think it is a pretty sensible system. I see no compelling reason up here to even want to concealed or open carry, as we don't have that degree of handgun ownership. My point is that if somebody is going to commit an offense, and that offense happens with a firearm, I don't believe the policies on gun ownership in that area are what should immediately be brought into question in regards to the incident. The person is going to find a way to carry out what they planned on doing irrespective of any laws that may be in place. So examining those laws doesn't strike me as the first place we should be going when investigating such an incident. As another fellow Canadian brought up, the issue is mental health, and that is ultimately what leads to situations like these, both the Fort Hood shooting and the Toronto Court House shooting.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan

Gun free zones only cost lives if they are surrounded by gun infested zones... Also unjust international policies do tend to create terrorists. Propping up dictators, or leaders who can be bought, tends to make the oppressed people vunerable to be recruited for terrorism activities.
Why we let our governments create the conditions for terrorism against us to grow is beyond me. I guess alot of influential people most profit from it.


That's a belief statement, not a fact. The correlation between gun ownership and violence is not clear.

In the two decades after the banning of gun ownership in the UK, the violent crime rate rose to more than twice that of the US. The UK is surrounded first by water, and next by nations that have gun restrictions, so there are no "gun infested zones" surrounding it. Australia, similarly surrounded by oceans and guns restricted states, has seen a similar increase in violent crime after its gun ban 15 years ago, and specific weapons types (e.g. Glock 23) that were never legal in Australia are showing up in crimes; which proves only that criminals don't obey the law. After the passage of gun control legislation in the US in 1968 the violent crime and murder rates rose. After the passage of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban in 1992, the crime rate in the US dropped.

After the repeal of the same assault weapons ban in 2002, the crime rate in the US dropped and has continued to drop.

Currently, the rate of violent crime in Canada exceeds that of the US, but that's not a fair comparison, because while the Canadians count assaults that don't result in injury, the US only counts assaults that do result in injury, so it becomes a bit of an apples - oranges comparison.

However, if you remove the 5 largest metropolitan areas in the US from the crime statistics, the US crime and murder rate are below that of Canada...which simply demonstrates that it is our big cities that have the problem, not the US in general. Though Canadians like to feel safe, and tell us how safe they feel, in their country, the crime rates don't support their contention.

It should be pretty obvious that there are more factors involved in the rate of criminality than simple gun ownership rates.

But all the crime rate studies and comparisons when applied to the issue of gun control focus solely on the cost side of a cost/benefit analysis. Yes there are costs to living with liberty. We would all be safer if several rights were restricted. Freedom of the press incites strong feelings, eliminate it and the populace becomes more passive and we're all safer. The right to drive costs us 30,000 lives per year (actually, it's not a right, but everyone sure thinks it is) but the benefit of driving is so readily apparent that we tolerate this level of carnage (far exceeding the carnage from guns) so that we can continue to exercise that right. Incidentally, more people in the US die from murder with a blunt object (baseball bats and golf clubs) than are killed with all rifles (including rifles with detachable magazines), but no one is suggested that we regulate and restrict sporting equipment, despite the misuse by the criminals or psychopaths among us.

But the debate never goes to the benefits side. What is the benefit of our liberty? Of our free speech? Right to vote? The right to self defense is the key benefit to firearms ownership, the reason that it was enumerated in our constitution. Collectively or individually, we have a right to defend ourselves. As a practical matter, the gun makes that possible. Against a younger, stronger, more skilled or more numerous adversary intent on doing one harm, the sole means of defense is a firearm. Otherwise you're a victim. A statistic.

Alternatives to the firearm have yet to be developed effectively. Mace doesn't work (ask the guys in prison), Tasers have limitations (one shot, blocked by certain clothing, failure of the darts or the wires) and none of them work against multiple attackers. Harsh language doesn't work either...

Deprived of the means to defend yourself, you really don't have the right. If we curtailed other rights as we have this right, there would be howls of outcry...let's get a background check, fingerprints, and charge a fee to vote...oh, wait, that kind of restriction was deemed unconstitutional and unfair to the poor and minority voters.

Ironically, it is the poor and minority who are in the greatest need of the means to defend themselves - look at the demographics of those 5 metropolitan areas. Making the means more expensive, more restrictive, or more difficult to obtain disadvantages them more than the people who are living in better circumstances.

Legislation sure is easy...and it allows people to feel good about themselves ("we've accomplished something" "think of the children we've saved") but it really doesn't affect the criminal among us, it only affects the law-abiding. Many are willing to curtail the rights of others so that they can feel good, or safer.

Those pressing to curtail rights that they don't exercise are caught in a kind of blindness about what they're doing to others. They cling to tautologies, like "the police will protect you", except that simply isn't true: the police can't respond in time and the Supreme Court in the US has ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals, only to protect the collective by deterring and solving crimes.

In this debate, I am with Ben Franklin, who once said, "Those who are willing to give up their liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I continue to advocate liberty for everyone, including those who wish to exercise their right to defend themselves. That is the point that is missing from all this discussion - the rights of the individual.
 
A quote from "All in the Family."

Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?

Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

Gun free zones just are not the answer. I don't think everyone walking around with a gun is the answer either.

There is no easy or one side fits all answer.

And yes, I own a few and at times carry one. (it's a PITA though.)
 
Last edited:
Good post Astro.
I would like to see a reference for the overall levels of violent crime in Canada, UK, and the US though. Also I'd bet alot of money that if you take the 5 largest urban areas out of Canada's violence stats it would be lower than the US again though.
I don't have to time to post alot now, but in short, I like our level of gun control, no big mags for anything, long arms under lock and key in homes unless in use, and nearly no legal and relatively few illegal, hand guns in public.
This makes Canada ,on average, much safer in terms of getting killed in a crime than the US. I don't think there's any statistics that can disprove that.
I can understand the reality in the US, that handguns won't ever be banned due to the fact that there would be so many available to be used illegally. But you also have to remember that if I or my wife come home to someone breaking into my house, the big odds are that they won't be armed with a gun at all... So if the guy panics, we just have to stay out of arms reach to avoid injury, or simply just staying in the car, buys you all sorts of time to decide what to do. Little worry about him just shooting you out of convienience...
That is worth something to me atleast.
 
For Canada:

Quote:
In the majority of homicides last year (84 per cent), murder victims were killed by someone they knew, typically a family member or acquaintance.

There were 82 homicides committed by an intimate partner – 83 per cent involved a female victim.

Last year also saw the lowest rate of homicide committed by a stranger in over four decades.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1040722/canada...years-statscan/

Random homicides in your country appear to be quite rare. Canada also appears to be in a 40 year low regarding homicides, which is great.

This low is occurring at the same time the use of firearms in homicides is increasing.

Take a look at the murder rate in Jamaica. An island nation with strict gun control laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top