Mass shooting in my state

[Terramirabilis]

Another mass shooting in the US and this one is close to home. Local media are saying 13 students dead and 20+ injured. When are people going to see sense on gun control. I just don't understand this.

twitter.com/hashtag/UCCShooting?src=hash

Yes I place a higher value on my property than the life of someone trying to take it.

Fucking hell. And people like you want guns? That, just on it's own, is a justification of gun control.

No it isn't. The life of the attacker comes second to that of the victim in these situations, and provided the force used is reasonable I have no problem with someone who kills in self defence or defence of property.

Yes I place a higher value on my property than the life of someone trying to take it. They are still human, whatever I may think of them, so I'd try not to, but if it's a choice between killing them or losing my property, my property has a higher value than their life I'm afraid.

This paragraph sums up why gun laws in the US are ridiculous. Why Joe Bloggs in Texas shouldn't be able to walk down to WalMart and buy a handgun. Why tens of thousands of people die from gunshot wounds in the US every year, and not all shot by the 'bad guys'.

Crazy.

I think your posts are veering towards sociopathic tbh.

It sounds like you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to protect their own property?

The life of the attacker comes second to that of the victim in these situations

And that attitude makes you a vigilante. You are setting yourself up as judge, jury, and even executioner of someone stealing your car. You don't have to attack the thief - you are escalating a theft situation into a violent altercation. And you want a gun on you, too, to be able to do this.

It's madness.

DontHave It sounds like you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to protect their own property? I wouldn't.
Stuff is just stuff. I can honestly say I don't own anything of more value than the lowliest drugged up hateful violent human. And I have some nice stuff, but it's just that- stuff!

"And that attitude makes you a vigilante. You are setting yourself up as judge, jury, and even executioner of someone stealing your car."

No it doesn't, because if you kill in self defence or defence of your property, you're not "sentencing" them to death as a punishment for what they did, you're protecting yourself/your property and were put into a position where you had to take their life to manage it.

" You don't have to attack the thief - you are escalating a theft situation into a violent altercation. And you want a gun on you, too, to be able to do this."

No you are not escalating, you're stepping in to protect your property and prevent a crime. If they resist, that's them escalating it, not you.

Seriouslyffs fair enough that's up to you if you wouldn't. But you should have the option to if you want.

I think your posts are veering towards goady fucker.

Considering you've said you don't actually live in the US - I don't know anyone of even moderate intelligence in the UK who honestly thinks this way.

Well I don't live in the US, but I think they have the right idea on guns. And the stats show that gun crime is actually higher in states that have strict gun control, which to me would suggest that allowing people to own and carry is safer.

Donthave
Well I don't live in the US, but I think they have the right idea on guns

What?! What on earth is good about the American situation? I can't think of one benefit! Higher crime rate, higher incarceration, higher accidental deaths and suicides...
I suppose if you're a gun or bullet manufacturer it's better but I really can't see one other benefit.

Donthave but surely you can see that the states has a massively increased number of shootings entirely because they do not have strict gun control? As otherwise surely in in Britain we would all be walking around terrified of being shot?

"Donthave but surely you can see that the states has a massively increased number of shootings entirely because they do not have strict gun control?"

That wouldn't explain why states with stricter gun control have more gun crime than states with liberal gun control.

"As otherwise surely in in Britain we would all be walking around terrified of being shot?"

Why would we be terrified?

And the stats show that gun crime is actually higher in states that have strict gun control

They don't. States with lax gun laws have more gun deaths than those with strict gun laws.

Map showing gun deaths by state, where an A Rating has the strongest gun controls, and F the weakest

The gun lobby would have you believe that gun crime is higher in states with gun control, of course.

However, FBI figures show the 5 states with the highest rate of both 'robbery' and 'aggravated assault' with a firearm' - 4 out of the 5 have very lax gun control laws.

Greenwood with that map you posted how are those figures calculated, does it include lawful killings with a gun?

Lawful killings?
Have a think about that phrase.

It is all gun deaths. Examples of 'gun crime' which are more prevalent in states with little or no gun control, are in my next post.

You said you thought I was mistaken about research showing that more people die from accidental shootings/ suicide /shooting a loved one in a domestic fight, than intruders killed by a homeowner in self defence. Here it is:

Kellermen: "He studied all the gunshot deaths that occurred in the county – which includes Seattle and its environs – over a six-year period. Out of a total of 743 deaths from firearms, they found, 398 took place in the home where the gun was kept. Of these, more than 80 percent were suicides, 13 percent were homicides and 3 percent were accidents. Homicide victims were most often shot by family members and roommates. Seven of the 398 deaths were later determined to be in self-defense, and two more involved intruders shot while attempting entry. This meant that there were a whopping "43 suicides, criminal homicides, or accidental gunshot deaths involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for self-protection."

"Lawful killings?
Have a think about that phrase."

It refers to things like killing in self defence, which shouldn't be included in stats which are used in a discussion on gun crime, because self defence isn't a crime. That's why I was wanting to know how the figures were calculated and what all it included in the definition.

We were also discussing having a gun in the home for "protection" - in fact you were advocating it, I believe.

I'm pointing out that you are far more likely to die by your own gun - by accident/suicide/domestic homicide - if you have one in the house, than kill an intruder with it.

And I don't think you are. If the stats simply record the number of people who died from a gun, then that also includes cases where someone has defended themselves by killing the attacker, so even if the gun helped save that persons life the stats would be misleading as they would simply record another instance of "gun death".

All gun deaths would be something to avoid, I think we could agree?

In 398 shooting in the home over 6 years in the county - only 7 were self defence, and only 2 were intruders.

You may argue that those deaths would have happened another way without a gun, but I just don't buy it. A gun can be grabbed, and used instantly from a distance, to kill someone - a knife, a bat, an ashtray, all requires actually approaching the other person, an actual physical assault.

You keep a gun in the house - you are statistically much,much more likely to die by it, or one of your kids die by it, than kill an intruder.

Oh, I'll correct that, for your benefit, to all gun deaths should be something to avoid, except the 7 in SD and the 2 intruders. So those 9 are ok but the rest of them (389) - perhaps they wouldn't have happened without the gun.

Certainly the 43 accidental deaths wouldn't have happened without the presence of the gun.

"All gun deaths would be something to avoid, I think we could agree?"

Of course, but if it's the "kill or be killed" conundrum, if someone tries to kill you and you protect yourself with a gun then your gun has saved your life, but the stats will simply show there was another gun death and be used to claim that we are safer without them. Despite it actually saving you.

"You may argue that those deaths would have happened another way without a gun, but I just don't buy it. A gun can be grabbed, and used instantly from a distance, to kill someone - a knife, a bat, an ashtray, all requires actually approaching the other person, an actual physical assault. "

We can only speculate there. Maybe the absence of a gun would result in a saved live, but maybe it wouldn't. Maybe the absence of a gun could cause an innocent person to die. But that's just speculation.