Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
alexwilson 03-Oct-06, 04:53	What to do about the latest trend I am talking about middle aged men who arm themselves, go into schools and shoot little girls. This has happened twice in two weeks. Yesterday it was a bunch of little amish girls. I don't guess we can do anything to prevent this, can we?
echo3 03-Oct-06, 05:38	No. Sad to say there isn't. Well, except placing armed guards on every school, college, shop, beauty parlour, sports field, doctor's surgery et al, and even that wouldn't do the job everytime. A nut case will always find a way. Take his gun away he will use a knife. Take his knife away he will use a baseball bat. Take his bat away he will use his hands etc etc..... Perhaps closer monitoring of mental health services and those in the community with mental issues might help but that only works for people who are undergoing treatment. But if this guy wasn't undergoing some sort of counselling then we can't even blame the mental health system. It's a terrible tragedy for any community. Perhaps more so for one which seeks to keep itself "out" of the modern world. Heartfelt sympathy from me to all those affected in this and similar incidents.
qiwi 03-Oct-06, 16:31	More Guns - More Killing actually there is one solution, one that is suggested everytime another gun-wielding maniac goes mad in the U.S. TIGHTER CONTROLS ON GUN OWNERSHIP.... The inescapable fact is that the higher the level of gun ownership the higher the rate of gun-related homicides.... I have just been perusing an interesting site that splits the U.S. into what they call "High Gun States" vs "Low Gun States" and the evidence is overwhelming... To make the statistics meaningful they have broken it down so that the populations are nearly equal... in this case 158 million for the "High Gun States" and 158 million for the "Low Gun States"... Across every age group the incidence of homicides in the "High Gun States" is on average four times higher than in the "Low Gun States" e.g. 5-14 year olds - 302 vs 80 15-24 .......... - 5157 vs 1539 25-34 .......... - 4397 vs 1078 35-44 .......... - 2825 vs 495 45-54 .......... - 1316 vs 264 55-64 .......... - 609 vs 80 and last but not least... 65+ ............. - 602 vs 80 Remember we are talking about gun-related HOMICIDES here. p.s. I wonder if Thumper lives in a "High Gun State" or a "Low Gun State"
qiwi 03-Oct-06, 16:33	TYPO.... Sorry, that should have read 158 million for the "High Gun States" vs 160 million for the "Low Gun States".
echo3 03-Oct-06, 17:33	Do you have a link qiwi ?
leo_london 03-Oct-06, 17:46	qiwi.. The statistics are certainly compelling. We both come from countries with very strict gun laws, so its difficult to put ourselves in the position of the average American. Going back to the school killings, what response would you give to those who would say.." with crazies like that roaming around we need our guns " ?
pawntificator 03-Oct-06, 18:09	I'd say Leo, that there is some validity to that argument. However, currently there are plenty of people with guns, and still the crazies go on rampages. If you consider a well armed principle and teacher force, then there would likely be more deaths from accidental shootings, kids picking the lock to the school gun cabinet, and STILL the crazies would be going on shooting sprees. The fewest number of guns possible certainly would reduce the number of gun homicides. However, it comes back again to the common man being able to defend himself from oppression when the State becomes too powerful. And on the other hand, anybody could get their hands on a baseball bat with some nails pounded into it. Quite deadly indeed.
qiwi 03-Oct-06, 18:27	Leo.... How often after a vicious homicide do you hear some friend or relative of the perpetrator telling us in all sincerity that... "He was a wonderful man, Church going, a father of three lovely children e.t.c. e.t.c." What I am saying is, wouldn't it be great if the crazies were easily identifiable, and could be isolated from the rest of us, or at least not allowed to own guns, but nine times out of ten the perpetrator is a law abiding legally registered gun-owner....they are, on the surface, no different than you or me... What I'd like to know is what part of 'Guns Kill' dont the lawmakers understand??
qiwi 03-Oct-06, 18:45	B.T.W.... Oooops....something else I omitted to mention re" the study I quoted above..... The statistics were taken from a ten-year period from 1988 to 1997. Alex's original question seems to refer to the safety of children, and it there where the statistics are most revealing. In one table the authors compare the 5 states with the highest gun-ownership levels with the 5 states with the lowest levels. While the states have equal numbers of children they have very different rates of violent death... In the 10 year period, 253 children died from fire-arm accidents in the 'high gun states' compared with 15 in the 'low gun states' During the same period 296 children aged 5-14 were murdered with guns in the HG states compared with 86 in the LG states. "This elevated rate of violent death of children in high gun states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education or urbanization" So despite whatever spin the gun lobby put on it, it is clear that having a gun in the house puts your children at risk......
qiwi 03-Oct-06, 18:49	Echo.... Sorry but I am not too flash at putting up links... but if you simply type 'high gun states U.S.' into Google it will be there somewhere....
thumper 03-Oct-06, 19:59	Echo I believe this is where Qiwi got the 'study' (correct me if I'm wrong) This data is actually scattered about the web in an attempt to give it a more widespread appearance (note the same people and sponsors). It's based on the debunked work of Arther L. Kellerman, M.D. that Jeff brought up in the 'In for a penny thread'. December 2002, Vol 92, No. 12 | American Journal of Public Health 1988-1993 © 2002 American Public Health Association -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESEARCH AND PRACTICE Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997 Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, Deborah Azrael, MS, PhD and David Hemenway, PhD Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, and David Hemenway are all from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: mmiller@hsph.harvard.edu). Objectives. In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, by age groups. Methods. We used cross-sectional time-series data (1988–1997) to estimate the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide. Results. In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime. Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5-14 Year Olds. Original Articles Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 52(2):267-275, February 2002. Miller, Mathew MD, MPH, ScD; Azrael, Deborah PhD; Hemenway, David PhD Abstract: Background : In the United States, only motor vehicle crashes and cancer claim more lives among children than do firearms. This national study attempts to determine whether firearm prevalence is related to rates of unintentional firearm deaths, suicides, and homicides among children. Methods : Pooled cross-sectional time-series data (1988-1997) were used to estimate the association between the rate of violent death among 5-14 year olds and four proxies of firearm availability, across states and regions. Results : A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence. Conclusion : A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
thumper 03-Oct-06, 20:19	Abstraction Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes ABSTRACT Background It is unknown whether keeping a firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent crime in the home. To study risk factors for homicide in the home, we identified homicides occurring in the homes of victims in three metropolitan counties. Methods After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods. Results During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Conclusions The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
zorroloco 03-Oct-06, 20:21	thump i did not bother correcting you before, but my stats came from the CDC (Center for disease Control)
thumper 03-Oct-06, 20:34	Jeff Where do you think the CDC and NCIPC got their 'data' from?
alexwilson 04-Oct-06, 03:40	Why, every nutball knows that the CDC and the NCIPC and, for that matter, the US Goverment are part of the ZOG.
jaymar 04-Oct-06, 07:32	pawn.. I've seen a quote along these lines before on another thread though I don't know if it was also by you. Is one of the reasons you have guns to defend yourselves against your own government? It seems a bit old fashioned to me. "However, it comes back again to the common man being able to defend himself from oppression when the State becomes too powerful." If there were tighter gun laws maybe the "crazies" wouldn't be able to get hold of them either?
katonah 04-Oct-06, 08:54	It is the old argument Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I am in echo3 camp. Cain didn't have a gun? I put part of this blame on the media for sensationalizing. Everyday on the news or in the newspaper we are inundated with negative press. How do you stop such an act, you can't. Horrible, yes, shake your head cry for the victims, thank goodness it wasn't you or your kids and carry on. We as adults have it easy, it is the kids I worry about. At least we have happy memories of being a kid!
soulcrates 04-Oct-06, 14:00	If you take exceptional notice You'll see that these school shootings are all happening in christian countries. Canada, USA, and Germany. There are probably a few others, but most are from people from these countries. This brings up what someone was saying about denominations of christian church's having the same sexual deviancy problems with children. This stems back to even the middle ages when boys were castrated to keep them looking like children and keeping their voices high enough for choir. Not allowing the priests to marry creates a disturbance and affects these innocent young boys. These boys grow up today into men, who can start families, and seem completely normal. They are not, they are merely ignoring the problems instead of confronting them, and fixing it. At some point they can no longer ignore the problems, and this happens. It ends with children being raped and killed, or as in the case of the republican congressman, just harrassed as far as we know, but probably sexual contact occurs. This is a commonplace event that stems from the same cause. It may not be a view that most will accept, but the facts are still there, and cannot be ignored.
zorroloco 04-Oct-06, 14:11	christianity along with islam, is so uptight about sexuality. i mean, nudity is bad, sexuality (not always, but has a tendency) is seen as dirty, and to be repressed.
markallen 04-Oct-06, 15:11	It's astonishing..... ..the power of lobby groups in the US have to distort fact. The oil companies did it for decades with climate change despite the scietific communioty having no doubs...purely through "spin". It seems to me that th same mut be true of the guns issue. The stts are compelling as are cross cultural comparisons though there it sems there are other factors. The Swiss have manged to have high gun ownership without the consequences that the US and Afghanistan have suffered but they have avoided the prepoderance of handguns. I wonder if another factor is the role of the gun in Hollywood movies. If i see Mel Gibson running down anothr stret with a gun......*yawn* or those movies where the gun changes hands along with the "power".....*yawn* Guns in the US seem to carry some almost mystical (wrong word but searching for a better one) quality quite lost on other (more) civilised nations.
markallen 04-Oct-06, 15:13	......and no guns are NOT the same as knives or baseball bats....they enable death at the squeeze iof a trigger and at some distance...they depersonalise conflict/sanitise it and allow tragic consequences from tiny actions.
soulcrates 04-Oct-06, 15:48	I agree with you there markallen Guns do "depersonalize" conflict between people. This makes it easier to kill someone, since you don't really have to think about it. Even worse than guns is Nuclear bombs, which aren't able to choose between victims, but just kill indiscriminately. I for one would rather see Nukes banned from Earth first, since guns cannot destroy humanity except thru a few people at a time. Nukes can destroy Earth within seconds. Just a simple push of a button to depersonalize humanity.
qiwi 04-Oct-06, 16:12	Its the old argument... 'Guns dont kill people, people kill people'... Personally I find the ..."if he didn't have a gun he would have used a baseball bat" argument one of the weakest validations for not restricting gun ownership. From the statistical evidence it would appear around half of the children killed in firearm related incidents in the 5-14 age group are killed by accidental shooting. Therein lies the difference, if you drop a baseball bat it doesn't 'go off' and smack you in the head, especially painful if you own the Pawntificator version with protruding nails.... I have to agree with my fellow antipodean Mark at this point......the 'deification' of the gun in the U.S. is not really a good look from where most of the rest of us are sitting....
zorroloco 04-Oct-06, 16:16	mark <If i see Mel Gibson running down anothr stret with a gun.> are you talking about a movie? or real life?
markallen 04-Oct-06, 17:01	Jeff I'm talking about in movies! ....the point i'm making though or at least exploring is the dominant "narrative" in so many Hollywood movies. One that i could probably advance, that places guns at the centre of human interpersonal relationships, the "might is right", "gun ownership confers power and control" which is implicit to so many movies. In contrast, thrillers from other countries might emphasise 'cunningness" or "agility" or some other trait. I'm probably waffling a bit but it intrigues me the way that people, nations and cultures literally construct so much of their own social reality. Guns and the US seem a good exemplar for that given that so much of the developed world hold such diametrically opposed stances.
markallen 04-Oct-06, 17:07	Thanks qiwi "deification"....sums up the way it looks to me too if only i were so eloquent.
thumper 04-Oct-06, 18:34	Hmmm... Some defend the 2nd amendment as others attack it, both using the 1st. You may enjoy riding my coattails, but I predict my rights will outlast your privileges.
alexwilson 04-Oct-06, 19:24	When I lived in a rural area, we used to see people who threatened their families get restraining orders entered against them. Were they upset they had to move out of their house and live in a car? Nope. Were they upset that their families were torn apart and they wouldn't see their kids? Nope. Were they worried about the shame and disgrace that they experienced? No. What really got these guys upset is that they had to give up their guns. I am not kidding. Its all they ever asked or worried about.

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, online chess puzzles, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.