Select to expand quote

remery said..
Conservative Americans are quick to blame mass-shootings and school-shootings on mental health, but we have mental health issues but rare, if ever, mass/school shootings.

We were talking about gun deaths in general. Mass shootings are largely irrelevent in that context.

However I am not sure I agree with your logic on mass shootings. I can't think of an incident where the purpetrator was not suffering some serious mental health issues.

If you look at the stats of mass shootings per capita, europe and especially Scandanavia are the standout leaders, the US is middle of the road. The southern hemisphere seems to be immune from them, although I expect that is because Australia is the only country with any data. South America and Africa would blow away the rest of the world if they kept stats there.

worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country

That map shows that Norway, not Scandinavia, must have had a mass casualty shooting, but I haven't found anything since june 2022, which was an anti gay shooter who killed 2 and wounded 21.
If you read the information further down the page it suggests that Norway got bumped up the list by Anders Breivik, who set the world record in 2011 (77 dead. 8 from a bomb, 69 by shooting)
Here's another map showing the incidence of mass shooting by number of incidents
wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
That map shows that Norway, not Scandinavia, must have had a mass casualty shooting, but I haven't found anything since june 2022, which was an anti gay shooter who killed 2 and wounded 21.
If you read the information further down the page it suggests that Norway got bumped up the list by Anders Breivik, who set the world record in 2011 (77 dead. 8 from a bomb, 69 by shooting)
Here's another map showing the incidence of mass shooting by number of incidents
wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/

No, it is all of Europe. But you do make the point about data manipulation. It can be manipulated in many ways, my link was simply deaths to mass shooting per capita, which is reasonable when one wants to consider thier risk of being killed in one, which most people are actually interested in. Number of incidents is also valid but does not account for population, so becomes less useful. How do you compare NZ and the US without taking into account population??

This is the list on deaths per population, the US is way down there. On overall numbers of incidents, yes probably highest on the list. Norway - 1.888
Serbia - 0.381
France - 0.347
Macedonia - 0.337
Albania - 0.206
Slovakia - 0.185
Switzerland - 0.142
Finland - 0.132
Belgium - 0.128
Czech Republic - 0.123
United States - 0.089
Austria - 0.068
Netherlands - 0.051
Canada - 0.032
England - 0.027
Germany - 0.023
Russia - 0.012I
taly - 0.009

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Mr Milk said..
That map shows that Norway, not Scandinavia, must have had a mass casualty shooting, but I haven't found anything since june 2022, which was an anti gay shooter who killed 2 and wounded 21.
If you read the information further down the page it suggests that Norway got bumped up the list by Anders Breivik, who set the world record in 2011 (77 dead. 8 from a bomb, 69 by shooting)
Here's another map showing the incidence of mass shooting by number of incidents
wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/

No, it is all of Europe. But you do make the point about data manipulation. It can be manipulated in many ways, my link was simply deaths to mass shooting per capita, which is reasonable when one wants to consider thier risk of being killed in one, which most people are actually interested in. Number of incidents is also valid but does not account for population, so becomes less useful. How do you compare NZ and the US without taking into account population??

This is the list on deaths per population, the US is way down there. On overall numbers of incidents, yes probably highest on the list. Norway - 1.888
Serbia - 0.381
France - 0.347
Macedonia - 0.337
Albania - 0.206
Slovakia - 0.185
Switzerland - 0.142
Finland - 0.132
Belgium - 0.128
Czech Republic - 0.123
United States - 0.089
Austria - 0.068
Netherlands - 0.051
Canada - 0.032
England - 0.027
Germany - 0.023
Russia - 0.012I
taly - 0.009

Tricky when there is not a standard for recording events.

Number of deaths per capita is an interesting stat but doesn't show how often shootings occur. That Norwegian number comes essentially from one event, some years they don't even have one.
Further in the same article they provide this list, which is a different take on the same numbers.

Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
United States - 0.058
Albania - 0
Austria - 0
Belgium - 0
Czech Republic - 0
Finland - 0
France - 0
Germany - 0
Italy - 0
Macedonia - 0
Netherlands - 0
Norway - 0
Russia - 0
Serbia - 0
Slovakia - 0
Switzerland - 0
United Kingdom - 0

So far in the USA there has been 241 mass shooting events where at least 3 or more people have been injured or killed in a public space (www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?page=9)

That's 0.73 shootings per million of population (assumed 330 for USA)

Not an insignificant number, and it's not even halfway through the year.


My take on this is that, no matter your state of mental health it's a lot harder kill and injure 3+ people in one event when you don't have easy access to firearms.

The U.S. has Pfizer.
Every mass shooting/school shooting I'm aware of had the gunman on psychoactive prescriptions.
We prescribe the same rubbish here although probably not as readily and needless to say firearm access isn't nearly as prevelent. Add to that their gun culture and a few other mistakes they're making and yep, pretty much makes sense.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
My take on this is that, no matter your state of mental health it's a lot harder kill and injure 3+ people in one event when you don't have easy access to firearms.

A girl from my area and went to my boys school was killed in the London stabbing attack in 2019. He managed to do plenty of damage to people without a gun. But I don't disagree on access to guns, it amplifies the damage. Thing is what can you do in places that have being armed as a right? The US has it in thier constitution, and the vast majority of deaths are from handguns. It isn't going to change and any attempts to limit guns past automatic weapons is useless.

All you can do is address the underlying causes.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
The U.S. has Pfizer.
Every mass shooting/school shooting I'm aware of had the gunman on psychoactive prescriptions.
We prescribe the same rubbish here although probably not as readily and needless to say firearm access isn't nearly as prevelent. Add to that their gun culture and a few other mistakes they're making and yep, pretty much makes sense.

"Every mass shooting/school shooting I'm aware of had the gunman on psychoactive prescriptions"... Do you have data to back this claim up?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said.

All you can do is address the underlying causes.

You mean guns, yes?

Select to expand quote

remery said..

psychojoe said..
The U.S. has Pfizer.
Every mass shooting/school shooting I'm aware of had the gunman on psychoactive prescriptions.
We prescribe the same rubbish here although probably not as readily and needless to say firearm access isn't nearly as prevelent. Add to that their gun culture and a few other mistakes they're making and yep, pretty much makes sense.

"Every mass shooting/school shooting I'm aware of had the gunman on psychoactive prescriptions"... Do you have data to back this claim up?

Hmm, data to back up 'my level of awareness' that's um ... that's gonna be difficult.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

You mean guns, yes?

You think guns are the reason why people kill other people or themselves? Someone picks up a gun and thinks, hey I feel like doing harm with this and have thoughts they never had before?....that is really not sensible. They are an effective tool that can amplify an intent, they are not a cause. The reason people decide to use a gun to do harm is not because a gun is available to do it with. I doubt the Trans person who killed a heap of kids and teachers at a school in Tennessee a few weeks back did it because they suddenly found a gun. There were other motivations.

You can limit the damage by banning automatic weapons and restricting people to single shot firearms, which they have done. Beyond that it is almost impossible to do more because of the constitution rights they have and the overwhelming support in the US is still the right to bear arms.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
Hmm, data to back up 'my level of awareness' that's um ... that's gonna be difficult.

maaaate,

Come-on you know the rules. They were set down long ago by one of our founding forum forefathers.

Unless it has been proven in a court of law, it isn't empirical.

Title of the thread got me interested.

So.. what is the headline news on Fox News US website this morning ?

95 year old dies after being tasered by police in Australia
Bride wears see through dress to her wedding in Sydney, Australia (I did click on this one first just to find out about... errrh about the news)

.....hang-on, all the headlines are about how weird life in Australia is

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

You think guns are the reason why people kill other people or themselves? Someone picks up a gun and thinks, hey I feel like doing harm with this and have thoughts they never had before?....that is really not sensible. They are an effective tool that can amplify an intent, they are not a cause. The reason people decide to use a gun to do harm is not because a gun is available to do it with. I doubt the Trans person who killed a heap of kids and teachers at a school in Tennessee a few weeks back did it because they suddenly found a gun. There were other motivations.

You can limit the damage by banning automatic weapons and restricting people to single shot firearms, which they have done. Beyond that it is almost impossible to do more because of the constitution rights they have and the overwhelming support in the US is still the right to bear arms.

I'm against high capacity magazines too. Since Women's Weekly became a monthly publication, I've struggled to get through it.

Select to expand quote

remery said...

Mental health restrictions only got 90%. I think that says it all

Democrats and republicans almost agreed on that one.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said:


You think guns are the reason why people kill other people or themselves? Someone picks up a gun and thinks, hey I feel like doing harm with this and have thoughts they never had before?....that is really not sensible. They are an effective tool that can amplify an intent, they are not a cause. The reason people decide to use a gun to do harm is not because a gun is available to do it with. I doubt the Trans person who killed a heap of kids and teachers at a school in Tennessee a few weeks back did it because they suddenly found a gun. There were other motivations.

I would suggest that someone who purchases a firearm, in particular a handgun for self defence purposes, has likely already considered the potential for using it to take a life.
Isn't that the whole purpose? Someone is concerned about their safety, and so buys a 'tool' that has a small amount intimidation power but much greater killing power.
These people, when confronted with a scary situation, are more likely to respond with lethal force instead of de-escalation or more reasonable use of force.

It seems that various groups and Lobby's have influenced the culture based the whole right to bear arms.

It seems that now they are not so much protecting the right to bear arms to protect against tyranny, but protecting the right for everyone to use Lethal force anywhere.

Just look at those "Gun-tubers" who review and promote firearms for self defence and every day carry.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Not sure of the point of the post, or the survey. All it tells us is that most people support current US restrictions on gun ownership.

All those things are in place already (except maybe the family red flag one), The last one is a media driven red herring which is why conservatives don't agree with the statement, they tend to be better critical thinkers when it comes to media propaganda. There is no such thing as an "assault style weapon".

All weapons can possibly be used for assault, including a spoon.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I would suggest that someone who purchases a firearm, in particular a handgun for self defence purposes, has likely already considered the potential for using it to take a life.

..mmm maybe you are crediting gun-toting Americans a little too much there.

I'd imagine a lack of thought on the issue was more likely, and hence the reason for some of the issues.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

I would suggest that someone who purchases a firearm, in particular a handgun for self defence purposes, has likely already considered the potential for using it to take a life.
Isn't that the whole purpose? Someone is concerned about their safety, and so buys a 'tool' that has a small amount intimidation power but much greater killing power.
These people, when confronted with a scary situation, are more likely to respond with lethal force instead of de-escalation or more reasonable use of force.

It seems that various groups and Lobby's have influenced the culture based the whole right to bear arms.

It seems that now they are not so much protecting the right to bear arms to protect against tyranny, but protecting the right for everyone to use Lethal force anywhere.

Just look at those "Gun-tubers" who review and promote firearms for self defence and every day carry.

Most of that is your own views driven from your own perspective. Lobby groups are driven by popular opinion, not the other way around.

The US is very different in culture and in many areas suffers significant crime rates. Most US gun owners are either hunters, which has a significantly higher activity rate than here, or they are wanting to protect thier homes from invasion. The rate of armed home invasion is significantly higher in the US than here. Although that said it is getting worse here too. 6 months ago I had an armed invader in my house and my family was at serious risk of harm. I can sympathise with those who want to protect thier family.

There is also a very different approach to individual liberty in the US. Many people simply do not trust the government and frankly the government is not helping the situation in recent years. The increasingly political bent of the US DoJ and its agencies to target one side of politics and ignore the other is making things worse. A lot worse. Gun ownership has gone through the roof in the US in recent years because they simply no longer trust the Authorities.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

D3 said..

I would suggest that someone who purchases a firearm, in particular a handgun for self defence purposes, has likely already considered the potential for using it to take a life.
Isn't that the whole purpose? Someone is concerned about their safety, and so buys a 'tool' that has a small amount intimidation power but much greater killing power.
These people, when confronted with a scary situation, are more likely to respond with lethal force instead of de-escalation or more reasonable use of force.

It seems that various groups and Lobby's have influenced the culture based the whole right to bear arms.

It seems that now they are not so much protecting the right to bear arms to protect against tyranny, but protecting the right for everyone to use Lethal force anywhere.

Just look at those "Gun-tubers" who review and promote firearms for self defence and every day carry.

Most of that is your own views driven from your own perspective. Lobby groups are driven by popular opinion, not the other way around.

The US is very different in culture and in many areas suffers significant crime rates. Most US gun owners are either hunters, which has a significantly higher activity rate than here, or they are wanting to protect thier homes from invasion. The rate of armed home invasion is significantly higher in the US than here. Although that said it is getting worse here too. 6 months ago I had an armed invader in my house and my family was at serious risk of harm. I can sympathise with those who want to protect thier family.

There is also a very different approach to individual liberty in the US. Many people simply do not trust the government and frankly the government is not helping the situation in recent years. The increasingly political bent of the US DoJ and its agencies to target one side of politics and ignore the other is making things worse. A lot worse. Gun ownership has gone through the roof in the US in recent years because they simply no longer trust the Authorities.

Yes, I'll admit that my perspective is only my perspective.

What I was trying to get across, about people picking up guns and deciding to use them, is that someone who buys a gun for self defence has already accepted that they intend to use it on another person if the situation arises.


"Someone picks up a gun and thinks, hey I feel like doing harm with this and have thoughts they never had before?"

Once again my perspective:
They have already decided that in scary and emotionally charged situations it is ok to take someone elses life. Some of these people, when they encounter other scary and emotionally charged situations, will then turn to the tool they use when scared and emotional and take someone's life.
Too often (I know it's disproportionate reporting) we hear of someone being shot and killed while doing something innocuous, innocent or while in need of assistance, but they got shot because their behaviour made someone scared.

I too, can sympathise with someone's home/safe space being invaded and when yours or your families safety is threatened.

I suppose the bit I struggle with is choosing to kill someone else as such an easy (or more likely cheap) and culturally acceptable/endorsed option.

I am lucky enough to have been able to afford stronger doors, taller fences and more secure windows. But I understand that buying firearms is, for many, a much cheaper and easier way to feel safer.

And disproportionate response often ends up with the gun owner in prison (unless your name is Rittenhouse).

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

They have already decided that in scary and emotionally charged situations it is ok to take someone elses life.

I am lucky enough to have been able to afford stronger doors, taller fences and more secure windows. But I understand that buying firearms is, for many, a much cheaper and easier way to feel safer.

Respectfully, my point is that your perspective is one of privilage. You don't see the need to arm yourself because you are not in an environment that it is necessary. Try moving to many areas in the US or elsewhere (I have lived in PNG as well) and your perspective may change.

I too had strong doors, gated fences, steel bars and security in PNG and I still had intruders in the house. They just use stonger means of entry. In this case among other things, a car jack was very effective in bending steel bars....into my 1yo boys room no less.

43% of US households have a firearm. Your dismissive view of that reality as lazy or poor choices is what I am referring to as your inability to empathise with the situation. You have also failed to understand the deterrent a firearm brings to a situation.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
And disproportionate response often ends up with the gun owner in prison (unless your name is Rittenhouse).

Have you ever actually looked into the facts of the Rittenhouse case, or are you just going off whatever media source you watched at the time?

You may find that the facts are very different to what you believe.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

D3 said..

They have already decided that in scary and emotionally charged situations it is ok to take someone elses life.

I am lucky enough to have been able to afford stronger doors, taller fences and more secure windows. But I understand that buying firearms is, for many, a much cheaper and easier way to feel safer.

Respectfully, my point is that your perspective is one of privilage. You don't see the need to arm yourself because you are not in an environment that it is necessary. Try moving to many areas in the US or elsewhere (I have lived in PNG as well) and your perspective may change.

I too had strong doors, gated fences, steel bars and security in PNG and I still had intruders in the house. They just use stonger means of entry. In this case among other things, a car jack was very effective in bending steel bars....into my 1yo boys room no less.

43% of US households have a firearm. Your dismissive view of that reality as lazy or poor choices is what I am referring to as your inability to empathise with the situation. You have also failed to understand the deterrent a firearm brings to a situation.

I raised the point of buying a firearm for defensive purposes in response to your comment that picking up a gun doesn't automatically make someone want to shoot someone else.

I agree.

I was pointing out that people buying firearms for defence are essentially only buying it to be able to shoot someone else with it.
There may be rare occasions when the display of a firearm may be enough intimidation to provide the desired protective effect.
But otherwise, the only way to use a gun for self defence is to shoot someone else with it.

They have already accepted that they can and should use it in appropriate circumstances.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

remery said..
And disproportionate response often ends up with the gun owner in prison (unless your name is Rittenhouse).

Have you ever actually looked into the facts of the Rittenhouse case, or are you just going off whatever media source you watched at the time?

You may find that the facts are very different to what you believe.

Yes, yes I have.

Rittenhouse, what an awesome young man, providing first aid to those in need. Putting out fires. Cleaning damaged property. Protecting the innocent. Helping his community.

And when faced with deadly violence from child abusers and violent criminals, exercised incredible weapon control, restraint and discipline. His skill and maturity well above his teenage years saved lives.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
Rittenhouse, what an awesome young man, providing first aid to those in need. Putting out fires. Cleaning damaged property. Protecting the innocent. Helping his community.

And when faced with deadly violence from child abusers and violent criminals, exercised incredible weapon control, restraint and discipline. His skill and maturity well above his teenage years saved lives.

Said no one with a brain.