Jump to content
beginnergirl

USA Shootings #2

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

If Peter or anyone else wants to smear me personally instead of offering an intellectually honest rebuttal,

So I got a call that you mentioned me directly so I unblocked your post.

Re your comments above.

I honestly worry about you and your mental wellbeing. 

Your comments are not sane. Your need to argue with EVERYONE in nearly ALL USA related topics is (Guns, Trump) is pretty much mindblowing. 

I really do think you need to see someone about your mindset.

Can't you see that EVERYONE is of the opposite opinions of you on the deaths of people and guns are doing that?

Saying out of thousands of deaths, its not that bad because only 3 had more than 10 people killed at once.

I know I'm not that smart, but there is something seriously wrong with someone that thinks even one death is okay.

No point responding to me as I won't be unblocking you again.  I'm going for a ride.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Peter said:

Saying out of thousands of deaths, its not that bad because only 3 had more than 10 people killed at once.

I know I'm not that smart, but there is something seriously wrong with someone that thinks even one death is okay.

Maybe you should find someone who actually does think that even one death is okay and have it out with them

At no point did I say that a single death is okay, let alone thousands of deaths.  In the very post you're responding to I said that one death is too many

My point was that statistics like these can be and often are manipulated to push a particular narrative which often does not reflect reality.  Most people would hear the term 'mass shooting' and think of Las Vegas, El Paso or the like where many people are killed, not two gang members in Chicago shooting each other in the leg

As I also said before, if we can't agree on the starting point, how are we going to get anywhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blocking IJ serves what purpose other than proving Peter doesn’t agree with what he is debating. IJ said one death is too many and Nealo’s stats of mass shootings are a mute point given that there are on average 36383 gun deaths a year. 

These are the stats people should be worried about:

  • 36,000 Americans are killed by guns each year—an average of 100 per day.
  • 100,000 Americans are shot and injured each year.
  • In 2017, gun deaths reached their highest level in at least 40 years, with 39,773 deaths that year alone.

Ps: police shooting deaths = approx 1000 per year.

Edited by IronmanFoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Blocking IJ serves what purpose other than proving Peter doesn’t agree with what he is debating. IJ said one death is too many and Nealo’s stats of mass shootings are a mute point given that there are on average 36383 gun deaths a year. 

These are the stats people should be worried about:

  • 36,000 Americans are killed by guns each year—an average of 100 per day.
  • 100,000 Americans are shot and injured each year.
  • In 2017, gun deaths reached their highest level in at least 40 years, with 39,773 deaths that year alone.

Ps: police shooting deaths = approx 1000 per year.

It's moot point. (not mute)

Not sure where you get those stats but they seem to be fairly high.

I linked earlier to this https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ 

These threads/discussions get started because of Mass shootings but I thought we had been talking about Americans and their guns all along not just Mass shootings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IJ blames law enforcement not enforcing the laws as the reason for America's gun crime statistics.

Its misguided racist laws and the racist application of other laws that drives IJ's constant need to throw up the Chicago gang straw man as a major issue.

Black and Brown people are subject to heavy handed , police search and seize tactics. Thousands are pulled over or stopped in the streets and searched wit police rewarded for gun and drug seizures.

If a black or brown person is killed in Boston theres a 40% chance of an arrest, if a white person is killed its 90%. In some places the coloured homicide arrest rate is single figures. 

Being harassed for no reason and then not receiving the assistance of the law when they need it drives coloured communities to take the law into their own hands. They react to violence with violence as they know the police won't arrive and if they do they'll dial it in and nothing will happen. 

The laws don't work. They need to be changed, not enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nealo said:

It's moot point. (not mute)

Not sure where you get those stats but they seem to be fairly high.

I linked earlier to this https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ 

These threads/discussions get started because of Mass shootings but I thought we had been talking about Americans and their guns all along not just Mass shootings?

Your website doesn't;t count the 22,000 gun suicides as deaths. 40,000 is accurate from what I read. Suicide the largest proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Parkside said:

Your website doesn't;t count the 22,000 gun suicides as deaths. 40,000 is accurate from what I read. Suicide the largest proportion.

Ah yeah I read that but didn't link it back. Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Parkside said:

IJ blames law enforcement not enforcing the laws as the reason for America's gun crime statistics.

Its misguided racist laws and the racist application of other laws that drives IJ's constant need to throw up the Chicago gang straw man as a major issue.

Black and Brown people are subject to heavy handed , police search and seize tactics. Thousands are pulled over or stopped in the streets and searched wit police rewarded for gun and drug seizures.

If a black or brown person is killed in Boston theres a 40% chance of an arrest, if a white person is killed its 90%. In some places the coloured homicide arrest rate is single figures. 

Being harassed for no reason and then not receiving the assistance of the law when they need it drives coloured communities to take the law into their own hands. They react to violence with violence as they know the police won't arrive and if they do they'll dial it in and nothing will happen. 

The laws don't work. They need to be changed, not enforced.

I remember going for a run in Pittsburgh and being amazed at how quickly a "good" neighborhood turns into a "bad" one in only a few small blocks or so.  It had me wondering why people stay in their own 'hoods - almost as if there was some kind of invisible barrier that prevented them from crossing.  I understand that police harassment is a large part of that barrier, i.e. the quality of car and the complexion of the driver are markers for otherwise unwarranted attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pete said:

I remember going for a run in Pittsburgh and being amazed at how quickly a "good" neighborhood turns into a "bad" one in only a few small blocks or so.  .

yep I 100% agree with this comment. Unfortunately some people think all of America is like these "bad" areas.  The first time I visited San Fran I stayed in the Tenderloin (one of the worst areas in SF) & had no problems at all. The funniest moment was running past a soup kitchen and a large African American chap said "lift those knees when ya run boy"

I was talking to a local in Philly and he was saying the bad areas are slowly getting forced further and further away from the city. New developers move in and start doing up properties etc. It was really interesting listening to him talk about the drug trade, homeless and violence in the city. He took us on a ghetto tour, the best bit of drug education I have ever done with my daughter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Controversial new ad put out by a foundation set up by some of the Sandy Hook parents.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/sandy-hook-foundation-releases-survive-the-school-year-ad/11528356

I disagree with the final tag line "All school shootings are preventable when you know the signs."

 

Very glad that myself and my children grew up in a country where school shootings are not a reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bored@work said:

 

 

3 hours ago, Ironnerd said:

Controversial new ad put out by a foundation set up by some of the Sandy Hook parents.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-19/sandy-hook-foundation-releases-survive-the-school-year-ad/11528356

I disagree with the final tag line "All school shootings are preventable when you know the signs."

 

Very glad that myself and my children grew up in a country where school shootings are not a reality.

Only 5 posts up. Never mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nealo said:

It's moot point. (not mute)

Not sure where you get those stats but they seem to be fairly high.

I linked earlier to this https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ 

These threads/discussions get started because of Mass shootings but I thought we had been talking about Americans and their guns all along not just Mass shootings?

Correct on Mute v Moot.

Here is the website I got that info from. It is called Giffords Law Centre (to Prevent gun violence).

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/gun-violence-statistics/

Lots of stats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Peter said:

 

Only 5 posts up. Never mind. 

Youtube is blocked for me so I could not see your video link. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/09/2019 at 11:14 PM, IronmanFoz said:

Correct on Mute v Moot.

Here is the website I got that info from. It is called Giffords Law Centre (to Prevent gun violence).

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/gun-violence-statistics/

Lots of stats.

Indeed:

- The majority of gun deaths—two-thirds—are self-inflicted.

- Gun homicides are concentrated in cities, with roughly half of all gun homicides taking place in urban areas that contain just a quarter of the total US population.

- Black men make up 52% of all gun homicide victims, despite comprising less than 7% of the US population.

- Despite the large place they occupy in our public consciousness, mass shootings comprise a small fraction of all gun violence, with estimates showing that such violence constitutes less than 1% of all gun deaths.

And before anyone starts, yes of course the 1% still matter...

Edited by IronJimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s all quote our stats, here are the ones I got from a single article today:

* This summer alone, 26 mass shootings left 126 people dead

 

* In three of the summer’s four deadliest shootings, an AR- or AK-style gun was used.

 

* officers shot and fatally wounded a gunman within 32 seconds of him opening fire on a packed street lined with bars, nightclubs and shops, yet 9 people still died within those 32 seconds. 

* More than half of the mass killing suspects this summer had a family or romantic tie to at least one victim.

* Hate crime reports across the nation have increased for three years in a row, with 7,100 incidents in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available. The Walmart shooting which also happened to be carried out using an AK47, was motivated by hatred of Hispanic people and killed 22 people

* The suspect in every shooting was male, and no case went unsolved. This summer, the suspects included a 14-year-old boy in Alabama and a 62-year-old man in Georgia, but no women or girls. Experts say it is exceedingly rare for females to carry out mass shootings.

 

* Children died in 11 of the mass
shootings. None happened at a school.

 

* A man fleeing a traffic stop began shooting at random at motorists between Odessa and Midland using a military-style rifle. ABC News reported that he bought it through a private-sale loophole after failing a background check because of a mental illness.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rog said:

Let’s all quote our stats, here are the ones I got from a single article today:

* This summer alone, 26 mass shootings left 126 people dead

 

* In three of the summer’s four deadliest shootings, an AR- or AK-style gun was used.

 

* officers shot and fatally wounded a gunman within 32 seconds of him opening fire on a packed street lined with bars, nightclubs and shops, yet 9 people still died within those 32 seconds. 

* More than half of the mass killing suspects this summer had a family or romantic tie to at least one victim.

* Hate crime reports across the nation have increased for three years in a row, with 7,100 incidents in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available. The Walmart shooting which also happened to be carried out using an AK47, was motivated by hatred of Hispanic people and killed 22 people

* The suspect in every shooting was male, and no case went unsolved. This summer, the suspects included a 14-year-old boy in Alabama and a 62-year-old man in Georgia, but no women or girls. Experts say it is exceedingly rare for females to carry out mass shootings.

 

* Children died in 11 of the mass
shootings. None happened at a school.

 

* A man fleeing a traffic stop began shooting at random at motorists between Odessa and Midland using a military-style rifle. ABC News reported that he bought it through a private-sale loophole after failing a background check because of a mental illness.

What are you trying to say........ This is good or bad?

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

What are you trying to say........ This is good or bad?

More to the point, what should be done about it?

Robert O'Rourke seems to think confiscating the guns used in 1% of shootings will solve 100% of the problem 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No 1 simple solution. Spend money and change laws and expect a change in a generation

1) Increase spending on mental health services and crisis care.

2)Compulsory house search and handback/confiscation  if a domestic violence case ongoing

3) Spend money on social programs for at-risk communities. IJ this means the black people in Chicago you speak about so much. Oaklands Ceasefire program is one I read about

4) Make pistol ownership much more difficult. registered gun club, must do sporting shoots regularly to keep license and gun.

5) Ban assault weapons. Buyback. Confiscate 

6) Put less people in jail for minor crimes, decriminalisation of low key drug offences for example

7) educate law enforcement not to kill people

eight) tone down xenophobic, racist rhetoric from public officials

9) Ban political donations from arms manufacturers and the NRA

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad that this is pretty much the reality of kids in this country, not only having to know about these things but also being fully aware that it could be them one day.
 
Mass shootings may only be a small proportion of deaths by gun violence in the US but it is undoubtedly the highest profile, and it affects way more people in its periphery than any sort of gang violence and even suicide.
 
To say that solution is in education, or putting more resources in mental health, or worse that nothing can be done because this is part of the American culture and 2nd amendment rights is the typical gun rights advocate cop out excuse.
 
Meanwhile Senate Leader Mitch Mcconnel won't even put a bill already passed in the House on the senate floor for discussion. Even that would be a good start - just having an open discussion about it.
 
I think the key to all of this to unfold is Parkside's point #9 above - ban political donations from any organization representing arm manufacturers such as the NRA. Follow the money and close the loopholes that allow organizations like this have such power over politicians that they are even scared to talk about gun restrictions, let alone try to solve it.
 

 

Edited by Rog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎22‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 5:21 PM, Parkside said:

No 1 simple solution. Spend money and change laws and expect a change in a generation

1) Increase spending on mental health services and crisis care.

2)Compulsory house search and handback/confiscation  if a domestic violence case ongoing

3) Spend money on social programs for at-risk communities. IJ this means the black people in Chicago you speak about so much. Oaklands Ceasefire program is one I read about

4) Make pistol ownership much more difficult. registered gun club, must do sporting shoots regularly to keep license and gun.

5) Ban assault weapons. Buyback. Confiscate 

6) Put less people in jail for minor crimes, decriminalisation of low key drug offences for example

7) educate law enforcement not to kill people

eight) tone down xenophobic, racist rhetoric from public officials

9) Ban political donations from arms manufacturers and the NRA

All good points. If they had proper gun controls in place item no.7 would 'hopefully' be less of a concern.

PS: Parkside for President.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/09/2019 at 5:21 PM, Parkside said:

No 1 simple solution. Spend money and change laws and expect a change in a generation

1) Increase spending on mental health services and crisis care.

2)Compulsory house search and handback/confiscation  if a domestic violence case ongoing

3) Spend money on social programs for at-risk communities. IJ this means the black people in Chicago you speak about so much. Oaklands Ceasefire program is one I read about

4) Make pistol ownership much more difficult. registered gun club, must do sporting shoots regularly to keep license and gun.

5) Ban assault weapons. Buyback. Confiscate 

6) Put less people in jail for minor crimes, decriminalisation of low key drug offences for example

7) educate law enforcement not to kill people

eight) tone down xenophobic, racist rhetoric from public officials

9) Ban political donations from arms manufacturers and the NRA

1) Agree (I've been saying this for a while)

2) Agree, subject to due process

3) Absolutely agree

4) Unlikely.  People keep pistols for self defence.  Take them away, and criminals will run riot

5) Assuming you mean the AR-15, there are over a hundred million of them.  Not going to happen

6) Not really relevant. And I'm not so sure that there are too many people in jail for drug possession that are not there as a result of a plea down from dealing

7) Agree

8 ) Incitement is already illegal

9) Blaming the NRA for shootings is like blaming the NRMA for the road toll.  They have power because they have millions and millions of members, not because they have millions and millions of dollars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

5) Assuming you mean the AR-15, there are over a hundred million of them.  Not going to happen

Banning assault rifles - Would be a good starting point one would think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Banning assault rifles - Would be a good starting point one would think!

Sure, but it wouldn't be anywhere as easy as it sounds 

Besides, the government telling it's people that they're going to go door to door to take away everyone's gun sounds a bit tyrannical to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Banning assault rifles - Would be a good starting point one would think!

Yep.  Like wanting a tree or a Forrest.  You have to plant that first tree at some point.  And everyone wishes it was 30 years ago.  Not today.

1 minute ago, Bored@work said:

If you want to do something you will find away. If you don’t want to do it you will find an excuse 

Spot on.

As was quoted above.  IJ just says not going to happen. That's the excuse. He is clearly happy for innocent people to get killed everyday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Sure, but it wouldn't be anywhere as easy as it sounds 

That's no reason to not try.

Maybe they should take a leaf out of JFK's book and do it, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Besides, the government telling it's people that they're going to go door to door to take away everyone's gun sounds a bit tyrannical to me

I was one of those "pissed off gun-owners" back in 1996. Today I am a staunch supporter of our gun laws. People's attitudes change when they see an end benefit.

Here's some stats that may be of interest, from a 2011 Harvard study on our Gun Law changes. NFA is National Firearms Agreement.

Quote
  • “In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
  • “In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
  • “[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter said:

As was quoted above.  IJ just says not going to happen. That's the excuse. He is clearly happy for innocent people to get killed everyday. 

🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I was one of those "pissed off gun-owners" back in 1996. Today I am a staunch supporter of our gun laws. People's attitudes change when they see an end benefit.

Here's some stats that may be of interest, from a 2011 Harvard study on our Gun Law changes. NFA is National Firearms Agreement.

 

What happened to the overall suicide rate between 1989 and 2004?

Was there a corresponding drop in 1996 or did people just find other methods? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, when you take the time to read the constitutional basis for "the right to bear arms" it's a pretty big ask they have ahead of them.  The whole thing is based on government mistrust that dates back to England where  King James II, a Roman Catholic, who had forced the disarming of Protestants, while arming and deploying armed Catholics contrary to Law (among other alleged violations of individual rights).  The disarmament of american colonists by the British actually precipitated the fighting in the the war of independence.  The upshot of all that, as I see it, is that the political and historical significance of gun control, to an American, is something that we don't understand and thus we underestimate the enormity of the task.  

It would appear that the best chance they have is to revoke ownership privileges for felons and people with mental illness and possibly some gun types.  Still, a noble pursuit - limiting semi-automatic, center-fire rifles and high capacity magazines (loosely categorized as "assault rifles") would be a great step in the right direction that my get some traction in some states.  Very unlikely that handguns could be controlled, however but maybe some strong regulation of some type might help. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pete said:

It would appear that the best chance they have is to revoke ownership privileges for felons and people with mental illness and possibly some gun types.

Look, it's one thing to take the right to vote away from those people but for the love of god let them have guns so they can keep the government in check...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Pete said:

Wow, when you take the time to read the constitutional basis for "the right to bear arms" it's a pretty big ask they have ahead of them. 

Given the amendments were written in the time of powder load muskets I think it's reasonable to have a right to bear muskets but nothing else.

If they stay on the current path will they automatically allow the next mass murder weapon someone comes up with? Lethal tasers, ultra-sonic things that mash your brain from 10m, personal scatter bombs? Who know what will be next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

What happened to the overall suicide rate between 1989 and 2004?

Was there a corresponding drop in 1996 or did people just find other methods? 

I know how this works?

I say they fell in total, so you say taking guns away did nothing.

I say they didn't change, so you say taking guns away did nothing.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I know how this works?

I say they fell in total, so you say taking guns away did nothing.

I say they didn't change, so you say taking guns away did nothing.

That is the problem with data and seperating causality from correlation. It is possible to do but requires a much more in depth analysis than just looking at the raw numbers.

Month by month stats and an idea of the trend beforehand would be the place to start and then we can get all excited and do some hypothesis tests.

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pubchart?oid=2058187199&format=image
Interactive Link

pubchart?oid=1976587857&format=image

Interactive Link

Brief conclusions: Suicide by firearm were on a downward trend anyway. There appears to be a particularly sharp drop in 1998 (the key year) but there was also a particularly sharp drop in 1989, it would be interesting to know what happened then.

Suicide average remained fairly consistent up to 1998 where it entered a sharp decline.

I now have to do some actual work and run home but I'll dig in some more later as this has got my nerd juices flowing.

Data from herE: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ViewContent?readform&view=productsbytopic&Action=Expand&Num=5.7.1

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tyno said:

That's no way to frame an argument Monkie :D

I sincerely hope this is as clever a pun as I have given it credit for!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just ran two models looking at the above. In both models I used a dummy variable set to either 0 or 1 for whether the gun control reforms had been implemented in Australia. I set this to 0 for any year before 1998 and to 1 for 1998 onwards. I also included Real GDP Growth, Unemployment and Overall Death Rate.

In the first model the null hypothesis was that "Gun control has no effect on suicide by firearm in Australia."

The dependent variable in the model was Suicide by Firearm per 100,000 of Population.

The independent variables were GDP Growth, Unemployment Rate, Death Rate, Gun Control Reform and Suicide Rate.

The results were:

image.png.47bf779572540af5d2ea7b774a7689a2.png

Adjusted R Squared: 0.9149

Therefore we reject the null hypothesis at the 100% confidence level.

For the second model the null hypothesis is: Gun control reform has no effect on overall suicide rates i.e. people who would have committed suicide with a firearm substitute that method for an alternative.

The dependent variable was the suicide rate and the independent variables were GDP Growth, Unemployment Rate, Death Rate and Gun Control Reform.

The results were:

image.png.04ccdfaab46948d99611d6b06affbb98.png

Adjusted R Squared: 0.2698

Therefore we do not reject the null hypothesis.

Unemployment does have an impact on the suicide rate at the 95% confidence level which is supported in the literature see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20652218.

I did this in an hour so I wouldn't hang my reputation on it but certainly an interesting area to explore.

Caveats are that using "Gun Control Reform" is a bit of a blunt instrument and doesn't take into account changing societal views about guns following mass shootings. There may also be other factors at play not included in the model but unless they have significant co-linearity with the dummy Gun Control Reform variable then that should not have an impact on the analysis.

❤️ data.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger it's no accident.  Whether it was his son-in-law or the other relation who was causing trouble previously this man intended to do some serious harm to a person who had done nothing more menacing than jump out of the dark and make a noise.  The fact that no charges are being laid and it is being written off as simply an accident is as much an example of why the U.S. is in such a mess as the number and type of weapons are.

Just how "manly" must you be to be that scared of a noise that you're prepared to kill?  I really don't get it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Stikman said:

If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger it's no accident.  Whether it was his son-in-law or the other relation who was causing trouble previously this man intended to do some serious harm to a person who had done nothing more menacing than jump out of the dark and make a noise.  The fact that no charges are being laid and it is being written off as simply an accident is as much an example of why the U.S. is in such a mess as the number and type of weapons are.

Just how "manly" must you be to be that scared of a noise that you're prepared to kill?  I really don't get it.

Another, equally tragic, story an inadvertent  doorstep shooting in America is the celebrated case of Yoshi Hattori who was a Japanese student on an exchange program to the United States who was shot to death in Baton Rouge.  There is a common link here - both incidents involved people from different nationalities who I am sure could not even begin to imagine the crazy-stupid environment. The same could also be said for the fatal shooting of Justine Diamond, an Australian that would never have thought approaching a police car at night would have such terrible consequences.

But what is even more f&*ed is the castle law that was deliberately invoked to create a killing - i.e. someone deliberately enticed a burglar onto their property BECAUSE they wanted to shoot someone in the tragic case of the Death of Diren Dede that at least resulted in (lots of) jail time for the perpetrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...