Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson and Aurora … yet nothing on gun control

[Dcdrac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ent-mark-kelly

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson and Aurora … yet nothing on gun control

We have a political class afraid of a meaningful debate about our gun laws. We need leaders like Gabby to address the issue

Mark Kelly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/mark-kelly

Mr Loughner, for the first and last time, you are going to hear directly from Gabby and me about what you took away on 8 January 2011 and, just as important, what you did not. So pay attention.

That bright and chilly Saturday morning, you killed six innocent people. Daughters and sons. Mothers and fathers. Grandparents and friends. They were devoted to their families, their communities, their places of worship.

Gabby would trade her own life to bring back any one of those you savagely murdered on that day. Especially young Christina-Taylor Green, whose high-minded ideas about service and democracy deserved a full life committed to advancing them. Especially 30-year old Gabe Zimmerman, whom Gabby knew well and cherished, and whose love for his family and his fiancee and service to his country were as deep as his loss is tragic. Especially Judge John Roll whom Gabby was honored to call a colleague and friend and from whose interminable dedication to our community and country she gained enormous inspiration. Gabby would give anything to take away the grief you visited upon the Morrises, the Schnecks, and the Stoddards – anything to heal the bodies and psyches of your other victims.

[casebro]

Mr Drac, the voters of the U.S. WANT us to have guns.

IIRC, the Kerry loss was due to his anti-gun stance which lost him a couple key states. Since then even the Dems feel anti-gun is not a good plank to have in their platforms.

Subjectively, you can prove me wrong by listing the voter direct proposition from all over the country, and see the rate of how many times 'we the people' actually voted anti-gun.

Besides, last FBI study I heard shows those mass murders by gun, like you listed, are way down over the last decode or two.

[Magyar]

When it comes to guns, the woo and outright lunacy of the us crosses all party, color and socioeconomic lines. I don't even have an overall problem with that, but just like with taxes and health care we have to come back to at least the neighborhood of reality.

[casebro]

And the reality is that the people want us armed.

That reality is reflected in the dearth of new gun control laws.

[Ranb]

One thing you need to know is that many gun control laws have little to do with reducing crime, especially those passed at the state or county/city level. Instead they are passed to placate those who don't like gun owners.

Mark Kelly described Brewer's remarks as feckless, but they were merely true. Some of the most important traits a politician can possess are honesty and candor.

Ranb

[Bikewer]

These threads tend to go on and on, and we've had several in recent memory. When these tragedies occur, there is always talk of more "gun control", but actually coming up with meaningful legislation that would have some sort of effect is vastly difficult.

Consider that in one of these cases, the individual apparently purchased a firearm in an entirely legal manner. He may have been having homicidal ideation at the time... He may have been actively insane. But no one knew it or could know it. He was not raving or delusional or hallucinating... He had not been under the care of a doctor or psychiatrist.
He purchased a perfectly ordinary handgun.

In another, the lad was definitely showing signs of homicidal ideation and was seeing a mental-health professional who was alarmed at his thoughts and behaviors. Yet none of this was brought to the attention of the authorities and under patient confidentiality laws it's doubtful that it could have.
By the letter of the law, this individual also purchased his weapons legally.

We can go back to the earliest of these "rage killing" cases... Charles Whitman was to all appearances a fine fellow... Eagle Scout and all, who had an extensive collection of quite legal firearms. Then he went mad.
How would you take legal steps to stop such things?

I note that on my various gun-related forums there is already another spate of "panic buying" and the local news reported that local gun shops are doing very well, thanks after Obama's re-election.
Yet as we note there is no legislative hue and cry. Political pundits say "gun control is a dead issue".
We accept 40,000 dead each year as a result of motor-vehicle accidents. We accept a vastly-larger number due to cigarette smoking. And apparently, we accept the current numbers of homicides and suicides by firearm as well.
Price of doing business.

[geni]

1)Taking away people's toys is always policaly dicey

2)There are significant groups in the US who need people to be worried about the goverment taking their guns or order to continue to exist at their current size.

Result no one is going to try pushing gun control at the moment.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by casebro

And the reality is that the people want us armed.

That reality is reflected in the dearth of new gun control laws.

People also film themselves shocking their testicles. People are stupid.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

When these tragedies occur, there is always talk of more "gun control", but actually coming up with meaningful legislation that would have some sort of effect is vastly difficult.

My understanding is that the vast majority of firearm homicides are either:

"illegal" guns (either because posessed by felons, stolen, etc - apparently the amount of these guns is c. 100 million)
Or
Suicides

(Spree killers being - statistically speaking - insignificant)

If we are concentrating on people using guns to kill others (which I assume that we are) then the issue is rarely people who have legally purchased/own guns… it's gang members/felons. Unfortunately, most of the commonly proposed gun control legislation seems to target law abiding citizens and not really add anything to the mix regarding criminals/gangs who have guns (probably because that's already illegal).

It would probably be quite effective at pandering to anti-gun voters… it would probably have negligible impact on gun violence.

[Ranb]

Keep in mind that some of these people are shot by the police but there are no calls to disarm them as far as I know.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00463-0112.pdf

Ranb

[marplots]

Instead of making guns illegal, what they ought to do is make shooting people with guns illegal. That's the problem you want to solve.

[foxholeatheist]

So... if there were no guns would there then be no spree murders?

By what means does anyone propose rounding them all up?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Travis

People also film themselves shocking their testicles. People are stupid.

Don't knock it til you've tried it.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by casebro

And the reality is that the people want us armed.

That reality is reflected in the dearth of new gun control laws.

Another reality is that illegal is not the same as non-existent. Passing laws against guns does not magically make them all disappear, not matter how hard you may wish it did.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by foxholeatheist

So... if there were no guns would there then be no spree murders?

By what means does anyone propose rounding them all up?

Ah, that's the rub. Those of us that like the idea of gun control have no real good answers on how to enforce it. For that reason I would rather we hold back until someone actually has a reasonable solution rather than rushing headlong into a total quagmire.

[Normal Dude]

I know what we could do! We could instead address the root issues that are the cause of most violent gun crimes, like, say, gangs.

....

.... NAAHH, that's too hard, let's just pass some more laws that makes us look like we care and are doing "something".

[Ferguson]

The problem with making judgments based on sprees, is that sprees that run amok are reported, but when a gunman pulls out a gun at a college campus or mall, and is immediately stopped by someone else there who happens to be armed, it doesn't become news, besides a line item in a local police blotter.

Sprees result from the unique case where one person is armed, but no one else there is, which makes schools and theaters likely locations. Would gun control increase or decrease these circumstances?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

These threads tend to go on and on, and we've had several in recent memory. When these tragedies occur, there is always talk of more "gun control", but actually coming up with meaningful legislation that would have some sort of effect is vastly difficult.

Consider that in one of these cases, the individual apparently purchased a firearm in an entirely legal manner. He may have been having homicidal ideation at the time... He may have been actively insane. But no one knew it or could know it. He was not raving or delusional or hallucinating... He had not been under the care of a doctor or psychiatrist.
He purchased a perfectly ordinary handgun.

In another, the lad was definitely showing signs of homicidal ideation and was seeing a mental-health professional who was alarmed at his thoughts and behaviors. Yet none of this was brought to the attention of the authorities and under patient confidentiality laws it's doubtful that it could have.
By the letter of the law, this individual also purchased his weapons legally.

We can go back to the earliest of these "rage killing" cases... Charles Whitman was to all appearances a fine fellow... Eagle Scout and all, who had an extensive collection of quite legal firearms. Then he went mad.
How would you take legal steps to stop such things?

I note that on my various gun-related forums there is already another spate of "panic buying" and the local news reported that local gun shops are doing very well, thanks after Obama's re-election.

Yet as we note there is no legislative hue and cry. Political pundits say "gun control is a dead issue".

We accept 40,000 dead each year as a result of motor-vehicle accidents. We accept a vastly-larger number due to cigarette smoking. And apparently, we accept the current numbers of homicides and suicides by firearm as well.
Price of doing business.

Agreed, and two individuals from different sides of the political aisle have approached me since Tuesday for advice on buying an AR type rifle.

As to the lack of new proposed gun control laws, California will see a whole slough soon, but the rest of the country is still sorting out Heller and McDonald and trying to determine what "in common use" really means - hint, read Staples v. U.S.

[Nessie]

The US chose to let the genie out of the bottle and I do not think anything can be done to get it back in.

[foxholeatheist]

Originally Posted by Normal Dude

I know what we could do! We could instead address the root issues that are the cause of most violent gun crimes, like, say, gangs.

....

.... NAAHH, that's too hard, let's just pass some more laws that makes us look like we care and are doing "something".

But but... Guns are the only method by which spree killings are committed.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by marplots

Instead of making guns illegal, what they ought to do is make shooting people with guns illegal. That's the problem you want to solve.

This is what I'm thinking. The whole "shooting people with guns" thing should be made illegal, and then people will stop doing it.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This is what I'm thinking. The whole "shooting people with guns" thing should be made illegal, and then people will stop doing it.

We should also make it illegal to get shot with a gun, just to cover all the angles.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The US chose to let the genie out of the bottle and I do not think anything can be done to get it back in.

Which genie was that, and what exactly was the choice? When was it made?

ETA (and I'm throwing you a bone here): Most gun control happens at the state level. So when you talk about genies and bottles and choices, you're actually talking about 50 different genies, and 50 different bottles, and 50 different choices. That's a lot to talk about, even for an American. What do you know about it, to talk the way you do?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which genie was that, and what exactly was the choice? When was it made?

ETA (and I'm throwing you a bone here): Most gun control happens at the state level. So when you talk about genies and bottles and choices, you're actually talking about 50 different genies, and 50 different bottles, and 50 different choices. That's a lot to talk about, even for an American. What do you know about it, to talk the way you do?

I'm kind of amazed that there are 50 different choices. Did all the states get together and just decide to be completely uncooperative and unique? I always assumed that most states do what Michigan does: copy from someone else's answer sheet.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which genie was that, and what exactly was the choice? When was it made?

ETA (and I'm throwing you a bone here): Most gun control happens at the state level. So when you talk about genies and bottles and choices, you're actually talking about 50 different genies, and 50 different bottles, and 50 different choices. That's a lot to talk about, even for an American. What do you know about it, to talk the way you do?

The Second Amendment 1791. I believe the authors are the founding fathers. The militia becoming the people and their right bear arms. The aim being the right todefend yourself. Initially targeted against the British, but also recognised as everyones right to have a gun and use it for defence.

There has been further legislation and decisions which have further clarified that there is right to bear arms and defend yourself with them.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by marplots

I'm kind of amazed that there are 50 different choices. Did all the states get together and just decide to be completely uncooperative and unique? I always assumed that most states do what Michigan does: copy from someone else's answer sheet.

It's more like Christians and the Bible: each state picks and chooses which parts they believe in.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The Second Amendment 1791. I believe the authors are the founding fathers. The militia becoming the people and their right bear arms. The aim being the right todefend yourself. Initially targeted against the British, but also recognised as everyones right to have a gun and use it for defence.

There has been further legislation and decisions which have further clarified that there is right to bear arms and defend yourself with them.

It's obvious you've never actually compared the choices made by, say, California, with the choices made, by, say, Texas. Like I said, 50 different genies, and 50 different bottles, and you don't know about any of them.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Normal Dude

I know what we could do! We could instead address the root issues that are the cause of most violent gun crimes, like, say, gangs.

....

.... NAAHH, that's too hard, let's just pass some more laws that makes us look like we care and are doing "something".

In reality you kind of need to do both but if you are only going to do one I would agree attacking the underlying social issues would be better.

[000063]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's obvious you've never actually compared the choices made by, say, California, with the choices made, by, say, Texas. Like I said, 50 different genies, and 50 different bottles, and you don't know about any of them.

Co-signed.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The Second Amendment 1791. I believe the authors are the founding fathers. The militia becoming the people and their right bear arms. The aim being the right todefend yourself. Initially targeted against the British, but also recognised as everyones right to have a gun and use it for defence.

There has been further legislation and decisions which have further clarified that there is right to bear arms and defend yourself with them.

There is something that you do not understand. Even though the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution and comes right after the people's favorite (the 1st; freedom of press and speech) it is treated like a joke. It is currently interpreted as an individual right, not as one reserved to the states or the militia, but the government has ways to infringe upon the right to own a firearm.

They define items that are obviously not guns as firearms and control them as such. They tax some of them much more than they are worth to discourage people from making or buying them and put registration requirements in place that can be impossible for individuals to meet. Some are even illegal to register since 1986. http://www.atf.gov/publications/down...f-p-5300-4.pdf Take a look at title 26 chapter 53

Simply using certain firearms in some crimes requires an enhanced sentence of 30 years to life. It ain't Singapore, but it is not necessary either.

Ranb

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's obvious you've never actually compared the choices made by, say, California, with the choices made, by, say, Texas. Like I said, 50 different genies, and 50 different bottles, and you don't know about any of them.

I said the US let the genie out the bottle and have shown when and who by. That different states have different rules over guns does not mean any of them have got the genie back into the bottle whereby people rarely have guns, there are few guns about and they cannot be used in self defence except in the most extreme situations. Like in the UK.

Fact is the USA could never go to being like the rest of the Western World with tight gun control, no armed civilians walking the streets anywhere, generally fewer guns and an propensity not to shoot.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Ranb

There is something that you do not understand. Even though the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution and comes right after the people's favorite (the 1st; freedom of press and speech) it is treated like a joke. It is currently interpreted as an individual right, not as one reserved to the states or the militia, but the government has ways to infringe upon the right to own a firearm.

They define items that are obviously not guns as firearms and control them as such. They tax some of them much more than they are worth to discourage people from making or buying them and put registration requirements in place that can be impossible for individuals to meet. Some are even illegal to register since 1986. http://www.atf.gov/publications/down...f-p-5300-4.pdf Take a look at title 26 chapter 53

Simply using certain firearms in some crimes requires an enhanced sentence of 30 years to life. It ain't Singapore, but it is not necessary either.

Ranb

I never said it was a free for all with no restrictions whatsoever. I said that back at the beginning of the USA it was decided to have an armed population outwith the army. The US is not unique in that, for example Switzerland, but what has been unique in the culture that grew up around civilians having guns and using them. Hence the US has the most guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

and one of the highest number of deaths per head

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

compared to to most countries in the world and certainly the Western World.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I never said it was a free for all with no restrictions whatsoever. I said that back at the beginning of the USA it was decided to have an armed population outwith the army. The US is not unique in that, for example Switzerland, but what has been unique in the culture that grew up around civilians having guns and using them. Hence the US has the most guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

and one of the highest number of deaths per head

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

compared to to most countries in the world and certainly the Western World.

Does Northern Ireland have looser gun laws than the rest of the UK?

If not, maybe there's something besides gun laws that affect gun homicide rates?

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Does Northern Ireland have looser gun laws than the rest of the UK?

If not, maybe there's something besides gun laws that affect gun homicide rates?

Of course there are other factors, nobody sensible is suggesting gun crime is perfectly and solely correlated with availability of guns. However, it could be argued that there would be less gun crime in northern ireland if they hadn't been taking advantage of the lax US gun control laws.

On a related note, there was a killing spree in Cardiff a few miles from my house recently. The guy went on a rampage with his car and injured 13 people, killing one. I dread to think what he could have done with an automatic weapon.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Of course there are other factors, nobody sensible is suggesting gun crime is perfectly and solely correlated with availability of guns.

How do you explain the gun death rate in NI more than 1000% higher than the rest of the UK?

Originally Posted by stokes234

However, it could be argued that there would be less gun crime in northern ireland if they hadn't been taking advantage of the lax US gun control laws.

And the rest of the UK can't take similar advantage? For what reason?

Originally Posted by stokes234

On a related note, there was a killing spree in Cardiff a few miles from my house recently. The guy went on a rampage with his car and injured 13 people, killing one. I dread to think what he could have done with an automatic weapon.

What US spree killings were done with automatic weapons?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Does Northern Ireland have looser gun laws than the rest of the UK?

If not, maybe there's something besides gun laws that affect gun homicide rates?

No they are very similar.

I am sure there are loads of factors, in NI case there was The Troubles.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How do you explain the gun death rate in NI more than 1000% higher than the rest of the UK?

Religious conflict is much higher in northern ireland. Notice I have at no point claimed gun control to be the only factor in gun crime.

Originally Posted by WildCat

And the rest of the UK can't take similar advantage? For what reason?

The rest of the UK potentially could have if it had the same level of religious conflict as northern ireland. The point i'm trying to make is that if the US had better gun control laws, no part of the UK could have imported guns from there.

Originally Posted by WildCat

What US spree killings were done with automatic weapons?

It was a hypothetical point, but you can replace "automatic weapon" with "handgun" or "submachine gun" and my point remains the same.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How do you explain the gun death rate in NI more than 1000% higher than the rest of the UK?


......

Where did you get that statistic from?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ja...owest-12-years

"The Home Office figures published today show that England and Wales are in the middle of the European murder league at 13.5 deaths per million population. Finland tops the table at 23.4, followed by Scotland at 21.4, and Ireland on 20 per million. Northern Ireland now has a murder rate well below Scotland at 15.2. Austria has the lowest murder rate in Europe at 6.1 per million."

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by stokes234

.....


The rest of the UK potentially could have if it had the same level of religious conflict as northern ireland. The point i'm trying to make is that if the US had better gun control laws, no part of the UK could have imported guns from there.



......

US guns continue to feed the drugs war in Mexico

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....exico_2010.pdf

"Since 2006, 90% of the Mexican crime guns submitted for tracing originated from gun dealers in the United States.10"

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Religious conflict

Are you actually serious?