Yay, GUNS!

[rigney]

Also, Ben Stein is an ignorant fool who thinks evolution is a big lie and that god intelligently designed our spleen and our poop hole right beside our pleasure parts, so there's always that, too.

My point was that you linked to an article that does not mention guns or firearms. The subtitle says "England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies" but there is absolutely no connection made to guns. Further, they ranked much better for intentional homicide and major assault, crimes one might associate more with guns.

 

So your link has no bearing on the discussion and doesn't support your point. Yet again.

Would you say then that this statement by iNnow in post # 148 is relevant to this discussion?

Also, Ben Stein is an ignorant fool who thinks evolution is a big lie and that god intelligently designed our spleen and our poop hole right beside our pleasure parts, so there's always that, too.

Edited December 17, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Would you say then that this statement by iNnow in post # 148 is relevant to this discussion?

Also, Ben Stein is an ignorant fool who thinks evolution is a big lie and that god intelligently designed our spleen and our poop hole right beside our pleasure parts, so there's always that, too.

 

There were 256 on-topic, focused, and argument directed words in that post, yet you chose to focus on the peripheral comment composed of only 33 words right at the end. Why am I not surprised, rigney? How about you look at the other ~90% of what I wrote in post #148?

 

Also, btw... You screwed up the quote and attributed what I posted to swansont.

[john5746]

I was really amazed by Robbie Parker, Emily Parker's father. Very impressed.

 

Edited December 17, 2012 by john5746

[swansont]

Would you say then that this statement by iNnow in post # 148 is relevant to this discussion?

Also, Ben Stein is an ignorant fool who thinks evolution is a big lie and that god intelligently designed our spleen and our poop hole right beside our pleasure parts, so there's always that, too.

 

I was under the impression that "but someome else did it too" stopped being a valid excuse after about the fourth grade.

[iNow]

I was really amazed by Robbie Parker, Emily Parker's father. Very impressed.

 

Me, too, but I hate that we put these people in front of cameras when they are struggling and dealing with the pain so viscerally.

[MonDie]

No, see, we outlaw guns and force people to give them up. That will stop people intent on killing others with a gun and might force them to reconsider. Because a guy who was contemplating murdering people will be paralyzed at the thought of seeking guns on some sort of illegal market. Use your brains, man.

 

The difference: They're put in jail if they're caught buying or possessing an illegal weapon.

 

---

 

Does anybody have information regarding whether the guns tend to be bought for the crime, or tend to be in the person's possession already? If they're bought specifically for the crime, there are two regulations that could counter this.

1) Create a delay in gun acquisition. The potential murderer might cool off before the gun is available (see quote 1).

2) Make sure they have a legitimate reason for purchasing the gun (see quote 2).

 

Quote 1:

 

JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

 

 

Quote 2:

 

 

For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

 

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

 

 

 

The next question is whether such regulations would be strict enough to drive the market underground. Like any other market, the black market is run by profits. If there isn't a lot of profit in illegally selling guns, it will be difficult to get guns on the black market.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Bill Angel]

Why can't the government require that all firearms in a person's home be stored in gun safes? And that those safes can only be opened by keying in a PIN, like at an ATM machine. That requirement would have prevented that young man in CT from gaining access to his mother's guns.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Bill Angel

[StringJunky]

Why can't the government require that all firearms in a person's home be stored in gun safes? And that those safes can only be opened by keying in a PIN, like at an ATM machine. That requirement would have prevented that young man in CT from gaining access to his mother's guns.

 

Because the paranoid gun owner needs to have instant access to his arsenal.

[John Cuthber]

England has had mass shootings as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

 

Not as many but Great Britain is not as populous a country either..

 

Specifically, there have been 3 in my lifetime (47 years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_Kingdom

with a total death toll of 46.

Mean death rate practically 1 per year, or about 0.02 per million per year

 

By comparisson, lets have a look at some of the big US states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States

tells us that

Texas, which has roughly half the population of England + Wales has a death toll of 113 for the same period so that's roughly 4 times as many on a per capita basis.

California- again a smaller population than the UK has a death toll of 87 Once again, more dead from a smaller population.

 

New York did quite well, only 20 dead among a pop of 20M so roughly 1 per million over 47 years. Only slightly worse then E+W.

 

Florida didn't have any (which seems odd to me).

 

But, as has already been shown, the death toll in the states is generally higher.

 

Mass shootings are comparatively rare. While they get lots of media attention, they are not the cause of most of the shootings.

Fewer guns means less cases of friends getting into a petty fight and settling it with guns rather than fists.It means fewer instances of kids getting hold of guns and shooting their mates while playing.

 

Seriously, no sane individual really wants to kill someone. The only thing guns are really good at is killing people. So no sane individual has a valid need for a gun.

Why do you give guns to people who don't seem to be sane?

[Bill Angel]

For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

And yet Israel's Prime Minister Rabin was a assassinated by an Israeli with a gun.

[john5746]

And yet Israel's Prime Minister Rabin was a assassinated by an Israeli with a gun.

 

They also have people who blow themselves up from time to time, therefore we cannot outlaw people carrying bombs on their persons.

[ParanoiA]

Why can't the government require that all firearms in a person's home be stored in gun safes? And that those safes can only be opened by keying in a PIN, like at an ATM machine. That requirement would have prevented that young man in CT from gaining access to his mother's guns.

I haven't read any updated news yet, so maybe you know something I don't. But manipulation is just as easy, and as far as I know, just as likely in this case. "Hey Mom, do you still have my birth certificate in the safe? Can I get it?"

 

Or she may have had a predictable system in place, easy to work around for adult members of the family since we're usually concerned about children.

 

 

 

Because the paranoid gun owner needs to have instant access to his arsenal.

 

 

Well, the top reason for a home owner to have a weapon for self defense is the overwhelming practical reality: the police can't get there in time to save you. They can't be in all places, and they just don't know when my family is being attacked. (And, interestingly enough, they aren't even constitutionally or legally bound to step in and save you. They have a right to save themselves and not protect you. Not a popular quality, no, but courts keep ruling that way).

 

So it makes no sense to own guns to protect yourself from attack if you cannot get to your weapons during the attack.

 

We have an actual gun safe, no PIN entry, rather a high quality combination lock with no key back up. You either know the combination, or you don't get in. Or you call Browning and pay a ton of money for someone to come out and get you back in your safe.

 

We simply leave the safe unlocked throughout the night, with our bedroom door locked. The kiddos can't come in and get into the safe while we're asleep of course, not that they have ever tried, and we can access weapons immediately if needed. And part of our morning routine is to get our stuff out and lock it up. We keep our personal effects in there so this is pure habit at this point, and works well for us. I suggest a similar system for others. Keep the tech low on the safe, and avoid buying "security theatre" safes, from Wal-Mart and the like.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll tell you, this Connecticut thing has caused me to question everything I have stood for on this issue. I think it has to. That doesn't mean I have abandoned what I believe, but rather that what I believe needs to be properly audited. If you aren't rethinking your position on this issue, then you aren't thinking at all.

 

I was moved by Obama's speech last night. He properly lectured us and I received his message. I appreciated it. Something has to change, I agree. I read all of those names, and I've seen the pictures, read the stories, and my heart is truly broken. The scope of tragedy here is unbearable. It brought this grown man to tears, a few times now.

 

I am just not sure what tangible, legal thing can be changed that would prevent what happened, other than attaching legal consequences for faulty gun security. I would love to just show up and say, "Ok, let's talk about gun control". But these guns were registered to a law abiding citizen, as far as we can tell. And they were legal to own. They were "controlled", save for any carelessness by the mother, should that come to light in this case.

 

 

The worst mass murder on American soil was achieved with box knives and airplanes. The second was achieved with manure and fuel. Will affecting the availablity of guns activate imagination for more sinister methods of mass death? If Adam Lanza couldn't get guns, would he have built a bomb instead? Would it be more or less effective, more or less of a nightmare?

 

I just don't know. I really don't know.

 

I would love to fortify all schools with state of the art security - like one large "safe room" or "safe building". But that won't prevent this either. A silently raging parent can get "buzzed in" and then go off on a killing spree. Even with metal detectors, it isn't 100%, and again, suicide-homicide missions don't pay a lot of respect to lights and buzzers going off.

 

Or can we? Is there a way to lock down a school, auto-magically when triggered, such that every door to every room is bullet proof and secured while authorities are notified?

 

I will have any conversation we need to have. I am just at a loss as to how to truly prevent this.

 

 

 

I was really amazed by Robbie Parker, Emily Parker's father. Very impressed.

 

 

Impressive, but even more depressing and sad considering how many parents of these slain children are grief stricken beyond consolation, beyond comfort. These poor parents lost 6 and 7 year old kids. I don't know how you come back from that.

[swansont]

And yet Israel's Prime Minister Rabin was a assassinated by an Israeli with a gun.

 

Which prompts me to refer you to iNow's "all or nothing" admonishment. Just as gun control does not mean "no guns", it does not mean "no deaths". This position is like saying that since people die in auto accidents we should not have seatbelts and airbags. We don't require them on the supposition that their use will stop all deaths. That would be a straw man argument.

[dimreepr]

The Independent’s figures: ''In 2011, handguns killed: 48 in Japan 8 in Great Britain 34 in Switzerland 52 in Canada 58 in Israel 21 in Sweden 42 in Germany 10,728 in the United States of America.''

If the primary reason for owning a gun is property protection, then why not just ban handguns? This coupled with a psychiatric report as a requirement to purchase, an oversimplification but you get the drift.

I struggle to find any reason for handguns other than concealment and ease of movement, neither of which is necessary to protect your home. It seems fear is used as a primary motivator in maintaining this, very dangerous, status quo. In my 47 years of existence I have never been in a position, nor have any of my friends or acquaintances, where firearms would improve the situation.

[Moontanman]

Specifically, there have been 3 in my lifetime (47 years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_Kingdom

with a total death toll of 46.

Mean death rate practically 1 per year, or about 0.02 per million per year

 

By comparisson, lets have a look at some of the big US states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States

tells us that

Texas, which has roughly half the population of England + Wales has a death toll of 113 for the same period so that's roughly 4 times as many on a per capita basis.

California- again a smaller population than the UK has a death toll of 87 Once again, more dead from a smaller population.

 

New York did quite well, only 20 dead among a pop of 20M so roughly 1 per million over 47 years. Only slightly worse then E+W.

 

Florida didn't have any (which seems odd to me).

 

But, as has already been shown, the death toll in the states is generally higher.

 

Mass shootings are comparatively rare. While they get lots of media attention, they are not the cause of most of the shootings.

Fewer guns means less cases of friends getting into a petty fight and settling it with guns rather than fists.It means fewer instances of kids getting hold of guns and shooting their mates while playing.

 

Seriously, no sane individual really wants to kill someone. The only thing guns are really good at is killing people. So no sane individual has a valid need for a gun.

Why do you give guns to people who don't seem to be sane?

 

 

I cannot and would not argue that insane people need to be allowed to own guns. I do support the idea of gun licenses being hard to get and the mental heath of the person should be checked and I think the license should need to be renewed every few years...

 

Most importantly I would support the total ban of automatic weapons.

 

The link I gave earlier would seem to indicate that guns in the hands of citizens are being used successfully in self defense. Guns are far more likely to be used lawfully than unlawfully. http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

 

Some here seem to think that self defense is not worth the idea that someone might go nuts and kill people but I say that self defense is a legitimate use of guns and that self defense is worth the risk.

 

The key here is not to ban all guns but to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals, yes I understand this cannot be 100% effective but at some point people have to be held accountable for their actions and since the police cannot protect me and mine I cannot see why I cannot have a gun to defend myself... until I can be assured that law enforcement can protect me I think owning a gun is reasonable but I see no reason to own automatic weapons.

 

I am not a nut...

[iNow]

I am just not sure what tangible, legal thing can be changed that would prevent what happened, other than attaching legal consequences for faulty gun security. I would love to just show up and say, "Ok, let's talk about gun control". But these guns were registered to a law abiding citizen, as far as we can tell. And they were legal to own. They were "controlled", save for any carelessness by the mother, should that come to light in this case.

 

Great post, mate. Here's where my head is on the question you've posed, and I'd be curious to read your response.

 

Universal healthcare, with particular focus on access to mental health facilities and support. Don't make it something one must pay for. Don't make it hard for people to just walk in for assistance. Make it as easy as possible. Give the folks with mental hardship a place to get support, and a place and process for their families to get them into support without calling the police or involving jail cells.

 

Universal healthcare with an emphasis on mental health coverage. The guns and the shootings are the symptoms. This idea IMO treats the root causes. It won't stop every tragedy... Nothing will, but our approach should be to take smart steps to minimize the number of them. What do you think? Would you support universal care to help reduce the numbers of these issues?

 

Btw - Great article here along these lines: http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

 

 

Specific to guns, they're already in circulation so I struggle to think prohibition will help us much, but I would support longer waiting periods, more intense and rigorous psych evals as part of the background check, and limitations on assault rifles and large capacity magazines, and I know many would call me an extreme liberal with his head up his ass for even suggesting such a thing, but I think it's well inside the spectrum of "reasonable" measures. I also think one should have to re-license for their ownership every year... Another psych eval, shooters safety course requirements, stuff like that. Just like you need to renew your drivers license and they check your eyes, I think we should have to renew our gun ownership license where they check our minds... On the condition that true mental health help is readily available without fee.

Edited December 17, 2012 by iNow

[Bill Angel]

If somone leaves their guns and ammo unsecured in their home, the likelihood that their children will use them to murder them is rather low. More likely is that the guns will be stolen. Also there have been cases of children bringing their parent's loaded firearms to school to show to the other schoolchildren.

See 6 year old brings gun to Houston school, three hurt

[MonDie]

A year ago, we had a problem with a pack of coyotes that was actively killing our calves. Well, we went to court and got a restraining order. That didn't work, so we called the cops when we saw them attacking again. The cops got there in about 10 minutes and only two calves were dead and they tased them and settled everything.

 

If this is a semi-real situation, perhaps you could scare the coyotes off with an amplified blow torch.

 

 

And yet Israel's Prime Minister Rabin was a assassinated by an Israeli with a gun.

 

"Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime."

"Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

 

Apparently, there have been some recent mass-stabbings in China.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-14/world/35813173_1_knife-attack-primary-school-middle-school

It's interesting that this knife attacker didn't cause serious injury to anyone. My explanation is that it's less emotionally stressful for someone to kill with a gun rather than a knife, but that's just one hypothesis.

 

 

Specific to guns, they're already in circulation so I struggle to think prohibition will help us much,

 

We could try to lessen the demand for guns. After all, the only reason a black market gun trade would result from a gun ban is because the gun ban doesn't get rid of the demand for guns.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Moontanman]

Some interesting takes on this in the UK, it seems gun violence is up 89% in the UK sine the late 90's

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

 

 

 

Because the paranoid gun owner needs to have instant access to his arsenal.

 

 

 

 

That's a bit harsh, I keep my shotgun at the head of my bed, against the wall so i can get it immediately if it is needed, by any reasonable standard I don't think most people would consider me paranoid...

 

 

We could try to lessen the demand for guns. After all, the only reason a black market gun trade would result from a gun ban is because the gun ban doesn't get rid of the demand for guns.

 

 

 

 

How would you suggest we do that?

 

 

If someone leaves their guns and ammo unsecured in their home, the likelihood that their children will use them to murder them is rather low. More likely is that the guns will be stolen.

 

 

 

 

I keep house dogs just for that reason. I have lived in neighborhoods where every one around was robbed but not me, large barking dogs tend to discourage that sort of thing and the dogs give me a heads up when a stranger comes around the house as well. They actually go to the door and sniff at the bottom of the door when someone walks down the street in front of my house...

 

 

Also there have been cases of children bringing their parent's loaded firearms to school to show to the other schoolchildren.
See 6 year old brings gun to Houston school, three hurt

 

 

Hand guns... easy to carry and conceal... takes skill to use effectively... they need to be locked with a trigger lock at least if kids are in the house... in my state hand guns have to locked if a child is living in the house...

Edited December 18, 2012 by Moontanman

[MonDie]

How would you suggest we [lessen the demand for guns]?

 

Well, one route is to provide alternatives, but I would have to know what guns are used for to know what could be an alternative.

 

/edited out the dumb stuff/

Edited December 18, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[StringJunky]

That's a bit harsh, I keep my shotgun at the head of my bed, against the wall so i can get it immediately if it is needed, by any reasonable standard I don't think most people would consider me paranoid...

 

It's all relative to your own frame of reference; I live in the UK so, as you might see given the relative lack of gun violence here, why I see your position is paranoid.

 

However, something ParanoiA wrote, in his thoughtful post #187, makes me understand a bit more....it would seem the onus is more on the homeowner, when push comes to shove, to sort themselves out in a potentially lethal situation involving firearms than I previously knew:..this is not good.

 

They can't be in all places, and they just don't know when my family is being attacked. (And, interestingly enough, they aren't even constitutionally or legally bound to step in and save you. They have a right to save themselves and not protect you. Not a popular quality, no, but courts keep ruling that way).

 

The typical American gun owner needs to have confidence that the forces of law will bend over backwards to help him if he relinquishes the right to have firearms that are not locked away.

 

Also, if it must be allowed I think your shotgun is ample...no need for high-capacity semi-automatc military-style weapons.

Edited December 18, 2012 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

 

It's all relative to your own frame of reference; I live in the UK so, as you might see given the relative lack of gun violence here, why I see your position is paranoid.

 

Did you catch my link in post 194? ed:wrong post cited

 

 

However, something Paranoia wrote, in his thoughtful post, makes me understand a bit more....it would seem the onus is more on the homeowner, when push comes to shove, to sort themselves out in a potentially lethal situation involving firearms than i previously knew:..this is not good.

 

I agree but there is no way any reasonable sized police force could guarantee my safely, home invasions by themselves are one of the reasons I keep a gun and dogs. An alarm system might help but they are expensive and of doubtful value in suburban areas where any arrival time will always be ten minutes or more, a smash and grab could be over by then and kidnapping the victim can happen as well if not outright murder. These things are rare I know, three in my county last few months, one death, none of the home owners had guns...

 

 

The typical American gun owner needs to have confidence that the forces of law will bend over backwards to help him if he relinquishes the right to have firearms that are not locked away. Also, if it must be allowed I think your shotgun is ample...no need for high capacity semi-automatc military-style weapons.

 

I agree, no need for military type automatic weapons, but home defense can be helped by weapons designed to be used indoors, short barrels, light weight, small shot so you don't kill your neighbors by accident if you miss...

Edited December 18, 2012 by Moontanman

[StringJunky]

 

Did you catch my link in post 184?

..

 

That's John Cuthber's but do you mean the UK's three massacres?

[Moontanman]

I'm sorry it was post 194...

[StringJunky]

 

I'm sorry it was post 194...

 

Yes. Ta. The Daily Mail is not a very unbiased paper but nevertheless that stuff's within gang culture and quite localised within certain inner city areas...it's not a general phenomenon. Here's the official updated UK goverment assessment to September 2011 released in January;

 

Note: Clicking link will download a pdf for the House of Commons Firearm Crime Statistics

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gun%20crime%20statistics%20uk&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn01940.pdf&ei=KNzPUL7eDuSg0QXPz4G4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGH6atVDylpEjVwNHfABXpLQLKybg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k

 

Here's a couple of graphs from it. These describe ALL firearms offences in the UK of all types.

 

 

 

A thought. What do you think, as part of allowable home defence policy, only allowing handguns up to a prescribed maximum muzzle velocity and restricted magazine capacity conducive to defending ones home and family as determined by the appropriate experts?

Edited December 18, 2012 by StringJunky