Gun Control in the US

[Hurlshort]

My main concern is reducing the massacres, to be honest. Specifically the ones being carried out by mentally unstable individuals, which is why I see psychiatric care as the other big issue here. I really do differentiate between terrorism and this. Of course this is all terrible, but to have no motive at all? To be just completely senseless? These were just little kids, and they were targeted directly. There has to be a way to stop this type of thing. I have no idea what it is.

 

I don't know enough about the way Chinese schools are run to make a full analysis, but I don't think the knife situation would be possible given the way security is handled at my school, and most of the schools in my area.

 

Diagoras, I will have to read up on your sources when I have a bit more time, but I appreciate you sharing them and discussing them.

[Calax]

Are you really comparing the slavery debate to one about gun control? Yes there is such a thing as a grey fallacy, but in general you'll find that that middle ground is better than each extreme.

 

No, I explicitly stated that was an extreme example to illustrate the general principle. Can you provide evidence for the fact that in general the middle ground is the optimal policy choice? Because if that were consistently true, policy making would be easy. You'd just aggregate the choices, and pick the average. No need for in-depth analysis.

Do you know nothing about the american political system? The entire thing is based around compromise. And were what you said true, with extremes being more correct than the middle, then how would you prevent the extreme you don't like from happening or being "right"?

 

I mean, are we just supposed to have totally socialized medicine and communism with the state acting as a business becuase having an entire nation built as a corp is the extreme extent of capitalism?

I said tightly controlled, I did not say banned. And you have to go through an intense background check process.

 

How about this: how many people have been killed by assault rifles in the last twenty years?

If you're totally honest? at least a couple hundred thousand. Not strictly in the US mind, but that also includes the various atrocities in Africa, the "ethnic clensings" in Kosovo and Timor, the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Now, people killed in the US as a result of criminal action? I donno, but the chicago gangster who I work with LOVES to tell tales of getting in gang wars with his beloved M4 with 203 attached.

That's interesting - because all the policy proposals I've seen involve banning what are standard magazines. Can you tell me what the "standard" is, in your opinion?

Standard would be the military standard. So the banana clip for the AK's and the box clip for the M4/M16.

Okay. Does it take spree killers longer? Does it take criminals longer? Do limitations on the size of magazines reduce crime in any sensible way? Is there evidence that they reduce crime?

More reloads would slow down a killing spree, simple no? And no matter what, that 1-5 seconds (or more depending on how familiar your shooter is with the situation) will provide a window for people to get the hell away.

It's not an assault rifle, yes. Assault weapons is, by all accounts, a made-up term that arbitrarily bans firearms based on how scary they look rather than any actual damage they cause. Handguns, for example, are by far more deadly in terms of use in homicide then all the scary black rifles in the world. Handguns and shotguns are also far more lethal, as the intermediate rounds fired by assault rifles are far less deadly and they're mainly useful at the sort of intermediate engagement ranges that criminals do not operate in.

Are you trying to tell me that hand guns are more deadly simply because more people are killed in homocides by them? Pistols are closer range weapons, and are used because they're easy to get, easy to hide, and easy to use. The reason people ask for assault weapons bans (or just very tight gun control laws in general), is because those weapons make it very easy to kill a large number of people in a very short time. Akin to the shootings in Colorado, Oregon, and Connecticut. Pistols at least have a very small clip size, as to shotguns (which also take far longer to reload).

Does that meet the burden of proof required to expand state power? Specifically speaking, can you cite Supreme Court precedent?

Because people don't feel like the only way their civil rights will be protected is by shooting the other guy?

 

I have absolutely no idea what firearm ownership has to do with people's civil rights not being protected.

You said this:The relevant question is, "Why should people not have a pistol or a rifle?" and my response to that is some people don't want to own guns, so they don't want to have them anywhere near their person.

 

And you're blowing this out of proportion. Most people aren't asking for all guns to be magically banned because they don't like them. Most people are asking that weapons that are designed to kill a lot of people in a very short span of time be banned. And those guns are also the ones that have no real personal defense or hunting qualifications beyond "it spits lead" because they're so overkill to defend a house invasion, and generally won't leave anything behind if you use it to hunt.

I can't parse this sentence. What are you saying?

that if you're saying that the guns are necessary for when the people "rise up" against their government overlords, it's a fallacy because if somebody is going to do that, they'll get the weapons they need through non-legal channels.

 

If you have nothing helpful to add, why are you even posting? And if you're talking about me: I'm from Hong Kong, China.

Not the words "Sound exactly like" he wasn't saying that you were American, just that you sound like the worst stereotypes of americans that are found in other cultures.

[Calax]

I stumbled across this link and found it helpful. It seems like a huge amount of the weapons being used are obtained legally, which makes me think there has to be a way to prevent some of these through legal means.

 

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted?

 

The worst school massacre in U.S. history was also done with explosives.

 

It's relatively safe to say that the 'substitution' would be close to 100%, and that's not considering the affects on other crimes such as robbery and rape that would very possibly increase in some segments of an unarmed populace. One can just look at the crime rates in England or Australia after their relatively recent disarming of the population and see how much their lack of guns hasn't helped their crime rate.

 

If someone is hell bent on killing person(s) X, they're more than likely going to be able to accomplish that with or without a gun if they have the element of surprise and aren't going up against armed people (even against armed people the first victim(s) are sadly going to be toast unless luck is on their side). The thing is we are all to an extent at the mercy of the 'madman' should he decide to strike us. You cannot legislate the 'madman' out of existence or take away all of his tools. The best thing to do to defend against the 'madman' is to have weapons close by to protect yourself and others once the 'madman' moves into action. Fortunately, for the would be armed or unarmed there aren't that many people out there who would perpetrate a crime such as was done last Friday.

 

There is no legislation that would have prevented any recent school massacre, nor any that will prevent the future massacre. What would have (would) possibly made (make) them less atrocious in terms of numbers of fatalities was if there had been (would be) someone there who could have stopped the perpetrator(s). People generally do try to do this, even if they're unarmed, but unless luck is very much on their side (and it sadly hasn't been) they're going to fail unless they themselves are armed with a weapon.

Less guns=the need for more effort=less people following through.

 

Also, your last paragraph just points to Hurlie's points about psychiatric care.

 

And note that there's a difference between "crime rate" and "Homocide rate" and "fatalities".

[Malcador]

Well, overkill for home defense, hard to say what is. A shotgun is probably more damaging to a person than a 9mm pistol can be, pistol's probably best for that purpose anyway. As for hunting, isn't most assault rifle ammo not suited for that, not due to obliterating the animal but being too weak (have heard a .223 round isn;'t enough for deer hunting) ? Not as if you're blasting them with .50 rounds.

 

Most do seem to argue for a total ban as they just don't like guns. Laughable idea to implement in the US now, though.

[obyknven]

...right wing nuts...

 

As opposed to the emasculated, government-whipped, Politically Correct socialists of Europe who are utterly convinced that governments exist to succor and guide their subjects because the masses are too mentally and/or morally incompetent to run their own lives?

 

Edit: you need to read the works of John Lott. Give him a listen in the following interview that's been broken up into several segments. Here's the first

 

They are not true left. These opportunists use pseudo-left rhetoric but actually lobby oligarchy interests. All this explained Lenin work "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" long ago, but even now simpleminded people trust socialists, because don't read books.

http://www.marxists..../prrk/index.htm

[Valsuelm]

I stumbled across this link and found it helpful. It seems like a huge amount of the weapons being used are obtained legally, which makes me think there has to be a way to prevent some of these through legal means.

 

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted?

 

The worst school massacre in U.S. history was also done with explosives.

 

It's relatively safe to say that the 'substitution' would be close to 100%, and that's not considering the affects on other crimes such as robbery and rape that would very possibly increase in some segments of an unarmed populace. One can just look at the crime rates in England or Australia after their relatively recent disarming of the population and see how much their lack of guns hasn't helped their crime rate.

 

If someone is hell bent on killing person(s) X, they're more than likely going to be able to accomplish that with or without a gun if they have the element of surprise and aren't going up against armed people (even against armed people the first victim(s) are sadly going to be toast unless luck is on their side). The thing is we are all to an extent at the mercy of the 'madman' should he decide to strike us. You cannot legislate the 'madman' out of existence or take away all of his tools. The best thing to do to defend against the 'madman' is to have weapons close by to protect yourself and others once the 'madman' moves into action. Fortunately, for the would be armed or unarmed there aren't that many people out there who would perpetrate a crime such as was done last Friday.

 

There is no legislation that would have prevented any recent school massacre, nor any that will prevent the future massacre. What would have (would) possibly made (make) them less atrocious in terms of numbers of fatalities was if there had been (would be) someone there who could have stopped the perpetrator(s). People generally do try to do this, even if they're unarmed, but unless luck is very much on their side (and it sadly hasn't been) they're going to fail unless they themselves are armed with a weapon.

Less guns=the need for more effort=less people following through.

 

Also, your last paragraph just points to Hurlie's points about psychiatric care.

 

And note that there's a difference between "crime rate" and "Homocide rate" and "fatalities".

 

Your first and last line make no real point. I'll respond to your second though.

 

Psychiatric 'care' as your average westerner sees it is not a solution, it is a problem. As I've mentioned before, most of the massacres (at least in the U.S.... I'm not overly familiar with ones elsewhere) in schools and out of schools over the last two decades were perpetrated by people under the influence of psychotropics. I'd posit that there's a good chance the crimes would not have happen had the perps not been under the influence of these drugs. We don't talk about that though much here in the U.S. because a large portion of the population is taking these drugs or similar drugs. Psychiatrists and psychologists have become the new priests and bishops for many who seek console, Unlike priests and bishops though these replacements peddle (and even push) drugs. They often advise in favor of division and the material over reconciliation and the spiritual, but that's a secondary (yet not small) problem. The drugs that are designed first and foremost to help pharmaceutical company X's bottom line, not the individual taking them.

 

Some would say that it's not the drugs as a large portion of the population that is on these drugs is not out killing a great many people. True, but these drugs affect people in subtly different ways, and all are affected negatively to the detriment of themselves and those they have relationships with. The first thing most psychotropics do to a person is numb them emotionally to a degree to what goes on around them. And even if an adult is 'out of their mind' on drugs, if they made it to adulthood before using these drugs they're likely already hardwired to not do something such as a 'massacre', a person who has been on these drugs since childhood and doesn't know life without them may not have such hard wiring. Note that most massacres are perpetrated by the young.

 

People who aren't or never have been under the affect of any of these drugs tend to not realize just how much the person sitting next to them is affected. And the person on them isn't always aware of just how much they're affected due to the subtle nature of some of the drugs, and they're especially unaware if they don't know better. The number of children placed on these drugs has skyrocketed over the last two decades. It's sad and scary, as the societal effects of this has not yet been realized, and won't be for some time. I guarantee you these effects are not going to be good, as on an individual level these drugs usually wreak great havoc.

 

The drugging of our children and the labeling of many of them as 'suffering' from 'disorder X' is probably one of the greatest crimes perpetrated on a generation in the history of the world. What these children are usually suffering from if anything is horrible/naive parents and/or horrible/naive teachers/psychologists not any real mental deficiency, and because of that their lives are often ruined by these drugs they are placed on. Some of them realize that but most do not as they have no point of reference to a life without them, as they've never known it.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Valsuelm

[Volourn]

"Hell, one of my COWORKERS owns one right now"

 

Are you implying your CO WORKER is a mass murderer in waiting because he owns an assault rifle? If so, report him to the police.

[Diagoras]

My main concern is reducing the massacres, to be honest.

 

Can you explain why? I mean, why are massacres particularly important to stop, as opposed to homicides in general?

 

I don't know enough about the way Chinese schools are run to make a full analysis, but I don't think the knife situation would be possible given the way security is handled at my school, and most of the schools in my area.

 

Quite possibly, I just stated those examples as existence proofs of other methods of killing lots of people.

 

Diagoras, I will have to read up on your sources when I have a bit more time, but I appreciate you sharing them and discussing them.

 

No problem, and you're more than welcome. They're quite hefty, so feel free to skip to the executive summary and individual conclusions if you're not interested in the statistical minutiae.

[Diagoras]

Do you know nothing about the american political system? The entire thing is based around compromise. And were what you said true, with extremes being more correct than the middle, then how would you prevent the extreme you don't like from happening or being "right"?

 

This would be relevant if we were talking about politically feasible solutions. However, I used the phrase "optimal policy choice".

 

I mean, are we just supposed to have totally socialized medicine and communism with the state acting as a business becuase having an entire nation built as a corp is the extreme extent of capitalism?

 

What?

 

If you're totally honest? at least a couple hundred thousand. Not strictly in the US mind, but that also includes the various atrocities in Africa, the "ethnic clensings" in Kosovo and Timor, the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

 

This is not even tangentially related to the policy question at hand: domestic restriction of firearms.

 

Now, people killed in the US as a result of criminal action? I donno, but the chicago gangster who I work with LOVES to tell tales of getting in gang wars with his beloved M4 with 203 attached.

 

The answer is zero. Legal assault rifles have killed no one in twenty years. And quite possibly before that, though I don't know.

 

Standard would be the military standard. So the banana clip for the AK's and the box clip for the M4/M16.

 

Pistols, as those are the magazines that people are calling to restrict.

 

More reloads would slow down a killing spree, simple no? And no matter what, that 1-5 seconds (or more depending on how familiar your shooter is with the situation) will provide a window for people to get the hell away.

 

Will it? Is there any evidence to believe this? And if so, how many people does it save?

 

Are you trying to tell me that hand guns are more deadly simply because more people are killed in homocides by them?

 

Yes, they are involved with more homicides.

 

The reason people ask for assault weapons bans (or just very tight gun control laws in general), is because those weapons make it very easy to kill a large number of people in a very short time.

 

 

Do they? Because I've everything I've heard is that they're not better at killing people, and quite possible worse. Many of them have significantly lower calibers, for example. Is there any evidence that they're better?

 

You said this:The relevant question is, "Why should people not have a pistol or a rifle?" and my response to that is some people don't want to own guns, so they don't want to have them anywhere near their person.

 

Okay. Is not desiring something with no rational reason sufficient grounds to restrict a right?

 

And you're blowing this out of proportion. Most people aren't asking for all guns to be magically banned because they don't like them. Most people are asking that weapons that are designed to kill a lot of people in a very short span of time be banned. And those guns are also the ones that have no real personal defense or hunting qualifications beyond "it spits lead" because they're so overkill to defend a house invasion, and generally won't leave anything behind if you use it to hunt.

 

Handguns are also designed to kill lots of people in a short amount of time. So are pump-action shotguns. Why are semi-automatic rifles being singled out?

 

"that if you're saying that the guns are necessary for when the people "rise up" against their government overlords, it's a fallacy because if somebody is going to do that, they'll get the weapons they need through non-legal channels."

 

Really? Because acquisition of weaponry is one of the major concerns for insurgencies throughout history. Is there a reason you're blithely asserting this?

 

"Not the words "Sound exactly like" he wasn't saying that you were American, just that you sound like the worst stereotypes of americans that are found in other cultures."

 

Okay. How is this remotely helpful?

 

Ran out of quotes by the end, so switched to italics.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Diagoras

[Diagoras]

Less guns=the need for more effort=less people following through.

 

Is there evidence of this?

 

And note that there's a difference between "crime rate" and "Homocide rate" and "fatalities".

 

Could you clarify? I understand the difference, but not how it applies.

[Calax]

Less guns=the need for more effort=less people following through.

 

Is there evidence of this?

Human psycology. It's a lot harder to stab somebody to death in a psycological capacity than it is to just point and click.

And note that there's a difference between "crime rate" and "Homocide rate" and "fatalities".

 

Could you clarify? I understand the difference, but not how it applies.

Simple, a homocide requires a dead body. A crime could just be as little as an assault. So in britain some hooligan stabbing my hand counts as part of the crime rate, while in America that hooligan would "bust a cap in [my] ass". Basically it's a manipulation of the statistics to discuss the crime rate instead of the homocide rates.

 

 

Oh and btw

 

Okay. Is not desiring something with no rational reason sufficient grounds to restrict a right?

Judging by the abortion debate, yes. There's no rational reason with sufficient grounds to deny that (and birth control) to people, and yet the same people who rail against gun control are demanding that it be denied.

 

And the only other thing i want to point out about AR's and assault weapons is that while they may be smaller caliber, it doesn't take much to kill a person, and the AR's are much more accurate at range with larger clips.

[Zoraptor]

There's certainly evidence that spontaneous 'crimes of passion' (domestic violence primarily) and suicides are reduced by not having guns immediately available, as people will often think better of it if given time to reflect- as well as the psychological aspect and separation of using a gun. Those are usually crimes where someone just 'snaps' though, not stuff that requires planning.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Zoraptor

[Volourn]

"here's certainly evidence that spontaneous 'crimes of passion' (domestic violence primarily) and suicides are reduced by not having guns immediately available,"

 

What evidence and from who?

 

Suicide is an issue that's been around forever and has nothing to do with guns.

[Calax]

"here's certainly evidence that spontaneous 'crimes of passion' (domestic violence primarily) and suicides are reduced by not having guns immediately available,"

 

What evidence and from who?

 

Suicide is an issue that's been around forever and has nothing to do with guns.

<this guy. If I'd had a gun, I'd be dead at least twice at this point, by my own hand.

[casa]

I believe most simple human logic means nothing against statistics paid by various lobbies. What's not to get about "it takes more effort to stab 20 people to death with a pocket knife than using a gun"? It's so simple and yet somebody will always point out that it can't be proven because statistic X says...? *facepalm*

 

The main issue is that kids will always scream when you take away their toy, and the same goes for adult toys. As a boy and someone who played a few FPS in his life I understand the desire of having something bigger, better, cooler, more powerful, but that's not logic, that's a desire, and for deer hunting a plain old single shot hunting rifle does the job, and a plain 6-shot revolver will be enough to scare that thief from your front door. The odds that the North Korean army stands on your lawn in the near future are quite low too, and if they do, they would've taken out your army first and your chances aren't good anyway.

[casa]

<this guy. If I'd had a gun, I'd be dead at least twice at this point, by my own hand.

 

I've had my low points in life too, I'm thankful that guns have always been far out of my way.

[Raithe]

For a slightly odd set of statistics, I saw a listing of European crimes per 1,000,000 resisdents, and the UK topped the list of highest number of violent crimes BUT came 13th on list of actual homicides.

 

And since we're talking statistics:

 

http://www.gunpolicy...n/united-states

 

Apparently this group which is hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health at Syden University has a slew of US related gun statistics.

I haven't looked in-depth at it yet, but thought the really interested folk on this topic might enjoy it.

 

In the United States, annual homicides by any means total

 

2010: 14,159⁵

2009: 15,241

2008: 16,272

2007: 16,929

2006: 17,030

2005: 16,740

2004: 16,148

2003: 16,528

2002: 16,229

2001: 16,037

2000: 15,586

1999: 12,658⁶⁷

1998: 14,276

1997: 18,208⁸⁷

1996: 19,645

1995: 21,606

 

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

 

2009: 9,146⁷

2008: 9,484¹⁰⁷

2007: 10,129

2006: 10,225

2005: 10,158

2004: 9,385

2003: 9,659⁷

2002: 9,369¹¹

2001: 8,890

1999: 8,259⁶

1998: 9,257

 

 

In the United States, annual suicides by any means total

 

2005: 32,559¹³

2001: 29,898¹⁴

 

In the United States, annual firearm suicides total

 

2005: 17,002¹⁷

2001: 16,869¹⁴

 

[Malcador]

I believe most simple human logic means nothing against statistics paid by various lobbies. What's not to get about "it takes more effort to stab 20 people to death with a pocket knife than using a gun"? It's so simple and yet somebody will always point out that it can't be proven because statistic X says...? *facepalm*

 

The main issue is that kids will always scream when you take away their toy, and the same goes for adult toys. As a boy and someone who played a few FPS in his life I understand the desire of having something bigger, better, cooler, more powerful, but that's not logic, that's a desire, and for deer hunting a plain old single shot hunting rifle does the job, and a plain 6-shot revolver will be enough to scare that thief from your front door. The odds that the North Korean army stands on your lawn in the near future are quite low too, and if they do, they would've taken out your army first and your chances aren't good anyway.

 

Eh, I've no problem with people collecting rifles or just having some on hand to target shoot, hunt or keep burglars and home invaders out of their homes. Some cases it's a need or it's just a luxury and everyone has those.

 

Those US murder totals are lower than I though, was expecting 30k or more.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Malcador

[Zoraptor]

What evidence and from who?

 

Suicide is an issue that's been around forever and has nothing to do with guns.

There's vast amounts of evidence for the link, eg this from Harvard. It's linked mainly to the tendency of men to attempt suicide less than women but use far more immediate and effective methods.

[Hurlshort]

That's actually been the biggest defense brought up when arguing about violent video games. Violent crime as a whole has steadily dropped in the US for a number of years.

[alanschu]

Since you mention that, it did come up here:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/

[Volourn]

Apparantly, the latets news is that he went on his rampage because he thought mommy loved her students more than him because she (finally) decided to force him to be commited through legal means. The fundamental reason for this shooting has nothing to do with guns. But, with a crazy person who just didn't understand reality (not matter how meantt or nice the people who think they knew him claimed he was).

[casa]

Why of course the guns are not the reason for any shooting, they're just the tool. He still wouldn't have shot the kids without access to a gun because shootings without a gun don't happen, doh.

[Volourn]

And, making guns illegal to own for sane law abiding citizens will not stop a crazy person from doing this. This guy broke how many current laws commiting thes eheinous crimes/ And, you think illegally gaining guns would stop him from this? No, it won't.

 

Guns don't break laws. People break laws.

 

People pretend that these are common occurances but they aren't. It won't stop a single mass murder. And, isn't that the supposed goal? Wasted effort that can be sued elsewhere to limit such things in the future.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Volourn

[Drowsy Emperor]

He has a point. Forbidding something so widespread and in certain cases even useful, as a what, a plan to prevent a random, rare, event?

 

You could use a hammer to kill that ant that's walking over your kitchen counter but if you can't come up with a better idea you might as well not bother.

 

Not that guns are going to be restricted in the US ever anyway. It might seem like its an issue up for debate, but its not.

 

To prevent these tragedies (but without the illusion that they're ever going to totally disappear), should be the goal. Prevention consists of better integration of individuals in society, and better relations between them. A person that can spend hours contemplating revenge for sleights real and imagined is obviously stuck in a psychological dead end and only friends and family can dig them out of that hole. Not shrinks and particularly not tablets.

 

When I went to an american school, though it was in Africa I quickly noted how extreme alienation could be. The cool kids and uncool kids syndrome left to some individuals being semi-permanently left out of school social life. The teachers did what they could, what they were paid for - but they can't fix that climate where genuine ostracism is practiced. On the other hand, we don't get that here in Serbia - there's the odd black sheep of the class but they're never really isolated from their peers.

There has never been a school shooting here, and guns are semi-available (many people own them legally or illegally) - and we get as many crazies as any other society. The health system is falling apart and the institutes dealing with mental health are surely better funded in the US.

 

So its not the availability of guns, and its not lack of therapy. Draw your own conclusions.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor