Gun Laws

[Silent]

Thanks for taking the time to explain your views @iacas, appreciate it. It's a lot to cope with, and it's not always easy for me to explain my view the way I want to because my English is okay I guess, but limited. From now on I will type 'safer' though, thanks  A save is actually where you keep your gun I hope.

 

I will not quote and react on every single thing you said. A lot of things make sense, some others I have something to say about, but I don't want to drag us all in an endless discussion. You're probably already tired of it. What I do want to say is I believe you stating that if you eliminate suicides and minority vs minority deaths, the ratings drops. Ofcourse. But then if you compare it to other countries, you should eliminate those kind of deaths in those statistics at the other countries as well. And then those ratings drop as well. Is USA still high on the list then? I can't find such statistics...

That less guns don't always mean (immediatly or on long term) that there's less crime I believe. But that USA have ánd most guns per x people, ánd most gun deaths per x people is at least an eye catcher. That there are more factors in play then only the gun laws, no question about that. You said that about 35% of the people in USA have guns. Honest question: if that would raise to 50%, do you think it will lead to less deaths by guns, or more? (or no difference at all)

 

At last, and FWIW: I don't "picture" USA as some weird, wild west country at all. In fact, I've had the privilege to visit your beautiful country a few times already, and I will def. do so again in the future. The only guns I saw where on police officers. And in a gun shop, I had to check out how that looked :-)

[iacas]

Thanks for taking the time to explain your views @iacas, appreciate it. It's a lot to cope with, and it's not always easy for me to explain my view the way I want to because my English is okay I guess, but limited. From now on I will type 'safer' though, thanks  A save is actually where you keep your gun I hope.

No, that's actually still a "safe."

Save is usually a verb, though in hockey, if a goalie saves a goal, we count that as "a save." Same in baseball, etc.

What I do want to say is I believe you stating that if you eliminate suicides and minority vs minority deaths, the ratings drops. Ofcourse. But then if you compare it to other countries, you should eliminate those kind of deaths in those statistics at the other countries as well. And then those ratings drop as well. Is USA still high on the list then? I can't find such statistics.

That's part of the point: it drops to levels at or below other countries if you apply similar metrics to those other countries, too. The U.S. often counts suicides, while other countries do not. Heck, in the UK, they only count gun crimes if they result in an arrest or something like that. I think that's mentioned here: http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/ . Again, I'm beyond the point of interest, so I'm just sharing that link and haven't vetted it, etc. Seems legit but based on only a cursory glance.

The point I seem to recall is that if you remove suicides and inner-city gang type stuff, the U.S. rate drops to below many, many other countries.

But that USA have ánd most guns per x people, ánd most gun deaths per x people is at least an eye catcher. That there are more factors in play then only the gun laws, no question about that. You said that about 35% of the people in USA have guns. Honest question: if that would raise to 50%, do you think it will lead to less deaths by guns, or more? (or no difference at all)

It's an eye catcher, but you're not even scratching the surface of a very complex and multifaceted issue. That's not understanding the issue - it's taking one stat, ignoring hundreds of things, and using it to form the basis of an opinion.

To answer your question, it would depend on the makeup of that 15% increase in people owning guns. My wife doesn't own a gun, but she'd not go around shooting people if she picked one up.

[saevel25]

You're looking at this very simplistically. You're seemingly ignoring the fact that gun ownership saves a lot of people from being harmed or killed on a daily basis. You're probably not able to conceive of a country that is 300 million people strong when Holland has fewer than 20 million people.

I'm probably looking at it more simplistically than it deserves, too, but I'm not a criminologist. So I boil it down, but seemingly, not nearly as far as you. You cannot just state "more guns = more crime" and leave it at that. Look again at Australia and the UK. I haven't in a decade, but people are still citing the rises in violent crime after those countries banned guns. Fewer guns = less safe? Seems to have some merit there, too.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

1) Would a Federal Ban on guns and magazines holding more than 10 rounds reduce violent crimes - 96% said no.

5) What would help the most in preventing large scale shootings in public? - 29% said more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians. 15% said to have more armed guards/paid security. 

6) 80% of police officers believed that legally-armed citizens could have made a big difference in reducing casualties in mass shootings. 

So, you have police who have to face people with guns. They overwhelmingly believe that having citizens being armed will reduce the number of violent crimes, and help prevent against mass shootings. I think I would believe the people who are trained and have a job that face these dangers. 

 

[Silent]

No, that's actually still a "safe."

Save is usually a verb, though in hockey, if a goalie saves a goal, we count that as "a save." Same in baseball, etc.

Bummer, I give up

[Golfingdad]

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

1) Would a Federal Ban on guns and magazines holding more than 10 rounds reduce violent crimes - 96% said no.

5) What would help the most in preventing large scale shootings in public? - 29% said more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians. 15% said to have more armed guards/paid security. 

6) 80% of police officers believed that legally-armed citizens could have made a big difference in reducing casualties in mass shootings. 

So, you have police who have to face people with guns. They overwhelmingly believe that having citizens being armed will reduce the number of violent crimes, and help prevent against mass shootings. I think I would believe the people who are trained and have a job that face these dangers. 

 

1) Would a Federal Ban on guns and magazines holding more than 10 rounds reduce violent crimes - 96% said no.

16) If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws? - 62% said they would NOT enforce them, and another 20% said they were unsure.

Bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy there, no?

 

[iacas]

1) Would a Federal Ban on guns and magazines holding more than 10 rounds reduce violent crimes - 96% said no.

16) If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws? - 62% said they would NOT enforce them, and another 20% said they were unsure.

Bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy there, no?

No.

Owning a magazine with more than 10 rounds is not a "violent crime."

[mmoan2]

Thanks for taking the time to explain your views @iacas, appreciate it. It's a lot to cope with, and it's not always easy for me to explain my view the way I want to because my English is okay I guess, but limited. From now on I will type 'safer' though, thanks  A save is actually where you keep your gun I hope.

 

I will not quote and react on every single thing you said. A lot of things make sense, some others I have something to say about, but I don't want to drag us all in an endless discussion. You're probably already tired of it. What I do want to say is I believe you stating that if you eliminate suicides and minority vs minority deaths, the ratings drops. Ofcourse. But then if you compare it to other countries, you should eliminate those kind of deaths in those statistics at the other countries as well. And then those ratings drop as well. Is USA still high on the list then? I can't find such statistics...

That less guns don't always mean (immediatly or on long term) that there's less crime I believe. But that USA have ánd most guns per x people, ánd most gun deaths per x people is at least an eye catcher. That there are more factors in play then only the gun laws, no question about that. You said that about 35% of the people in USA have guns. Honest question: if that would raise to 50%, do you think it will lead to less deaths by guns, or more? (or no difference at all)

 

At last, and FWIW: I don't "picture" USA as some weird, wild west country at all. In fact, I've had the privilege to visit your beautiful country a few times already, and I will def. do so again in the future. The only guns I saw where on police officers. And in a gun shop, I had to check out how that looked :-)

Here's a link from good old Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Even if you eliminate all categories except homicides with guns, the US is by and large much worse than other what are considered "1st World" countries. Most of the nations ahead of the US are impoverished, often with a heavy presence of drug cartels, civil unrest, poverty, and illiteracy.

Eliminating suicide, however, seems like a bad idea when arguing this topic. 18+ thousand suicides a year from guns. Many of them could have been avoided with certain measures.

Interestingly, though, firearms deaths are way DOWN in the US from the mid-1990s. Like cut in half.

[turtleback]

Here is an interesting recent analysis of gun laws compared to total homicide rates by state:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

[iacas]

Here's a link from good old Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Even if you eliminate all categories except homicides with guns, the US is by and large much worse than other what are considered "1st World" countries. Most of the nations ahead of the US are impoverished, often with a heavy presence of drug cartels, civil unrest, poverty, and illiteracy.

Yes, and when you remove the inner-city gang stuff, gun-related crimes drops way down, on par with other countries.

And the article I cited above says that something like 50% of the gun crimes in the UK aren't reported as such because they only report them if they result in a conviction (or something like that). And that's true of other countries, too, so that shades their numbers down significantly.

You can't just look at a hugely multi-faceted issue and say "because of this and that, I think this." Well, "can" is not the right word, because clearly people are capable of doing it. Whether you should or not, well, that's a value judgment I guess.

Eliminating suicide, however, seems like a bad idea when arguing this topic. 18+ thousand suicides a year from guns. Many of them could have been avoided with certain measures.

People who want to kill themselves will find a way to do it. Yes, I imagine some would not do so if a gun was not convenient, but I don't imagine it's a large number, nor do I think that has much to do with a discussion of gun-related crimes. Other countries have guns and see a significantly lower suicide rate, and yet other countries have no guns and see higher suicide rates. I think the issue with suicides is preventing the suicide in the first place, not the mechanical means with which they commit suicide.

Here is an interesting recent analysis of gun laws compared to total homicide rates by state:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

That article contains stuff about suicide, too. I don't want to edit my post, but it is related, so I just want to point that out here, too.

Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they say that if you want to kill yourself with a gun, you're highly motivated and if a gun is not available you'll find another way to do it. It implies that if you can restrict guns with the goal of reducing suicides, you may reduce the number of suicides committed with guns, but you likely will not affect the actual number of suicides very much.

[Golfingdad]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-democrats-unveil-sweeping-gun-control-legislation-n440781

I have no idea what else is contained within this bill, or if it will get passed or not, but good to see they're making an effort in "closing background check loopholes, expanding the background check database, and tightening regulations on illegal gun purchases."

[newtogolf]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-democrats-unveil-sweeping-gun-control-legislation-n440781

I have no idea what else is contained within this bill, or if it will get passed or not, but good to see they're making an effort in "closing background check loopholes, expanding the background check database, and tightening regulations on illegal gun purchases."

We'll see, my money is on it not getting passed. 

[JP golf]

I'm not against stricter gun laws.  As long as I can still get a gun legally and have the right to protect myself.  Gun laws may help some, but you're still going to have outliers.

We are not going to stop every single mass shooting.  It just isn't going to happen.  Unfortunately, many believe we are looking at a generational shift that is only going to increase the likelihood of this happening more often.  The instant (but brief) infamy that these shooters receive is exactly what they are looking for in some cases.  In today's world of social media and instant access to information the platform for instant recognition is readily available.  If you do something big enough your story will be told...  and sometimes that's all they want at whatever cost.

The scary thing is all the science about how we are in the midst of this generational shift with regards to the way today's youth develop relationships and the effect it has on dealing with adversity.  Everyone faces adversity, but some believe today's youth are typically less prepared to handle emotional and social stress.  There is plenty data that supports that if a child grows up in relational poverty that they are more likely to have mental health issues.  Unfortunately there are more and more cases where are youth are not getting the same amount of social interaction that prior generations have had.  We all recognize that we are in an age with more screen time.  We see it all the time - the social setting at dinner or a party but everyone is buried in their phones or on an iPad. -  Now there is a bunch of science about how the brain forms connections and relationships between concepts and how "virtual socialization is not the same as physical socialization".  The result is that a child at 16 is likely to have had the same amount of real physical social interactions as that of a 6 year old from 20 years ago or so.  Well - that social isolation impacts the brains ability to process real social and emotional stress...  What you get in that situation is a more self absorbed, more emotionally and social fragile person. 

Just ask hiring managers - those studies are there too.  It's not that this generation isn't as smart (they are probably a lot smarter), it's not that they lack the STEM skills...  It's the soft skills that are in need and lacking.  Interpersonal skills, leadership, face to face communication, empathy etc... 

Kinda scary...   when you put it all together...   I'm no expert and damn sure don't have the answers but I wonder how valid the connection is...  Is it really gun laws? is it the person? What is the root of the issue and what do we do about it?  I don't know...

Edited October 9, 2015 by JP golf

[RussUK]

Its sad that the majority of these mass shootings seem to be happening in schools and colleges. The shooters must be/have been very troubled individuals to feel the need and to actually be able to turn a gun on fellow students and teachers. 

My feelings are that some people are pushed and pushed to breaking point (i was subjected to bullying as a child) and while some of us can cope and speak out against them, some cant and either go to the extremes of taking their own lives (as has happend in the Uk over Cyber bullying) or to take the lives of others.

Now, the above isnt the case with all these shootings, the latest targeted Christians, but there must be something that triggers this reaction in a person. 

Tighter gun contols would be beneficial but more importantly education on what signs to look out for in order to stop a "what if" thought by a tormented person from turning into reallity. 

In the case of schools, they need to do more and to be more approachable for these individuals so they can helped before it goes to far. But im sure some will be beyond help.

[mcanadiens]

My feelings are that some people are pushed and pushed to breaking point (i was subjected to bullying as a child) and while some of us can cope and speak out against them, some cant and either go to the extremes of taking their own lives (as has happend in the Uk over Cyber bullying) or to take the lives of others.

Maybe slightly off topic, but I think it relates.

One thing that I think really hurts here (in the U.S.) is the zero tolerance approach that American schools seem to take these days with discipline. When I was a boy and someone gave you grief, you handled it with a fist fight, dusted yourself off and went on. Hell, half the time, you'd become friends with guy you were fighting.

Maybe I'm way off base, but it seems like it we don't allow boys to handle things this way any more. It leaves the bullied to cook like this. Unable to find an adequate way to deal with their frustration, they blow up.  

[Gator Hazard]

Maybe slightly off topic, but I think it relates.

One thing that I think really hurts here (in the U.S.) is the zero tolerance approach that American schools seem to take these days with discipline. When I was a boy and someone gave you grief, you handled it with a fist fight, dusted yourself off and went on. Hell, half the time, you'd become friends with guy you were fighting.

Maybe I'm way off base, but it seems like it we don't allow boys to handle things this way any more. It leaves the bullied to cook like this. Unable to find an adequate way to deal with their frustration, they blow up.  

There are a number of factors involved in that.  I went to a Catholic School and got into several fights protecting myself. My parents were called in one day and told "we teach the children to follow the examples of Jesus. Jesus turned the other cheek", my father laughed and quickly replied that I was not Jesus and if someone hit me I was going to hit them back.  Over the years they were called in for a number of these types of conversations.  In the 8th grade I was told that if I was in one more fight I was out whether I started it or not.  I never, ever started fights, I got picked on but wouldn't always take it and often times would fight back.  In 5th or 6th grade I got in a fist fight with one of my friends on the playground, after it was done and we had to spend the next week sitting on the lunch tables during recess we became even better friends.  We car pooled in the mornings, extremely awkward getting into the car with the mom of the person you gave a black eye.

High school was different however, and that is when even at a private school punk kids were becoming cowards and would have guns.  I knew a kid who was 16 years old that had a 9mm that his father gave him, his parents were successful business owners living the upper upper middle class dream.  I never understood that but was at a few parties where guns were involved, one time there were shots fired.  Twice in my life when I was around 18 I was involved in situations.  I was about to get in a fight with what happened to be two guys in a car after a traffic incident that escalated rapidly (think they were stoned and they were just sitting at the green light for like, ages when I beeped my horn at them). They threatened me and being young and stupid I said that I accepted their offer to pull over.  Passenger got out of car and came at me fast, driver went to trunk, opened trunk and was digging in it for (what I am going to presume was a gun).  I walked into the place I was at and left my car and everything, I was not going to be shot for pride's sake when they felt they needed a gun.  Same thing happened at a party, some punk cholo dude didn't like one of my friends for reasons unknown to me and had his guys surround me.  Said lets go around the corner and fight and I told him I would be happy too but I know you are too much of a coward to do it on your own (surprised I didn't get jumped right there but he did go to his car to get a gun as was communicated to me) and somehow found a way to walk between two of the 10 or so dudes surrounding me.  Can you imagine that?  A guy I don't even know, that doesn't even know me was going to go get a gun and at a minimum was going to threaten me with it if not take a few shots for standing next too and talking to some guy he didn't like.  

Fighting isn't worth it, I have not been in a fight since around that age and I am proud of that fact.  Scary thing is nowadays you get in a fist fight, win, and the loser comes back and shoots you for the embarrassment of beating them in a fist fight.  Kids are getting shot for far less things than that.  I feel bad for our kids.

 

Wow!  Just as we were speaking about this kind of stuff:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/shooter-kills-one-injures-3-us-university-105603000.html#

 

Edited October 9, 2015 by Gator Hazard

[Braivo]

Wow!  Just as we were speaking about this kind of stuff:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/shooter-kills-one-injures-3-us-university-105603000.html#

This article is the perfect example of a biased media narrative in action.

One person was killed and three others wounded in a shooting at an Arizona university early Friday before the gunman was captured, officials said, in the latest such incident in the United States.

The first emergency calls came through to police at 1:20 am Friday, when most NAU students would have been in bed at the university campus in the city of Flagstaff

This was not a "mass shooting" by any means. This wasn't the "latest such incident". A mass shooter isn't going to pick 1:20 AM to maximize victim count. The only thing in common with the Oregon shooting last week is that this took place on a college campus. That is it, there are no other similarities. He was captured, he didn't commit suicide or go down in a gun battle. Nope, he likely knew his victims, committed the crime, then tried to flee and was caught. 

The university will hold a press conference at 6:00 am (1300 GMT), said Brown, who described NAU as a "gun-free zone" and said there was a police department on the campus of 20,000 students.

Another shooting in a "gun-free zone"! Amazing, as @iacas already mentioned, that criminals don't listen to those signs. Crazy. Who would have thought? 

President Barack Obama was to meet with families of the Umpqua victims in Roseburg, Oregon on Friday.

In the wake of the Umpqua killings Obama angrily called on Congress to do more and warned that failure to act on gun control was a "political decision," vowing to keep pushing for reform.

Objective reporting? Lumping a random shooting in with a much different tragedy, then mentioning gun control. Once you step back you start to realize how this narrative works and things get reported in a way that advances that narrative. There is absolutely no need to bring up the Oregon shooting or gun control in this article. 

Here is the original article, which I have modified to strike out all of the unnecessary and biased pieces:

Los Angeles (AFP) - One person was killed and three others wounded in a shooting at an Arizona university early Friday before the gunman was captured, officials said, in the latest such incident in the United States.

The deadly shooting at Northern Arizona University (NAU) comes just over a week after the October 1 shooting rampage at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, in which a 26-year-old gunman shot dead nine people and then committed suicide.

The first emergency calls came through to police at 1:20 am Friday, when most NAU students would have been in bed at the university campus in the city of Flagstaff.

The motive for the shooting -- just the latest at colleges and universities in the United States -- was not clear and the identity of the shooter and the victims was not immediately known.

"I can confirm that there was a shooting on our campus this morning. There is one victim, three are being treated at our local medical center and the shooter is in custody," NAU spokeswoman Cindy Brown told CNN.

"The incident took place in a parking lot adjacent to our Mountain View resident's hall on the northeast side of campus."

Students described how they were awoken by a university text message warning them of the shooting or by calls from worried friends and family.

"You don't expect that in Flagstaff. I never thought it would happen here," one student, Megan, told CNN, describing how her room was just yards from where the shooting took place.

Megan said fellow students frantically contacted one another.

"And we've been texting each other in group chats and making sure everyone is safe," she said.

"There is a huge community here and everyone is reaching out and making sure everyone's okay. Still anxious though not knowing who's involved."

The university will hold a press conference at 6:00 am (1300 GMT), said Brown, who described NAU as a "gun-free zone" and said there was a police department on the campus of 20,000 students.

NAU sent out alerts urging residents of Mountain View Hall dormitory to stay indoors.

"Like many people, I was asleep," said Brown.

"But of course this is a very upsetting thing for anyone to receive in the middle of the night. Honestly, our thoughts are with the families of the victims right now."

President Barack Obama was to meet with families of the Umpqua victims in Roseburg, Oregon on Friday.

In the wake of the Umpqua killings Obama angrily called on Congress to do more and warned that failure to act on gun control was a "political decision," vowing to keep pushing for reform.

[Gator Hazard]

This article is the perfect example of a biased media narrative in action.

This was not a "mass shooting" by any means. This wasn't the "latest such incident". A mass shooter isn't going to pick 1:20 AM to maximize victim count. The only thing in common with the Oregon shooting last week is that this took place on a college campus. That is it, there are no other similarities. He was captured, he didn't commit suicide or go down in a gun battle. Nope, he likely knew his victims, committed the crime, then tried to flee and was caught. 

Another shooting in a "gun-free zone"! Amazing, as @iacas already mentioned, that criminals don't listen to those signs. Crazy. Who would have thought? 

Objective reporting? Lumping a random shooting in with a much different tragedy, then mentioning gun control. Once you step back you start to realize how this narrative works and things get reported in a way that advances that narrative. There is absolutely no need to bring up the Oregon shooting or gun control in this article. 

Here is the original article, which I have modified to strike out all of the unnecessary and biased pieces:

I completely understand it is not a mass shooting, my comment was geared more towards @mcanadiens comments and what I myself was writing about.  

[Braivo]

I completely understand it is not a mass shooting, my comment was geared more towards @mcanadiens comments and what I myself was writing about.  

I know that, my commentary was directed toward the article itself, not that you posted it. Just the way the media made it sound like another mass shooting because it gets more clicks.