A question about America's gun culture

Hagar7

Something called The Second Amendment needs amended,pronto.

Victor

Kace Wailing Sprinter wrote: »

Put their second amendment to their citizens asking them to vote "YES for change NO for change" because the problem is their second amendment and as far as i know that can only be change by the people, but unfortunately they wont do that.

Constitutional change in the USA doesn't use referendums. The federal constitution is a matter between congress and state legislatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution

Manic Moran

Billy86 wrote: »

Australia's buyback policy after the Port Arthur shootings led to a 42% drop in homicide rates, and a 57% drop in suicide rates, within seven years of being implemented. The initial two years in which it was implemented saw the biggest drop in Australian homicide rates in over 80 years.

Much harsher sentencing for illegally owned and unregistered firearms would be a great start. And putting an end to those gun fairs where people can basically buy and sell guns without any background or licence checks whatsoever.

Note that barely 2/3 of the estimated firearms in Australia were actually handed in. A similar ratio in the US, not that it has a hope in hell of happening, would leave about 100,000,000 firearms in circulation. Not sure it'll help much. Note also, University of Melbourne did a study about ten years later, and failed to find any causation between the one and the other. Basically, the Aussies had instituted a bunch of policies, including societal and police, which started the trend.

Billy86 wrote: »

I honestly don't know if they do, or to what extent, but surely given the prevalence of guns in the US, the police receive training to shoot to wound, not kill? Especially when it's something like a lone drunk guy throwing stones, going straight for the gun and shooting to kill is more than a little bit much.

Very little. Police shoot to stop a threat. Which usually results in death. Hitting someone in the arm or leg is incredibly difficult, and you want bullets to go into the target, not off into the beyond where they could end up who-knows-where. There's a bit of a problem in San Francisco right now, where police have been denied the use of tasers. Basically people are complaining 'well, people can die from tasers'. Came to a forefront about a week ago after a guy was hit by bean-bag rounds from a shotgun, pepper spray, neither had the desired effect, so they had to go to firearm ammunition. People may sometimes die from tasers, but they usually do die from .40 cal hollow-points.

Walmart only just stopped selling Assault Rifles, such as the AR-15 which does come with a semi-automatic variant. A gun like this is not for home defense or killing, it's for killing. There is a strange difference between the two.

No, there isn't. Any firearm used for home defense (or personal defense) is for killing. It's disingenuous to say otherwise. And an AR-15 or the like has a number of advantages over pretty much any other firearm which makes it superior in such a use, absent other factors. (Such as in my case, a child in my home requiring a small safe). There's a reason the rifle is the most commonly sold rifle in the US, it's a downright brilliant design for a multiple of household uses.

Usernemises wrote: »

The pro gun nuts would just reply with "how many lives a year do guns save", which is ridiculous. I think America has gone too far now to be brought back. Guns are easily accessible and everywhere, people have guns to protect themselves from people with guns!

Why is it ridiculous? One must accept the amount of accidental and unlawful deaths with firearms when discussing the pros and cons, but one must also accept the amount of good that they do, like pretty much every other tool in existance. And the good, when used in defense, is usually on the matter of saving lives. Bear in mind that even government estimates were over a million defensive gun uses per year, anti-gun groups (the lowest) come in at over a quarter-million, and pro-gun groups over 6 million. (It all comes down to definition, really). That's a hell of a lot of times that people feel the need to pick up a firearm.

Billy86 wrote: »

The ridiculousness of it all! :pac:

Apparently only with the weapons decommissioned, though.

Sweet mother of...

But after a very brief search, it appears you need to have very difficult-to-get licences etc.




Although theoretically then, with said licences and such, one could own a tank and roll it down the street, before banging open the hatch with duel rocket launchers!



*head explodes*

No, you can own a fully armed tank in the US. Obviously it's 'privilige' territory, not 'right', and there's a hell of a lot of paperwork and background checks, but it can be done. I've used a couple. Of interest, usually only solid shot and cannister is fired: High Explosive requires ungodly amounts of paperwork and cost.

Sheeps

MadsL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/01/obama-to-impose-new-gun-control-curbs-next-week/

FalconGirl

A load of lads armed to the teeth have taken over a building in Oregon. Very little about it on mainstream media but its trending all over twitter. These at #oregonunderattack. These guys are white Americans. They say they are willing to kill or be killed to achieve their objectives. A dangerous precedent imo.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-occupation-militia-willing-to-kill-or-be-killed-occupy-us-wildlife-reserve-a6794366.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ammon-bundy-militia-members-occupy-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-oregon-n489311

Harry Palmr

Don't worry! They are white so nothing bad will happen unless they make it happen.

RDM_83 again

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Don't worry! They are white so nothing bad will happen unless they make it happen.

To be fair its not spree killing or a hostage situation

After the march Saturday, the armed protesters broke into the refuge's unoccupied building and refused to leave. Officials have said there are no government employees in the building.

"We will be here as long as it takes," Bundy said. "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."

So equating it to an Islamic fundamentalist attack would just be stupid.

RDM_83 again

On the wider note about gun control, should the spree killers be what leads the response to gun violence, wouldn't it be better to look at the whole and the majority of deaths rather than the high profile ones.
Problem is if you do that there is a massive elephant in the room that won't be addressed in the current climate, figures in link below speak for themselves.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity

Race, unfortunately and tragically, factors into gun death at the metro level. The share of the population that is black is positively related to both the overall rate of gun death (.56) and even more so with gun-related homicides (.72). The pattern is similar for the share of the population that is comprised of young black males which is also positively related to the overall rate of gun death (.55) and murder by gun (.70). That said, we find no significant association between any type of gun death and the share of the population that is Hispanic.

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

Alternatively you could look at it as an economic issue (this was a fairly quick look so didn't find an adjusted figure for poverty vs ethnic background)

For all ages, homicides are disproportionately concentrated in the poorest brackets, but the impact is much more pronounced for younger ages (Table 2). Among 15- to 24-year-olds, 81% of homicides (including 83% of gun and 65% of non-gun homicides) occurred among the occupants of brackets with poverty levels of 20% or higher, while fewer than 2% of homicides (including 1.4% of gun homicides and 4.5% of non-gun homicides) occurred among the occupants of poverty brackets below 10%. Older ages also show much higher rates of homicide among those in the 20+% poverty brackets compared with those in poverty brackets below 10%, but there are so few occupants age 40 and older in the highest poverty categories that homicide rates are more erratic and the overall impact of poverty is much lower.

http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/5/1/2158244015573359

Gun control seems to work quite well at reducing rates of gun violence

. We found substantial negative correlations between the rate of gun deaths and states that ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage requirements for guns.

Obviously this could never happen but IMO if you wanted to really reduce gun violence in the USA you would ban poor people from having guns as well as strict gun control laws.

Jimlh86

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Don't worry! They are white so nothing bad will happen unless they make it happen.

I'm not disagreeing with you but how many white Americans are shot by police each year?

Manic Moran

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Gun control seems to work quite well at reducing rates of gun violence

Obviously this could never happen but IMO if you wanted to really reduce gun violence in the USA you would ban poor people from having guns as well as strict gun control laws.

Note, they use the word correlation, not causation.

Assessments of that report have pointed out that States which have such laws also tend not to have as high rates of legal firearms ownership to begin with. For example, good luck getting an assault weapon law passed in Montana: The people there really like their guns, and more people will own them, than, say, people who care about guns in California and will allow such laws to be passed in the first place.

Obama will join CNN's Anderson Cooper this thursday for "Guns in America" a one hour live town hall on gun control and Obama will take questions from the audience at the event, but the link shows whats he up against, whether you like him or not he trying his best.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/03/christie-bush-take-aim-at-obamas-plan-to-use-executive-powers-to-tighten-gun-control-laws.html

archer22

steddyeddy wrote: »

Every year in America there are mass shootings and hundreds of deaths a year from gun violence. Then there are countless debates on the role of gun culture in these deaths. My question is this: If giving up guns saved even ten lives a year would it not be worth it?

Americans have always owned guns, but those constant mass shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.Perhaps the real question is what has gone wrong in American society.Many other countries have high gun ownership but not those problems to the same degree.A good example is the Philippines a former American colony with a similar love of guns but yet apart from political violence there has never been a school massacre or anything similar and I doubt there ever will be.The problem in America is much deeper than just guns.

gobsh!te

Hagar7 wrote: »

Something called The Second Amendment needs amended,pronto.

Hopefully they make it like the Swiss constitution. Switzerland is a safe country....oh wait....it's the same there isn't it?

gobsh!te

archer22 wrote: »

Americans have always owned guns, but those constant mass shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.Perhaps the real question is what has gone wrong in American society.Many other countries have high gun ownership but not those problems to the same degree.A good example is the Philippines a former American colony with a similar love of guns but yet apart from political violence there has never been a school massacre or anything similar and I doubt there ever will be.The problem in America is much deeper than just guns.

The fact that under Obama a mass shooting is defined as more than 1 person being shot as opposed to 4 is the main reason for the "increase" in mass shootings.

gobsh!te

gobsh!te wrote: »

The fact that under Obama a mass shooting is defined as more than 1 person being shot as opposed to 4 is the main reason for the "increase" in mass shootings.

(The fact that under Obama) the problem was there long before Obama came along, the facts is religion is starting to show its true colours again.

gobsh!te

Kace Wailing Sprinter wrote: »

(The fact that under Obama) the problem was there long before Obama came along, the facts is religion is starting to show its true colours again.

Gun crime in the US has been steadily decreasing by over 50% from the early 1990s.

Suicide accounts for most gun deaths at 61%.
The vast majority of mass shootings are related to gang violence.

Would it have helped in Paris if anyone was armed during their mass shootings last year?

By some accounts the US only had 4 non gang related mass shootings last year.

Yeah your statistics is right because everything is a statistics, read back on the OP post and then tell what your solution is.

gobsh!te

Kace Wailing Sprinter wrote: »

Yeah your statistics is right because everything is a statistics, read back on the OP post and then tell what your solution is.

It is quite childish to think that getting rid of guns will result only in a decrease in deaths.

Guns can save lives and would have done so in Paris twice last year.

It is never reported when they do save lives.

This kind of thinking is what results in disastrous outcomes in many government initiatives.

Brazil changed its guns laws in the early part of this century which made them far more restrictive to the average citizen. By 2012 gun killings had shot up to the highest levels in 35 years.

If criminals don't respect current laws....why do you think they would suddenly respect gun control laws? Seriously.

People don't want to debate because they'd rather argue with their emotions. They don't see what the want to see when the statistics don't follow what their viewpoint is.

Here's a stat...nearly 70% of Americans are on medication. Not sure what the figure is for Switzerland...

Still, you'll ignore that.....it doesn't fit the narrative


A solution? End the war on drugs and investigate why so many Americans are on prescription drugs.

End the minimum wage and allow for the employment of teens in low income areas so that they gain experience and actually are allowed get that first job.

colossus-x

gobsh!te wrote: »

Gun crime in the US has been steadily decreasing by over 50% from the early 1990s.

Suicide accounts for most gun deaths at 61%.

And if they didn't have the easy gun option what other easy quick fix would they have.?

The vast majority of mass shootings are related to gang violence.

Sure, just let the criminals have at it, it's no skin off our nose. Why wouldn anyone care if some 20 year old black hoodlum dies. His mum won't mind.

Would it have helped in Paris if anyone was armed during their mass shootings last year?

No, obviously.


By some accounts the US only had 4 non gang related mass shootings last year.

Which accounts where those? Selective some ? What do you mean my 'only'.

gobsh!te wrote: »

It is quite childish to think that getting rid of guns will result only in a decrease in deaths.

They would go up would they?

Guns can save lives and would have done so in Paris twice last year.

Sure, if you want to bring your own Kalashnikov to a concert whilst having a few beers. Or on you way to the office on the metro.


It is never reported when they do save lives.

Would that be because they never do or .. ?

This kind of thinking is what results in disastrous outcomes in many government initiatives.

Brazil changed its guns laws in the early part of this century which made them far more restrictive to the average citizen. By 2012 gun killings had shot up to the highest levels in 35 years.

Would they have gone down if the gun laws weren't restriced?

If criminals don't respect current laws....why do you think they would suddenly respect gun control laws? Seriously.

Like, if they couldn't' get their hands on them because there weren't any.

People don't want to debate because they'd rather argue with their emotions. They don't see what the want to see when the statistics don't follow what their viewpoint is.

Here's a stat...nearly 70% of Americans are on medication. Not sure what the figure is for Switzerland...

Eye drops? Asthma control? So?

Still, you'll ignore that.....it doesn't fit the narrative

A solution? End the war on drugs and investigate why so many Americans are on prescription drugs.

Sure, lets all get high.

End the minimum wage and allow for the employment of teens in low income areas so that they gain experience and actually are allowed get that first job.

Nothing better than getting experience in working a low paid job so that you can say to your next employer that you have experience of working in a low paid job.

.

Mesrine65

gobsh!te wrote: »

Gun crime in the US has been steadily decreasing by over 50% from the early 1990s.

Suicide accounts for most gun deaths at 61%.

And if they didn't have the easy gun option what other easy quick fix would they have.?

The vast majority of mass shootings are related to gang violence.

Sure, just let the criminals have at it, it's no skin off our nose. Why wouldn anyone care if some 20 year old black hoodlum dies. His mum won't mind.

Would it have helped in Paris if anyone was armed during their mass shootings last year?

No, obviously.


By some accounts the US only had 4 non gang related mass shootings last year.

Which accounts where those? Selective some ? What do you mean my 'only'.

It is quite childish to think that getting rid of guns will result only in a decrease in deaths.

They would go up would they?

Guns can save lives and would have done so in Paris twice last year.

Sure, if you want to bring your own Kalashnikov to a concert whilst having a few beers. Or on you way to the office on the metro.


It is never reported when they do save lives.

Would that be because they never do or .. ?

This kind of thinking is what results in disastrous outcomes in many government initiatives.

Brazil changed its guns laws in the early part of this century which made them far more restrictive to the average citizen. By 2012 gun killings had shot up to the highest levels in 35 years.

Would they have gone down if the gun laws weren't restriced?

If criminals don't respect current laws....why do you think they would suddenly respect gun control laws? Seriously.

Like, if they couldn't' get their hands on them because there weren't any.

People don't want to debate because they'd rather argue with their emotions. They don't see what the want to see when the statistics don't follow what their viewpoint is.

Here's a stat...nearly 70% of Americans are on medication. Not sure what the figure is for Switzerland...

Eye drops? Asthma control? So?

Still, you'll ignore that.....it doesn't fit the narrative

A solution? End the war on drugs and investigate why so many Americans are on prescription drugs.

Sure, lets all get high.

End the minimum wage and allow for the employment of teens in low income areas so that they gain experience and actually are allowed get that first job.

Nothing better than getting experience in working a low paid job so that you can say to your next employer that you have experience of working in a low paid job.

Excellent use of colour & font size sir...impressive

Any chance of a pie chart?

gobsh!te

Gun crime in the US has been steadily decreasing by over 50% from the early 1990s.

Suicide accounts for most gun deaths at 61%.

And if they didn't have the easy gun option what other easy quick fix would they have.?

Are you saying that without a gun people would not kill themselves? Really? You think that guns are responsible for suicide then? Not the mental state of a person???? What a joke. Maybe if we ban rope we could save a few more....so silly

The vast majority of mass shootings are related to gang violence.

Sure, just let the criminals have at it, it's no skin off our nose. Why wouldn anyone care if some 20 year old black hoodlum dies. His mum won't mind.

End the drug war and this will go down....why are you assuming it is related to black hoodlums.........you racist sicko

Would it have helped in Paris if anyone was armed during their mass shootings last year?

No, obviously.


Same situation in Texas not too long before the second Paris attack. Didn't you hear? Ah, that's because the two were shot

By some accounts the US only had 4 non gang related mass shootings last year.

Which accounts where those? Selective some ? What do you mean my 'only'.

You know some of the mass shootings that are included actually don't include any deaths and sometimes not even injuries...nah, you didn't know that.....you made your mind up long before facts ever had a chance.

USA Today reports it at 22. Meanwhile others report it at a figure of nearly 500. You'll gladly highlight the largest figure without investigating what makes the difference...let's fit that agenda before looking too much into what's behind the figures....right?

It is quite childish to think that getting rid of guns will result only in a decrease in deaths.

They would go up would they?

Yes, they would....I've given Brazil as an example....They brought in gun control and within a few years gun killings jumped to the highest levels in 35 years....Don't you read???

Guns can save lives and would have done so in Paris twice last year.

Sure, if you want to bring your own Kalashnikov to a concert whilst having a few beers. Or on you way to the office on the metro.


Do you have the percentage of mass shooting committed in gun free zones V non gun free zones.....I know, I know....these facts are so annoying...Do you?

It is never reported when they do save lives.

Would that be because they never do or .. ?

hahaha....what an idiot...There are plenty of reports at local levels in the US showing where guns saved lives....In fact the Texas Shooting V the Paris massacre is a great example

This kind of thinking is what results in disastrous outcomes in many government initiatives.

Brazil changed its guns laws in the early part of this century which made them far more restrictive to the average citizen. By 2012 gun killings had shot up to the highest levels in 35 years.

Would they have gone down if the gun laws weren't restriced?

Gun crime has been going down (as stated) in the US from a high by 61% since 1993

If criminals don't respect current laws....why do you think they would suddenly respect gun control laws? Seriously.

Like, if they couldn't' get their hands on them because there weren't any.

Such a dumb comment....you have to be trolling


People don't want to debate because they'd rather argue with their emotions. They don't see what the want to see when the statistics don't follow what their viewpoint is.

Here's a stat...nearly 70% of Americans are on medication. Not sure what the figure is for Switzerland...

Eye drops? Asthma control? So?

Yeah, Asthma...that's what links a large percentage of the perpetrators of mass shootings.....Well done Colombo....No one in Switzerland has Asthma then...

Still, you'll ignore that.....it doesn't fit the narrative

A solution? End the war on drugs and investigate why so many Americans are on prescription drugs.

Sure, lets all get high.

Are you saying it is good to have drugs illegal?

End the minimum wage and allow for the employment of teens in low income areas so that they gain experience and actually are allowed get that first job.

Nothing better than getting experience in working a low paid job so that you can say to your next employer that you have experience of working in a low paid job.

You're one of those people that doesn't understand why petrol attendants are no longer jobs kids do....people have to do it themselves as the minimum wage has made it non affordable.

Why do you think Mc Donalds is automating....My God, some people can be so dumb.....Most inner city kids in the US never get a first job......The black unemployment rate was lower than white unemployment in the US until before the minimum wage was brought in.

Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway......all have no minimum wage.....yeah, it's really messed up in those countries.................you're a ****ing idiot, I'm done

Mod: Banned

BattleCorp

Billy86 wrote: »

Maybe they should ask for pointers from the 13 year old girl someone posted a video of earlier, so.

That 13 year old in the video is a trained sports shooter. She has probably shot +20,000 rounds practicing that year. She is 100% concentrating on the targets. She is not worried about the targets shooting back at her or of her hitting any innocent bystanders. That is why she is so accurate.

Different story with a cop. He doesn't have much range practice done, and is worried about many things, not least getting his head blown off.

You can't compare a cop on the beat to a trained target shooter.

BattleCorp

Sonics2k wrote: »

Guns are legal right here in Ireland and do require a pretty damn strict background check before the purchase is allowed.

Just to correct you on your statement above, guns most certainly aren't a legal right here in Ireland.

It's a privilege to have a gun in Ireland, not a right.

InTheTrees

gobsh!te wrote: »

It is never reported when they do save lives.

There's plenty of stories of justified police shootings. Shoot outs with criminals. They're almost daily news stories. You also get stories of home owners fighting off intruders too. It happens frequently.

Just turn on the evening news. Where are you?

There has never been an incident when an armed citizen has intervened successfully in a mass shooting in the United States though.

gobsh!te

InTheTrees wrote: »

There has never been an incident when an armed citizen has intervened successfully in a mass shooting in the United States though.

Do you realise how silly that sounds?

Firstly, they would normally intervene before the event became a mass shooting and secondly, over 95% of the mass shootings happen in places where guns are illegal AKA gun free zones.

Anyway, if I were a gun seller I'd be hoping for another 4 years of Obama. He is the golden president when it comes to gun sales.

InTheTrees

gobsh!te wrote: »

Do you realise how silly that sounds?

Whatever.

A private citizen concealed carrying, has never intervened and stopped a mass shooting thats taking place.

gobsh!te

InTheTrees wrote: »

Whatever.

A private citizen concealed carrying, has never intervened and stopped a mass shooting thats taking place.

That's because when a potential shooter see other people with guns he/she won't start shooting.

As stated 95% of mass shootings happen where guns are illegal...(what you want the whole country to be like in the US?)

Anyway, back to your point. He's 12 instances of where mass shooters were stopped when a private citizen intervened...Bet you feel pretty silly now.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/


Next

steddyeddy

I must be phsycic! Great minds think alike Obama. Article below is from the Independent and relates to new gun regulations Obama will attempt to bring in.

I can't actually believe this is a tough sell. Relevant bits highlighted in bold below.

President Barack Obama is back from vacation and ready to face one of his toughest challenges — reducing gun violence.
The president is scheduled to meet Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey and other top officials on Monday to discuss a three-month review of several new gun control measures. Obama is expected to bypass congress with his executive authority to strengthen background checks for buyers who make purchases at high-volume gun dealers — shops that sell more than 50 guns annually.

The order would require said dealers to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and administer background checks to all potential customers.
While sitting with Attorney Lynch in the Oval Office, President Obama told reporters that his executive actions would be consistent with 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. He also admitted that his plan would not solve all gun violence but could "potentially save lives."
"Although it is my strong belief that for us to get our complete arms around the problem — Congress needs to act. What I asked my team to do was to see what more we could do to strengthen our enforcement and prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands," he said.
Mr Obama plans to participate in a town hall at George Mason University on Thursday which will be moderated by CNN. The reinvested interest in thwarting gun violence comes after the San Bernardino shooting that took the lives of 14 and wounded many others in December 2015.
Republicans were quick to pounce on reports of the president’s plan and promised to legally fight his actions. On Monday, US House Speaker Paul Ryan chided President Obama’s stance on gun rights.
“Ever since he was a candidate, President Obama’s dismissiveness toward Americans who value the 2nd Amendment has been well-documented,” he said, according to Fox News.
GOP presidential candidates also criticized the president by saying that most guns purchased by suspects in mass shootings were done so legally. Still, the president said that even if his actions prevents a single act of gun violence than the decision would be worth it.
"Each time, we're told that commonsense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, so we shouldn't do anything," President Obama said.
"We know that we can't stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one?”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that the Obama administration is expecting legal challenges with the new gun restrictions. However, Mr Earnest said on Monday that the executive orders would stand up in court.
President Obama has already signed 23 executive actions for gun safety, bypassing a reluctant congress and enacting the most strict proposals the US had seen in two decades. The sweeping changes came after twenty children and six adults were fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.
"I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids to sit around and do nothing,” President Obama said during his weekly radio address.
"I get letters from responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time these tragedies happen, who share my belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms and who share my belief we can protect that right while keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.”
Democratic candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that he would support the president’s decision, while 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton said that tougher gun restrictions are needed throughout the US.
President Obama’s final State of the Union address is scheduled for 12 January before he leaves office in 2017.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

gobsh!te wrote: »

It is quite childish to think that getting rid of guns will result only in a decrease in deaths.

Guns can save lives and would have done so in Paris twice last year.

It is never reported when they do save lives.

This kind of thinking is what results in disastrous outcomes in many government initiatives.

Brazil changed its guns laws in the early part of this century which made them far more restrictive to the average citizen. By 2012 gun killings had shot up to the highest levels in 35 years.

If criminals don't respect current laws....why do you think they would suddenly respect gun control laws? Seriously.

People don't want to debate because they'd rather argue with their emotions. They don't see what the want to see when the statistics don't follow what their viewpoint is.

Here's a stat...nearly 70% of Americans are on medication. Not sure what the figure is for Switzerland...

Still, you'll ignore that.....it doesn't fit the narrative


A solution? End the war on drugs and investigate why so many Americans are on prescription drugs.

End the minimum wage and allow for the employment of teens in low income areas so that they gain experience and actually are allowed get that first job.

I don't get this argument. Are you saying we shouldn't make laws because criminals might not obey them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kirby

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes but its not the criminals committing the mass shootings. It's the "law abiding citizens". Most of them have no records at all.

Brendog Russell

As an american i can tell you that its not about the guns themselves its the fact its a constitutional right and most gun nuts as you call them would give up there guns if the constitution was changed but the government don't want to change it and mass shootings happen all over the world and most of those country's don't allow guns in fact in nearly every case of school shootings in america the guns were stolen or bought illegal same way many people in Europe get there guns but if everyone was carrying a gun yes the mass shooting may or may not take place but it the do with every one carrying a gun you will save thousands of people and you cant say with out gun the shootings would not happen because that's lie they still could happen and could be worse if people had no guns but yes america need to revisit it's gun laws and make it a bit harder to get a gun

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed the definition of a criminal is exactly that. However you can't make laws because some people might not follow them. The other thing to consider is that you don't have to sit around and wait for criminals to comply. A police for takes care of that for you. It's illogical to say every criminal would hang onto his or her gun also criminal VS law abiding does not paint an accurate picture. There's also people who will have mental health issues or who will develop mental health issues.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gobsh!te

Kirby wrote: »

Yes but its not the criminals committing the mass shootings. It's the "law abiding citizens". Most of them have no records at all.

If the issue were guns then the same thing would be happening in Switzerland.

America has lots of guns to stop its government from getting out of control.....it's nothing to do with anything else.

Purely a preventative measure against state violence on the people.

There are so many examples of state violence through use of force over the decades....hence the militarization of the police force in the US.

Is the answer to all of this to only allow the police to have guns???

gobsh!te

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most gun deaths are suicide...61%....a previous poster thinks that making guns illegal will reduce this figure so I suggest that rope should also be made illegal.

This is the kind of person you are dealing with....They hate facts

steddyeddy

gobsh!te wrote: »

Most gun deaths are suicide...61%....a previous poster thinks that making guns illegal will reduce this figure so I suggest that rope should also be made illegal.

This is the kind of person you are dealing with....They hate facts

What percentage of gun owners have historically used guns successfully to protect against criminals?

gobsh!te

steddyeddy wrote: »

What percentage of gun owners have historically used guns successfully to protect against criminals?

You can't measure this because criminals do not report where they did not commit a crime due to a gun owner.

BoatMad

gobsh!te wrote: »

If the issue were guns then the same thing would be happening in Switzerland.

America has lots of guns to stop its government from getting out of control.....it's nothing to do with anything else.

Purely a preventative measure against state violence on the people.

There are so many examples of state violence through use of force over the decades....hence the militarization of the police force in the US.

Is the answer to all of this to only allow the police to have guns???

Actually , aside from sporting owners, most US gun owners cite self defence , the relatively recent SCOTUS. decision affirmed that constitutional guarantee extended to the legitimate right to bear arms for personal self defence , completely aside from the oft held belief that it was in order to form militias.

In reality , the gov owners tanks , fighter jets and missiles , so the odd 9mm glock isn't much use in seeing off the government. ( as Isis is finding out )

BoatMad

gobsh!te wrote: »

You can't measure this because criminals do not report where they did not commit a crime due to a gun owner.

Typically the successful gun owning defendant does report such incidents to the police.

There are stats on it I believe

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That has been thoroughly debunked by actual real research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/guns-self-defense-study_n_7608350.html.

The study, released Wednesday by the Violence Policy Center, found there were 258 justifiable homicides involving civilians using firearms in 2012, compared with 8,342 murders by gun. Even if a criminal isn't shot down, the study found that civilians rarely use guns to protect themselves. "Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior with a firearm" only 0.1 percent of the times they were targeted by a crook.

The report, titled "Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use" relied on FBI and Bureau of Justice data. The Violence Policy Center said the report disproves the premise of arguments by the National Rifle Association that more guns in the hands of regular people will reduce crime.

Which took its stats from this report:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

More dissecting of the NRA nonsense:

The National Rifle Association maintains a blog called The Armed Citizen, which highlights defensive gun use. The latest entry, from April 9, describes three incidents: Two from 2013 and one archival example from 1969. It’s not hard to see what the NRA’s getting at, but just in case, a sidebar on the site states: “Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.” In other words, as Wayne LaPierre put it after Newtown, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

That’s almost as catchy as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.

A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An estimate isn't real research. Has he published a paper on it? 2 million seems like a very round number.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

An estimate isn't real research. Has he published a paper on it? 2 million seems like a very round number.

Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist.



From the 2nd of my links above.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist.



From the 2nd of my links above.

Thanks for that. I don't think it will matter to gun nuts though.