Gun Control in the US

MadYaker

Manic Moran wrote: »

What makes you say it's abject fear? As the article observes, firearms are tools. It's viewed as pretty much a part as any safety equipment around the house as a fire extinguisher. You hope you don't need it, but it's quite handy to have if you do.

Note how the chap who was flagged down reacted. It wasn't "Oh my God, there's a man with a rifle", it was "Can I help you? You appear distressed." You may react 'afraid'. Doesn't mean the folks in the nearest town do.

The inherent irony in refering to a gun as "safety equipment" is not obvious to you? Do you think the mass proliferation of weapons among American society makes people more safe or less safe? The bottom line is more guns = more people getting shot. The fact that so many Aericans view a gun as a tool, like a fire extinguisher as you said, is a massive part of the problem. It's not a tool, it's a lethal weapon designed specifically for killing things. But I understand that the situation in America can't exactly be reversed.

Almost all crime studies indicate that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer in the event of a home invasion. The data also doesn't support the idea that having a gun in your house is a detterent to criminals, because all the criminals have guns too and a lot of criminals will target houses where they know there are multiple firearms because they are easily sold on the black market.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

This man lived 100 miles from the nearest town. But took it upon himself to travel there every week open carry cycling around on his bike to... In his words show people his AR on his back was nothing to fear.

Walking past cafes etc people literally told him to his face he was an asshole.

Why?

Because he is.

Out of curiosity, how did the AR react to the owner being told he was an asshole? How did the owner react?
If you were in South Central LA, ran into a couple of lads wearing the same color clothes, and no visible AR, would you call them assholes to their face? Which of the two is the higher risk, would you think?

Maybe he is an asshole. He's also not wrong in the fundamental premise of familiarity, however. People do not go running in fear in rural parts of the country when they see a rifle. They don't go running in fear if one is seen in a city in Switzerland or Israel. I would wager that if, somehow, a whole bunch of folks in that town walked around with an AR every day for a month, people would start ignoring it. He's deliberately causing antagonism and angst, yes, but fundamentally, the question is "is this something which is considered normal?". If one redefines normal, there's no problem.

I have not yet heard or read a reasonable argument for the availability of semi auto weapons. The only argument seems to be "2nd amendment". Basically we got it and not letting it go. Screw the consequences.

With respect, I have put forward practical arguments for their suitability in situations from home defense through farming. The only time I mention 2A is in the legal context, and waving a piece of paper around has little practical benefit in the real world. Perhaps you have read them and consider them unreasonable, but outside of "Nobody should have them" or "they are dangerous", I have not heard anyone come up with a particularly objective counter. For example, I have cited the subject of penetration ballistics of the chances of different types of ammunition overpenetrating a typical wall of a house and why a rifle calibre is safer. It is the reason you see SWAT teams (and the Garda ERU) using ARs now after previously using pistol-calibre submachineguns. In response, I get ad hominems about fear and paranoia. Objectivity vs emotion.

In everyone of the shootings if only handguns had been used the death toll would likely to be much less. Same for single shot rifles.

A little while back I posted the ten worst mass shootings in the US, by firearm. Handguns were more prevalent than rifles. Of the ten-thousand plus firearms murders a year, 2% are conducted with rifles. The weapon of choice is the handgun. Twice as many people are murdered by bare hands than rifles. Rifles are, outside of a portion of high-profile mass shootings, not a significant public safety issue.

What possible reason would you need more than a small handgun for personel protection?

A rifle is, without caveat, the best weapon for the job, assuming you have the use of both hands. The only advantages to the small handgun are convenience and concealability (I refer you back to the weapon of choice for criminal enterprise).

Since Las Vegas 900 people have been killed by guns in America.

US are scared sh1tless of foreign terrorists when the real truth is that you are far more likely to be killed by someone in your community by a retail available gun.

[/quote]

Which guns, used by whom and how?

At the national/political level, I rather agree with you. At the individual level, however, I don't know anyone whose primary concern is Achmed the Syrian Jihadist. Of the various people interviewed on that CNN article, how many referenced wildlife as a threat vs terrorists?

Trying to pretend an AR15 is as innocuous as a screwdriver or a saw is ridiculous

Tool: a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

"A particular function." I wouldn't try to kill a hog with a screwdriver, and I wouldn't attempt to join two pieces of wood together with a rifle.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-03/local/me-41993_1_slotted-screwdriver
The officer was dismayed to discover that it was actually a screwdriver but was not surprised or remorseful, a police spokesman said. Ordinary screwdrivers have long been used as deadly weapons, they said. Three cases involving their use occurred in the San Fernando Valley in the past two weeks alone.
[..]
Their use puts police in a quandary.

"A screwdriver can certainly be as deadly as a knife," said Chuck Morton, director of the Institute of Forensic Sciences, a private crime lab based in San Francisco. "I've seen deep puncture wounds from a Phillips head as well as a slotted screwdriver."

But unlike carrying a concealed knife or gun without a permit, possession of a screwdriver is not a crime, prosecutors and detectives said. Some wily crooks and transients have taken advantage of that fact, they said.

"If they carry a knife, it's a concealed weapon, but a screwdriver is just a tool unless you use it against somebody," said homicide detective Dan Dejarnette of the Los Angeles Police Department's Van Nuys Division.

Now, I'm not trying to draw a silly sort of false equivalence by saying screwdrivers can be as devastating as a firearm, but anything inanimate is innocuous until it is mis-used. Detective Dejarnette's comment is absolutely correct, and applies to firearms as much as screwdrivers. The question is "to what purpose is it being used." And, yes, killing can be a legitimate purpose. In every jurisdiction on the planet. Including the Vatican.

The inherent irony in refering to a gun as "safety equipment" is not obvious to you

What is the purpose of safety equipment if not to enhance the survivability of the person using it? Airbags to defibrilators. Firearms are really bloody dangerous to the person on the receiving end, yes. But on the using end..?

Almost all crime studies indicate that owning a gun doesn't make you any safer in the event of a home invasion. The data also doesn't support the idea that having a gun in your house is a detterent to criminals, because all the criminals have guns too and a lot of criminals will target houses where they know there are multiple firearms because they are easily sold on the black market.

What it does support, however, is a reduced likelihood of burglar and homeowner ever meeting each other, as burglars may want the guns, but they don't want the bullets: The US "homeowner present" rate is less than that of most other countries, so ironically, it's safer for everyone. And gun safes can be pretty burglarproof. Whilst there are certainly various statistics which can argue against having a firearm at home (such as it makes you more likely to be shot), the latest position of CDC is that when it actually does come time to undertake self defence, those who use a firearm are less likely to suffer injury than those who attempt anything else (including hiding).

listermint

Redefining normal so you get to walk around with your toys.


Perfect summation Manic.


Just perfect.




F everyone else the minority is right yeeehaawww

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

What makes you say it's abject fear? As the article observes, firearms are tools. It's viewed as pretty much a part as any safety equipment around the house as a fire extinguisher. You hope you don't need it, but it's quite handy to have if you do.

Note how the chap who was flagged down reacted. It wasn't "Oh my God, there's a man with a rifle", it was "Can I help you? You appear distressed." You may react 'afraid'. Doesn't mean the folks in the nearest town do.

Come on. Fire arms are not like fire extinguishers. I can’t believe this even needs to be argued.

Tony EH

Manic Moran wrote: »

Tool: a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

"A particular function." I wouldn't try to kill a hog with a screwdriver, and I wouldn't attempt to join two pieces of wood together with a rifle.

No, I wouldn't use a tool to try and kill a hog. I'd use a weapon...that's WEAPON to kill the hog.

And before you start into other meandering smoke screens, yes a screwdriver could be used to kill, but that would be a gross abuse of its function.

OTOH, I could shoot you in the face with grandad's Walther P38 and simply be using the weapon in the function it was designed for.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow, but do us all a favor and drop the snake oil salesman act and using dishonest twists to try an justify your position on this.

Manic Moran

Well, apparently it does.

You guys don’t -want- to consider it a household tool, but it is an implement kept around the house for a very specific purpose. And, I would wager, one which is more likely to be used than a fire extinguisher. How many folks do you know have had their houses catch fire, vs been broken into? Yet folks who keep firearms are paranoid, and those with fire extinguishers are just being sensible?

You are so focused on the evil which can be done with firearms that you apparently refuse to contemplate their beneficial utility. Folks like Listermint disparage them as “toys”, when most of us don’t consider them as such. With attitudes like that is it any wonder us firearms owners, who will acknowledge both sides of the argument (even without finding balance in favour of ‘your’ side) feel under siege by demagogues detached from anything which may challenge their conceptions?

Look at Lister’s response above. He mocks the concept. But he does not attempt to address it. Lister, the basic question: Is he wrong? What is your alternate opinion for the fact that in some places, where firearms are not unusually displayed, there is no particular concern, while in other places where they are unusual they cause discomfort? The firearms don’t change. But we do fear what we don’t understand or are not familiar with.

Every State in the union now permits private citizens to carry firearms in public. But people only get upset when they -see- one. What does that tell you of the difference between perception and reality?

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

You guys don’t -want- to consider it a household tool, but it is an implement kept around the house for a very specific purpose. And, I would wager, one which is more likely to be used than a fire extinguisher. How many folks do you know have had their houses catch fire, vs been broken into? Yet folks who keep firearms are paranoid, and those with fire extinguishers are just being sensible?

You are so focused on the evil which can be done with firearms that you apparently refuse to contemplate their beneficial utility. Folks like Listermint disparage them as “toys”, when most of us don’t consider them as such. With attitudes like that is it any wonder us firearms owners, who will acknowledge both sides of the argument (even without finding balance in favour of ‘your’ side) feel under siege by demagogues detached from anything which may challenge their conceptions?

Look at Lister’s response above. He mocks the concept. But he does not attempt to address it. Lister, the basic question: Is he wrong? What is your alternate opinion for the fact that in some places, where firearms are not unusually displayed, there is no particular concern, while in other places where they are unusual they cause discomfort? The firearms don’t change. But we do fear what we don’t understand or are not familiar with.

Every State in the union now permits private citizens to carry firearms in public. But people only get upset when they -see- one. What does that tell you of the difference between perception and reality?

It tells me that you think it's normal but the majority of people don't.

That is born out by the fact that most people don't have a gun and the minority do.

Its also clear that you want to keep your toys and you don't care a jot of anyone else.

And the spread of fear helps you legitimize you keeping your toys. Its a useful tool to you fear fear and more fear.

Can't argue with facts Manic.

Most people don't own guns.
30,000 die every year from guns.
Something is wrong in the American psychic that allows this to continue. It's not normal anywhere else on earth you'll have to grow up some day.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

You guys don’t -want- to consider it a household tool, but it is an implement kept around the house for a very specific purpose. And, I would wager, one which is more likely to be used than a fire extinguisher. How many folks do you know have had their houses catch fire, vs been broken into? Yet folks who keep firearms are paranoid, and those with fire extinguishers are just being sensible?

You are so focused on the evil which can be done with firearms that you apparently refuse to contemplate their beneficial utility. Folks like Listermint disparage them as “toys”, when most of us don’t consider them as such. With attitudes like that is it any wonder us firearms owners, who will acknowledge both sides of the argument (even without finding balance in favour of ‘your’ side) feel under siege by demagogues detached from anything which may challenge their conceptions?

Look at Lister’s response above. He mocks the concept. But he does not attempt to address it. Lister, the basic question: Is he wrong? What is your alternate opinion for the fact that in some places, where firearms are not unusually displayed, there is no particular concern, while in other places where they are unusual they cause discomfort? The firearms don’t change. But we do fear what we don’t understand or are not familiar with.

Every State in the union now permits private citizens to carry firearms in public. But people only get upset when they -see- one. What does that tell you of the difference between perception and reality?

So what do you think should be done about the mass shootings? Nothing or something?

Wanderer78

Brian? wrote: »

So what do you think should be done about the mass shootings? Nothing or something?

good guys with guns solves that one:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

You guys don’t -want- to consider it a household tool, but it is an implement kept around the house for a very specific purpose. And, I would wager, one which is more likely to be used than a fire extinguisher. How many folks do you know have had their houses catch fire, vs been broken into? Yet folks who keep firearms are paranoid, and those with fire extinguishers are just being sensible?

The "very specific purpose" that a firearm has is to kill someone or something, or to threaten to kill someone. That on its own sets it apart from any "household tool".

I've used fire extinguishers, fire blankets and the like in houses. I also know several people who have been broken into, but they didn't shoot anyone.

I have a fire extinguisher because I know that if a fire starts in my kitchen, I'll be prepared to put that fire out. The idea that I would be just as blithely prepared to kill someone who wanted to steal some jewelry is, frankly, a bizarre one.

But I guess you have a point: at least with all those guns around, it's safe to assume that burglary is non-existent in the US?

Brian?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The "very specific purpose" that a firearm has is to kill someone or something, or to threaten to kill someone. That on its own sets it apart from any "household tool".

I've used fire extinguishers, fire blankets and the like in houses. I also know several people who have been broken into, but they didn't shoot anyone.

I have a fire extinguisher because I know that if a fire starts in my kitchen, I'll be prepared to put that fire out. The idea that I would be just as blithely prepared to kill someone who wanted to steal some jewelry is, frankly, a bizarre one.

But I guess you have a point: at least with all those guns around, it's safe to assume that burglary is non-existent in the US?

There’s a very good point here. In buying a gun for “home security” you’re committing to kill someone to protect your property. I don’t think I could do that.

If home security is your primary reason for owning a gun, why not switch to something non lethal? Like a taser or some such.

AbusesToilets

Wanderer78 wrote: »

good guys with guns solves that one:rolleyes:

Well, a "good guy" with a gun did intercede in Texas and helped to stop the shooting.

There’s a very good point here. In buying a gun for “home security” you’re committing to kill someone to protect your property. I don’t think I could do that.

If home security is your primary reason for owning a gun, why not switch to something non lethal? Like a taser or some such.

If someone has made the decision to break into my home, they have already committed to one serious crime. One would have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be prepared to inflict violence to boot. I'm going to be concerned with protecting my family and property. Any would-be crook has already made the choice to risk a violent confrontation.

AbusesToilets

listermint wrote: »

It tells me that you think it's normal but the majority of people don't.

That is born out by the fact that most people don't have a gun and the minority do.

Its also clear that you want to keep your toys and you don't care a jot of anyone else.

And the spread of fear helps you legitimize you keeping your toys. Its a useful tool to you fear fear and more fear.

Can't argue with facts Manic.

Most people don't own guns.
30,000 die every year from guns.
Something is wrong in the American psychic that allows this to continue. It's not normal anywhere else on earth you'll have to grow up some day.

Do you have any figures to back up your assertion that the majority of Americans don't support the 2nd Amendment? Google would tell me that 42% of households possess a firearm.

You keep referring to guns as toys. Do you feel that private ownership of motor vehicles ought to be restricted, or that said vehicles should be limited to a maximum rate of speed? Given that so many tens of thousands more people a year die in vehicular incidents over firearm related ones, I can't see how you wouldn't go for it. Surely no one has a legitimate reason to own a car when bus and trains are available. Reeks of selfishness.

To use your figure of 30000 deaths a year to firearms, 20000 would die in suicides, 5000 to accidents and the rest to murder, of which the majority are committed in the course of some other crime.

Do guns cause suicides? Are they responsible for crime rates nationally? Are they agents of chaos? Or perhaps they are mechanical devices designed to utilise a chemical reaction to propel a projectile out of a metallic tube, whose usage is determined by the wielder. You know, like a tool.

B00MSTICK

I think its already a hopeless case unfortunately...

So let's say all the good guys have guns, we can assume all the bad guys have guns too seeing as there are so many loopholes to get them.

Is that the end game? Everyone is armed, all the time and is therefore safe?
Sounds like the NRAs dream come true, kind of like a modern day wild west.

If guns were made legal in Ireland and shops/gun shows sprang up overnight would Ireland see more or less crime, murders, burglaries, accidental deaths/injuries, suicides?
Don't even bother answering that as its clearly past the point of no return as there's no hope of a gun amnesty or anything like it.

At this stage even getting proper background checks/vetting, education or training seems like a exercise in futility.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, a "good guy" with a gun did intercede in Texas and helped to stop the shooting.

Really? My understanding is that he was leaving the scene after pretty much doing the shooting.

One or two lives saved at most (which is to welcomed but since so many people are killed due to mass shootings every year I really doubt the NRA care too much about 1 or 2 lives), but you are stretching it to claim it stopped the shooting.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If someone has made the decision to break into my home, they have already committed to one serious crime. One would have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be prepared to inflict violence to boot. I'm going to be concerned with protecting my family and property. Any would-be crook has already made the choice to risk a violent confrontation.

So you want to kill them? Why no taser them and let justice take over?

What kind of a lawless society is the US when citizens live in fear of armed killers randomly attacking their homes.

Is there any research done to show the varying burglary rates between gun with and without homes and what level of murder in those burglaries?

listermint

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Do you have any figures to back up your assertion that the majority of Americans don't support the 2nd Amendment? Google would tell me that 42% of households possess a firearm.

Maths doesn't appear to be a strong point.

NRA membership is around 2 million.

Minority rules is the order of the day.

Or rule by gun if you will.

Democracy

B00MSTICK

AbusesToilets wrote:

Do guns cause suicides?

They were (and probably still are) the leading cause of death by suicide though.

I have done absolutely no research into it but I think its easy to see why.
Guns are readily available, pretty much always lethal (when pressed against your temple) and are a quick pull of the trigger.

Is it possible that someone might have been down one evening and just decided to do it in a split second ? The gun is just lying in the drawer, no need for anything more elaborate.

Of course if someone really wants to do themselves in there's plenty of ways to do it - few are as as quick, easy and "successful" as gun it seems...

You do hear of people attempting to kill themselves (or at least seriously contemplating it) - I can imagine (but cannot backup with evidence) that having such an easy way of doing it might have pushed some over the edge that otherwise may not have.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really? My understanding is that he was leaving the scene after pretty much doing the shooting.

One or two lives saved at most (which is to welcomed but since so many people are killed due to mass shootings every year I really doubt the NRA care too much about 1 or 2 lives), but you are stretching it to claim it stopped the shooting.

The shooter got shot, dropped his gun and fled. Sounds fairly clear cut to me, but don't let reality get in the way of a good narrative.

So you want to kill them? Why no taser them and let justice take over?

What kind of a lawless society is the US when citizens live in fear of armed killers randomly attacking their homes.

Is there any research done to show the varying burglary rates between gun with and without homes and what level of murder in those burglaries?

Well, burglary is fairly common occurrence in every country. Many criminals in the US are armed. So why would a homeowner not take steps to ensure he could protect himself from a violent entry into his domicile? You clearly favor given all possible advantages to people who have no compunction breaking the law. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away

AbusesToilets

listermint wrote: »

Maths doesn't appear to be a strong point.

NRA membership is around 2 million.

Minority rules is the order of the day.

Or rule by gun if you will.

Democracy

NRA membership isn't a prerequisite for gun ownership. It might shock you, but they only represent a subset of the gun owning populace and their views are not universally accepted.

listermint

AbusesToilets wrote: »

NRA membership isn't a prerequisite for gun ownership. It might shock you, but they only represent a subset of the gun owning populace and their views are not universally accepted.

You said 42% I'm not expert but thats not a majority...

AbusesToilets

B00MSTICK wrote: »

They were (and probably still are) the leading cause of death by suicide though.

I have done absolutely no research into it but I think its easy to see why.
Guns are readily available, pretty much always lethal (when pressed against your temple) and are a quick pull of the trigger.

Is it possible that someone might have been down one evening and just decided to do it in a split second ? The gun is just lying in the drawer, no need for anything more elaborate.

Of course if someone really wants to do themselves in there's plenty of ways to do it - few are as as quick, easy and "successful" as gun it seems...

You do hear of people attempting to kill themselves (or at least seriously contemplating it) - I can imagine (but cannot backup with evidence) that having such an easy way of doing it might have pushed some over the edge that otherwise may not have.

People are more likely to be successful using a firearm, but I wouldn't say that they are responsible for the level of people seeking to go through with a suicide.

I would look to helping people with their struggles by providing more resources for mental health care, rather than try and reduce suicide numbers by removing one possible means for them.

AbusesToilets

listermint wrote: »

You said 42% I'm not expert but thats not a majority...

42% of homes with a firearm, is not a statistic representing sentiment throughout the nation. Perhaps you might provide some sources for your previous assertion.

B00MSTICK

AbusesToilets wrote:

People are more likely to be successful using a firearm, but I wouldn't say that they are responsible for the level of people seeking to go through with a suicide.

It's probably impossible to determine - I wouldn't say removing firearms would have a significant impact though. Its more the fact that even people who are having mental issues are able to get their hands on them...

I think the majority of people are for increased background checks aren't they?

AbusesToilets

B00MSTICK wrote: »

It's probably impossible to determine - I wouldn't say removing firearms would have a significant impact though. Its more the fact that even people who are having mental issues are able to get their hands on them...

I think the majority of people are for increased background checks aren't they?

It's something of a misnomer tbh. The current system is quite effective, when used properly. There isn't much more that the government can look into a prospective buyer's background. There are issues with communication between systems at times, and the often mentioned, but rather overblown gun show loop hole. What level of scrutiny ought a person be subjected to?

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The shooter got shot, dropped his gun and fled. Sounds fairly clear cut to me, but don't let reality get in the way of a good narrative.

The narrative seems to be that this nutjob went in to kill people in the church. He did that. He then started to leave. The only reason he started shooting was because he was confronted. He was looking to flee. Don't get me wrong. The guy who shot him is brave and a hero, but this narrative that the good gun with the gun saved the day is wrong. Did he save some lives, probably, but the target was done.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, burglary is fairly common occurrence in every country.

Agreed

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Many criminals in the US are armed.

Criminals the world over are, by their very nature, on the wrong side of the law, and many are armed to some extent.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So why would a homeowner not take steps to ensure he could protect himself from a violent entry into his domicile? You clearly favor given all possible advantages to people who have no compunction breaking the law. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away

I see you totally failed to answer my query. What is the difference in rates between homes with and without guns? And what is the difference in violence when it does happen.

You do realise that the criminals, in the vast majority of cases, are simply looking to steal stuff. They go in armed because you might be armed. And on the off chance that you get robbed, and in a way that gives you time to start shooting without maybe bringing your kids into harms way, you are willing to live with the very real possibility, backed up by statistics, that there is a chance that you or someone else in the household will die from the firearm.

Instead of everyone going out buying guys, surely they should be asking why the crime rates are so high. US have the highest per capita jail population regardless of all the weaponised citizens apparently stopping all crime around them

B00MSTICK

AbusesToilets wrote:

What level of scrutiny ought a person be subjected to?

I think the mental health side of things is a stand out one.
This Universal background check makes sense to me too, probably tough to enforce that though.

You probably know better than me - is there anything else that can actually be done or is this just the way it is?

AbusesToilets

The narrative seems to be that this nutjob went in to kill people in the church. He did that. He then started to leave. The only reason he started shooting was because he was confronted. He was looking to flee. Don't get me wrong. The guy who shot him is brave and a hero, but this narrative that the good gun with the gun saved the day is wrong. Did he save some lives, probably, but the target was done.

So, the intervention of an armed civilian saved lives. Glad we cleared that up. There are plenty of other examples a google away, despite your scoffing of the idea.

Agreed
Criminals the world over are, by their very nature, on the wrong side of the law, and many are armed to some extent.


I see you totally failed to answer my query. What is the difference in rates between homes with and without guns? And what is the difference in violence when it does happen.

You do realise that the criminals, in the vast majority of cases, are simply looking to steal stuff. They go in armed because you might be armed. And on the off chance that you get robbed, and in a way that gives you time to start shooting without maybe bringing your kids into harms way, you are willing to live with the very real possibility, backed up by statistics, that there is a chance that you or someone else in the household will die from the firearm.

Instead of everyone going out buying guys, surely they should be asking why the crime rates are so high. US have the highest per capita jail population regardless of all the weaponised citizens apparently stopping all crime around them

By all means, society should be working to reduce violence across the board. No argument there. However, as a homeowner, if I know that armed criminals are operating in my area, breaking into homes, I'm going to take steps to protect my family and property as best I can. I'm not going to rely on happenstance or the possible good nature of someone who has already broken into my home to do that. The statistics around the issue are not going to change my decision making process. Best case scenario planning is not a smart way to go about ones business.

You're throwing out completely unrelated ideas, in an attempt to make your point. The number of incarcerated people in the US has nothing to do with gun ownership, certainly as it pertains to this discussion.

AbusesToilets

B00MSTICK wrote: »

I think the mental health side of things is a stand out one.
This Universal background check makes sense to me too, probably tough to enforce that though.

You probably know better than me - is there anything else that can actually be done or is this just the way it is?

Edit: I would be in favor of the above, pretty straightforward thing to implement and to my understanding, one that has been asked for by many sellers as-well.

The issue a lot of ideas run into is the fact that gun ownership is a right and can't be unreasonably infringed upon. Improved education, better health care, better policing. Those are all things that could be worked on to reduce overall firearm deaths, and death in general tbh.

There could definitely be scope for requiring mandatory training and some level of mental screening. However that would require very nuanced and well thought out legislation. Which is seemingly impossible nowadays in any fashion, let alone one as contentious a topic as this.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So, the intervention of an armed civilian saved lives. Glad we cleared that up. There are plenty of other examples a google away, despite your scoffing of the idea.

One armed civilian kills 26, another armed civilian had a part in killing 1. And I am the one scoffing? Are you really trying to claim this as some sort of win for guns?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

By all means, society should be working to reduce violence across the board. No argument there. However, as a homeowner, if I know that armed criminals are operating in my area, breaking into homes, I'm going to take steps to protect my family and property as best I can. I'm not going to rely on happenstance or the possible good nature of someone who has already broken into my home to do that. The statistics around the issue are not going to change my decision making process. Best case scenario planning is not a smart way to go about ones business.

Well at least you are honest. Facts don't actually matter. You have convinced yourself that you need a gun to protect yourself and nothing I or anybody else is going to change your mind. Even if that increases the risk of you or a member of your family dying accidentally from the gun, it is a risk worth taking.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You're throwing out completely unrelated ideas, in an attempt to make your point. The number of incarcerated people in the US has nothing to do with gun ownership, certainly as it pertains to this discussion.

It is totally related. You linked gun ownership to the threat of break ins and I am asking what the crime levels are in the US despite the availability of guns. I assume the level of crime is much lower than most other countries as otherwise your idea that gun ownership reduces your risk of breakin is nonsense.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

One armed civilian kills 26, another armed civilian had a part in killing 1. And I am the one scoffing? Are you really trying to claim this as some sort of win for guns?

You scoffed at the idea of an armed civilian interceding in a shooting incident. It happened in the most recent example. I would consider fewer people being shot and killed as win. Don't you?

Well at least you are honest. Facts don't actually matter. You have convinced yourself that you need a gun to protect yourself and nothing I or anybody else is going to change your mind. Even if that increases the risk of you or a member of your family dying accidentally from the gun, it is a risk worth taking.

Facts are that armed criminals break into peoples houses. What probability do you require before you would act? I believe in taking responsibility for protecting my family. Goes back to the responsible gun owner piece. No doubt the rates of vehicular related deaths are higher in households with cars too, however, most people would consider that an acceptable risk to take.

It is totally related. You linked gun ownership to the threat of break ins and I am asking what the crime levels are in the US despite the availability of guns. I assume the level of crime is much lower than most other countries as otherwise your idea that gun ownership reduces your risk of breakin is nonsense.

This a total strawman and you likely know it. Crime rates have been dropping in the US for decades. There are serious issues in the US relating to the for profit prison industry and the incidence of people being jailed for non-violent drug offenses.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

It tells me that you think it's normal but the majority of people don't.

That is born out by the fact that most people don't have a gun and the minority do.

Its also clear that you want to keep your toys and you don't care a jot of anyone else.

And the spread of fear helps you legitimize you keeping your toys. Its a useful tool to you fear fear and more fear.

Can't argue with facts Manic.

Most people don't own guns.
30,000 die every year from guns.
Something is wrong in the American psychic that allows this to continue. It's not normal anywhere else on earth you'll have to grow up some day.

42% of folks currently live in a home with a firearm. Over 2/3 have done so. All of 11% of the population thinks they should be prohibited. That doesn't make firearms ownership an uncommon issue or a moral outlier.

You keep referring to them as 'toys'. Which one of us is taking a somewhat more adult and responsible attitude to firearms? You may consider them a toy, I certainly don't.

I agree, there is something wrong with the American psyche, but it tends to revolve more around societal issues than firearms.

Brian? wrote: »

So what do you think should be done about the mass shootings? Nothing or something?

Mass shootings in particular? Not much other than a working, universal background check system, an acceptance that there are no 'safe places', and a prohibition on giving the perpetrators fame. As a general concept on the high levels of firearms deaths in the US, such as Lister has commented, I have expressed support for anything from safety training to social policies which reduce the levels of urban crime.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The "very specific purpose" that a firearm has is to kill someone or something, or to threaten to kill someone. That on its own sets it apart from any "household tool".

I've used fire extinguishers, fire blankets and the like in houses. I also know several people who have been broken into, but they didn't shoot anyone.

I have a fire extinguisher because I know that if a fire starts in my kitchen, I'll be prepared to put that fire out. The idea that I would be just as blithely prepared to kill someone who wanted to steal some jewelry is, frankly, a bizarre one.

But I guess you have a point: at least with all those guns around, it's safe to assume that burglary is non-existent in the US?

Of course not. But there aren't all that many guns in other countries, and burglary isn't rare either. So if we accept that such things happen, the question is what to do about it.

This came across the radar last week. http://wreg.com/2017/10/30/marion-woman-shoots-kills-19-year-old-who-broke-into-home/

So the woman's in her late 80s. She has a house alarm. She is woken by the house alarm, the monitoring company sends the police out. Intruder gets to her before the police does, and refuses to leave when called out. What is this octogenarian female supposed to do? Wrestle the 19-year old male? Let him do as he wants until the police finally arrive?

You may not be willing to shoot an intruder. She was. And she's quite unharmed as a result. I plan on living long enough to be old and frail, I will not always be the strapping 2m tall lad in the prime of my life. I'd rather end up like her.

Brian? wrote: »

There’s a very good point here. In buying a gun for “home security” you’re committing to kill someone to protect your property. I don’t think I could do that.

If home security is your primary reason for owning a gun, why not switch to something non lethal? Like a taser or some such.

Two problems. 1) They are not as reliable as a firearm. 2) They are ineffective against multiple intruders.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

42% of folks currently live in a home with a firearm. Over 2/3 have done so. All of 11% of the population thinks they should be prohibited. That doesn't make firearms ownership an uncommon issue or a moral outlier.

You keep referring to them as 'toys'. Which one of us is taking a somewhat more adult and responsible attitude to firearms? You may consider them a toy, I certainly don't.

I agree, there is something wrong with the American psyche, but it tends to revolve more around societal issues than firearms.



Mass shootings in particular? Not much other than a working, universal background check system, an acceptance that there are no 'safe places', and a prohibition on giving the perpetrators fame. As a general concept on the high levels of firearms deaths in the US, such as Lister has commented, I have expressed support for anything from safety training to social policies which reduce the levels of urban crime.



Of course not. But there aren't all that many guns in other countries, and burglary isn't rare either. So if we accept that such things happen, the question is what to do about it.

This came across the radar last week. http://wreg.com/2017/10/30/marion-woman-shoots-kills-19-year-old-who-broke-into-home/

So the woman's in her late 80s. She has a house alarm. She is woken by the house alarm, the monitoring company sends the police out. Intruder gets to her before the police does, and refuses to leave when called out. What is this octogenarian female supposed to do? Wrestle the 19-year old male? Let him do as he wants until the police finally arrive?

You may not be willing to shoot an intruder. She was. And she's quite unharmed as a result. I plan on living long enough to be old and frail, I will not always be the strapping 2m tall lad in the prime of my life. I'd rather end up like her.



Two problems. 1) They are not as reliable as a firearm. 2) They are ineffective against multiple intruders.

You seem pretty content with the status quo, which I find a tad disturbing. Am I wrong about that?

I want to stick to mass shootings for now. What social programs do you believe can be implemented to prevent them? I actually agree that they’re a social issue and not a criminal issue. However I also believe that if you blunt a workman’s tools, his work won’t be effective. So I’d like to see semi auto ARs banned. I’d also like to see certain handguns banned also. Unlike a lot of gun control advocates around here, I’ve plenty of experience with guns, I’m not sure anyone needs a desert eagle to protect their family.

What about a Taurus Judge? Makes plenty of noise with a shotgun round, easier to hit a target without killing them.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

You seem pretty content with the status quo, which I find a tad disturbing. Am I wrong about that?

Not quite sure how you got that from my earlier posts. I have stated (more than once) that I would like to see a number of changes in the system. Perhaps because they don’t involve the word ‘ban’, you missed them. With, granted, one exception, that relating to the phenomenon of mass shootings.

I want to stick to mass shootings for now.

Whilst reminding you of this caveat... https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/
If we focus on mass shootings as a means of understanding how to reduce the number of people killed by guns in this country, we’re likely to implement laws that don’t do what we want them to do — and miss opportunities to make changes that really work.

What social programs do you believe can be implemented to prevent them? I actually agree that they’re a social issue and not a criminal issue

One must focus on the matter of why it is that the rate of mass shootings has been going up since 2000 or so. It is not the availability of firearms, for as folks have noted, the number of firearms owners has actually declined. I also believe that much of the criminal violence is also related to social (or perhaps more accurately, societal issues), the criminal justice system only is part of the solution to that. We have somehow done two things. One is we have made it “acceptable” to go out with a bang, to go on a spree shooting. The other is that we have aided in that acceptance by turning mass shooters into household names, in a race to the highest body count. We have also made it easier, by increasing the number of shooting galleries... erm.. gun free zones, where many of these shootings tend to happen, prohibitions on firearms notwithstanding. Emotional reactions to that one aside, there has not been a single study showing that increases in CCW or carry locations have had a negative effect on crime rates in general, and whilst there have been interventions in mass/attempted mass shootings, in not one incident that I know of has the presence of someone else with a firearm proved to make matters worse, despite the parade of horribles brought up every time the suggestion is made. I am, of course, open to correction. Correct those three things, and spree shootings will go down. Can more be done on top? Maybe, but I’m no sociologist, and it’s a good start.

However I also believe that if you blunt a workman’s tools, his work won’t be effective. So I’d like to see semi auto ARs banned. I’d also like to see certain handguns banned also. Unlike a lot of gun control advocates around here, I’ve plenty of experience with guns, I’m not sure anyone needs a desert eagle to protect their family.

Handy in the woods against bears or hogs (or in swamps against gators, I guess), if you don’t want to carry a rifle. They have less felt recoil than the revolvers of similar caliber so are easier to handle. Desert Eagles are also not a weapon of choice for mass shootings or for criminal enterprise. They are large, heavy, and don’t carry much ammunition. With this in mind, what problem would be solved by their ban? Why ARs, and not, say, a Remington Woodsmaster?

What about a Taurus Judge? Makes plenty of noise with a shotgun round, easier to hit a target without killing them.

Since they are illegal here in California, categorized as an “assault weapon”, I can’t say I’ve paid much attention to them. However, a quick google for reviews indicate it is not recommended for protection against anything bigger than a snake. (and if that’s your concern, a semi-auto with snake shot would probably be better). The one page which did recommend it as effective for defense in the bedroom recommended using the .45 slug. However, if you do that, I would think you would be as well off with a regular pistol as well. Most sites consider it a gimmick, and congratulate Taurus on very effective marketing. Selling ice to eskimos, one page put it. That’s before you get into the question of whether you want to pepper your house with shotgun pellets, or if a good winter coat would stop the pellets which did connect.

Snickers Man

Moved to forum where it was originally intended

Leroy42

What is the justification for the continued availability of the type of weapons used in the latest shooting and Las Vegas?

Is it simply that people like them and thus this a is a price they accept or is there a reason? Hunting, no.
Self defence, it is called assault weapon for a reason.

Leroy42

One other point. US has the highest level of gun ownership on the world per capita.

Yet they also have the highest level of gun violence. Now one could say thats hardly surprising, yet the likes of the NRA and gun advocates claim they need there guns to protect against this very type of violence.

So in a country where there are lots of guns, people still feel emboldened to carry out these type of attacks. The answer, according to some, is more people with more guns (armed security guards etc). But the stats go totally against this.

The US does not appreciably higher rates or mental issues than the rest of the world. The US does not have appreciably higher rates of crime than other western nations. But the result of those crimes in the US tend to be fatal.

AbusesToilets

I would ask why you feel the need to pose questions that folks have already debated, in this thread, multiple times.

Gun ownership is a right in the US. The term "assault weapon" is a meaningless political creation, it was a semi-auto rifle. The type of rifle is widely used, for hunting, for target shooting, and yes, for home defense.

As tragic as events like this latest shooting are, they account for a tiny fraction of firearms related deaths. The majority of said deaths being roughly 60% suicides, 15% accidents, and the rest murders.

Leroy42

Hunting what? A semi auto weapon to hunt deer?
Target practice? Again, that can done with any weapon. No need for this type.
Home defence. I would assume that there no crime in those states with liberal gun control. We know the carnage that this guns are involved in so lets see the other side of the balance sheet and then a proper judgment can be made.
I pose these questions as these incidents highlight, yet again, the paucity of the arguments and we should as least ask them again.
I merely asked why these weapons were even available, and the answer seems to be because people want them. 15% accidents. Good grief. That is a terrible safety record. What is being demanded of the gun manufacturers to limit this?

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hunting what? A semi auto weapon to hunt deer?
Target practice? Again, that can done with any weapon. No need for this type.
Home defence. I would assume that there no crime in those states with liberal gun control. We know the carnage that this guns are involved in so lets see the other side of the balance sheet and then a proper judgment can be made.
I pose these questions as these incidents highlight, yet again, the paucity of the arguments and we should as least ask them again.
I merely asked why these weapons were even available, and the answer seems to be because people want them. 15% accidents. Good grief. That is a terrible safety record. What is being demanded of the gun manufacturers to limit this?

Yes, a semi automatic rifle is an excellent option for hunting, for target shooting and for home defense. Such rifles account for a fraction of a percentage of firearm related deaths annually. They have featured in these spree killings, and so have more visibility.

As to your question relating to accidents, legislation has been proposed to offer education in schools on gun safety, that was rejected.

Leroy42

I didn't ask if the weapon was proficient, I asked why it was required. Hunting can be done with a bow and arrow for example, a rifle, it does not 'need' a semi automatic.
Exactly the same for target practice. Can be done with a rifle/hand gun. No 'need' for the semi-auto.
As for home defence, what effect do you know it actually has on this? Does it reduce the rate, the outcome, the amount stolen? Has there been an investigation done to show the difference in home breakins between those houses known to have semi-autos and those without?
One must either accept that this is a particular American problem (ie a problem with Americans) or it is something within America that is the cause of it.
As there are no statistics to show that Americans are noticeable worse than other countries so the other option is what is different in America. And that is the availability and number of guns.
And that brings us to the very real problem. Despite a large call for more guns, having the largest per capita guns in the world has only resulted in the highest per capita death rate from guns in the world. So guns don't reduce deaths.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

I didn't ask if the weapon was proficient, I asked why it was required. Hunting can be done with a bow and arrow for example, a rifle, it does not 'need' a semi automatic.
Exactly the same for target practice. Can be done with a rifle/hand gun. No 'need' for the semi-auto.
As for home defence, what effect do you know it actually has on this? Does it reduce the rate, the outcome, the amount stolen? Has there been an investigation done to show the difference in home breakins between those houses known to have semi-autos and those without?
One must either accept that this is a particular American problem (ie a problem with Americans) or it is something within America that is the cause of it.
As there are no statistics to show that Americans are noticeable worse than other countries so the other option is what is different in America. And that is the availability and number of guns.
And that brings us to the very real problem. Despite a large call for more guns, having the largest per capita guns in the world has only resulted in the highest per capita death rate from guns in the world. So guns don't reduce deaths.

Your starting point is that these tools are bad and should be banned. you haven't offered any particular reasons for why this should be so. I can go on a mass killing spree with a bolt action just as easily with a semi auto. Or a knife for that matter.

You clearly have little or no experience with any firearms, which is fair enough, however you put forth that such firearms are of limited to now value for those purposes, despite your lack of knowledge.

I care about reducing firearms deaths, period. You seem interested in reducing guns. That's a fundamental difference.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your starting point is that these tools are bad and should be banned. you haven't offered any particular reasons for why this should be so. I can go on a mass killing spree with a bolt action just as easily with a semi auto. Or a knife for that matter.

You could, you could do it with a car, or put toxins in the water or, or or. The evidence clearly shows that the greater risk is from these type of guns. Are you really suggesting that this 19 yo would have killed 17 people with a knife? When it is clear that teachers jumped in the way to save the kids, don't you think that a lessor weapon would have given them a chance to get him?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You clearly have little or no experience with any firearms, which is fair enough, however you put forth that such firearms are of limited to now value for those purposes, despite your lack of knowledge.

I indeed have limited, but not none, and the telling part is that I understand physics. A weapon that holds and fires multiple rounds is far more dangerous than a short range, low powered, one shot weapon. You don't need to be an expert to understand that.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I care about reducing firearms deaths, period. You seem interested in reducing guns. That's a fundamental difference.

Great, so we are both trying to achieve the same thing. I think the evidence, some of which I have alluded to, clearly shows that more guns leads to more violence. The example for all other countries is that tighter laws results in fewer deaths. Why are you turning you back on that evidence? If reducing deaths is your aim then surely reducing guns is part of the answer?
Apart from the thin reasons for having these guns, which basically break down to 'I like them' there is little to no reason for any citizen to have access to these guns.
If removing them is not acceptable, then I think the ownership of them should be made such a hassle as it is no longer worth it. Yearly medical and mental tests, yearly safety courses, all sales to go through a centralised and traceable system, a system which could identify any person with multiple weapons. Limit bullets, and you can only buy more when you return the original casings. (like the bottle deposit scheme).
There is nothing to say that owning a gun should be easy. Sure you will still get people who will put up with the hassle, but far fewer.
This really is not a difficult issue to solve. In the short-term yes, the culture is too ingrained, but like with seat-belt and drink-driving, over time a change in direction from government and the authorities filters down. The older generation will die off leaving a new generation which will look back and ask why was it ever acceptable

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

You could, you could do it with a car, or put toxins in the water or, or or. The evidence clearly shows that the greater risk is from these type of guns. Are you really suggesting that this 19 yo would have killed 17 people with a knife? When it is clear that teachers jumped in the way to save the kids, don't you think that a lessor weapon would have given them a chance to get him?



I indeed have limited, but not none, and the telling part if that I understand physics. A weapon that holds and fires multiple roads is far more dangerous than a short range, low powered, one shot weapon. You don't need to be an expert to understand that.

As recent attacks have shown, a determined person can kill plenty of people with a knife if they so desire.

Great, so we are both trying to achieve the same thing. I think the evidence, some of which I have alluded to, clearly shows that more guns leads to more violence. The example for all other countries is that tighter laws results in fewer deaths. Why are you turning you back on that evidence? If reducing deaths is your aim then surely reducing guns is part of the answer?
Apart from the thin reasons for having these guns, which basically break down to 'I like them' there is little to no reason for any citizen to have access to these guns.
If removing them is not acceptable, then I think the ownership of them should be made such a hassle as it is no longer worth it. Yearly medical and mental tests, yearly safety courses, all sales to go through a centralised and traceable system, a system which could identify any person with multiple weapons. Limit bullets, and you can only buy more when you return the original casings. (like the bottle deposit scheme).
There is nothing to say that owning a gun should be easy. Sure you will still get people who will put up with the hassle, but far fewer.
This really is not a difficult issue to solve. In the short-term yes, the culture is too ingrained, but like with seat-belt and drink-driving, over time a change in direction from government and the authorities filters down. The older generation will die off leaving a new generation which will look back and ask why was it ever acceptable

To address this, the largest number of deaths annually, relating to firearms, are suicides. Some 20,000 per year, give or take. Do you think waving a magic wand and removing guns is likely to have much of an impact on that?

You clearly believe that guns are inherently a bad thing. I disagree. I certainly think that there are steps that could be taken to improve the current situation and help to decrease deaths, but I don't think that banning certain guns types is justified.

BlitzKrieg

it's generational at this point: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/carly-novell-shooting-survivor-don-lemon-cnntv/index.html

70 years and the same family got caught up in the first and most recent mass shooting.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To address this, the largest number of deaths annually, relating to firearms, are suicides. Some 20,000 per year, give or take. Do you think waving a magic wand and removing guns is likely to have much of an impact on that?

You clearly believe that guns are inherently a bad thing. I disagree. I certainly think that there are steps that could be taken to improve the current situation and help to decrease deaths, but I don't think that banning certain guns types is justified.

Fundamentally though , the US has an extremely unhealthy relationship with guns.

48% of firearms in private ownership globally are owned by US citizens whereas the US account for what , 2-3% of the global population?

The death rate from guns far exceeds anywhere else on earth per capita (even per gun).Why is that?

On one level I agree with you , it's not about specific types of guns per se , however the question has to be asked , why do people in the US want to buy "military style" weapons over other types?

Banning specific guns is not necessarily the correct solution , but it's a start and a statement of intent.

It may be more appropriate to think in terms of banning ALL guns from specific groups of people as the short term fix but longer term the US needs to fix their relationship with Guns.

Not in anyway easy , but the mental association between weapons and "freedom" needs to change.

Overheal

I think a solution is pretty straightforward, California already did it, Delaware did similar: a Gun Violence Restraining Order

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article164667177.html

CA's law came into effect in 2016, months after the San Bernandino shooting. It allows people to seek a restraining order against someone having firearms for 21 days, then they can have a follow up hearing to extend that prohibition up to a year.

In Delaware they've had a similar law for a while now, researches have suggested (though not definitively), it may have saved around 100 people from committing suicide. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/gun-violence-restraining-order-suicide-reduction-connecticut/

So that's something. These laws would have almost surely been able to prevent the massacre this week. Cruz was a hot spot on local LEO and School and Friends and Family radar.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

People are more likely to be successful using a firearm, but I wouldn't say that they are responsible for the level of people seeking to go through with a suicide.

Except suicide rates have gone up and so has gun accessibility.

"In 2014, about 87 percent of gun suicide attempts were fatal, compared to just three percent of attempts by drug overdoses, according to an analysis of Centers for Disease Control data." https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/gun-violence-restraining-order-suicide-reduction-connecticut/

"The suicide rate for middle-aged women, ages 45 to 64, jumped by 63 percent over the period of the study, while it rose by 43 percent for men in that age range, the sharpest increase for males of any age. The overall suicide rate rose by 24 percent from 1999 to 2014, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, which released the study on Friday.

The increases were so widespread that they lifted the nation’s suicide rate to 13 per 100,000 people, the highest since 1986. The rate rose by 2 percent a year starting in 2006, double the annual rise in the earlier period of the study. In all, 42,773 people died from suicide in 2014, compared with 29,199 in 1999." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Except suicide rates have gone up and so has gun accessibility.

"In 2014, about 87 percent of gun suicide attempts were fatal, compared to just three percent of attempts by drug overdoses, according to an analysis of Centers for Disease Control data." https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/gun-violence-restraining-order-suicide-reduction-connecticut/

"The suicide rate for middle-aged women, ages 45 to 64, jumped by 63 percent over the period of the study, while it rose by 43 percent for men in that age range, the sharpest increase for males of any age. The overall suicide rate rose by 24 percent from 1999 to 2014, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, which released the study on Friday.

The increases were so widespread that they lifted the nation’s suicide rate to 13 per 100,000 people, the highest since 1986. The rate rose by 2 percent a year starting in 2006, double the annual rise in the earlier period of the study. In all, 42,773 people died from suicide in 2014, compared with 29,199 in 1999." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

Well, you're tying the increase of deaths to guns, when it could also be seen as an overall increase in suicides generally. What evidence can you show that would posit that these people wouldn't have been equally successful in killing themselves thru another method?

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Fundamentally though , the US has an extremely unhealthy relationship with guns.

48% of firearms in private ownership globally are owned by US citizens whereas the US account for what , 2-3% of the global population?

The death rate from guns far exceeds anywhere else on earth per capita (even per gun).Why is that?

On one level I agree with you , it's not about specific types of guns per se , however the question has to be asked , why do people in the US want to buy "military style" weapons over other types?

Banning specific guns is not necessarily the correct solution , but it's a start and a statement of intent.

It may be more appropriate to think in terms of banning ALL guns from specific groups of people as the short term fix but longer term the US needs to fix their relationship with Guns.

Not in anyway easy , but the mental association between weapons and "freedom" needs to change.

What is a military style weapon? The rifle he used was a semi automatic, military rifles are select fire (capable of full auto). It is no more lethal than any other type of rifle, simply because it's black. This is thinking that leads to legislation like the Assault Weapons ban, which achieves nothing and is based on fear mongering.

I would ask why there is such high levels of suicides and spree killings in the US. What in our society is leading people to commit these acts. Focus on the why,not on the tools used.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, you're tying the increase of deaths to guns, when it could also be seen as an overall increase in suicides generally. What evidence can you show that would posit that these people wouldn't have been equally successful in killing themselves thru another method?

That's your burden of proof. I would argue that guns make it relatively easy and painless for someone to end their life, versus hanging, jumping off buildings, self mutilation, etc.