And T I think guns ARE a lot like drugs and booze in
that there is a widespread, non criminal, desire to have them. "normal"
people became criminals during prohibition, happens now as well. Lots
of otherwise "normal" folk are occasional drug users, especially
marijuana. It is the wide spread domestic desire, not simply criminal
desire, that leads those types of restrictions to fail. So in smaller
countries or ones with a different history with gun ownership the same
restrictions are not, today, likely to succeed.
So instead of trying to ban laser sights and
extended clips, do like T suggested and tax guns more, put some more
ads on TV, if they are really bad educate the masses.
------
Well I would also ban assault weapons and accessories with massacre potential, on top of the taxes and education campaigns.
But I think I wasn't clear with my comparison of guns and Prohib. It's not about the % of use that is criminal as you suggested, it's about cause-effect. What I meant was:
- Prohib. was doomed to failure because the goal was to improve morality in society, and the vehicle for accomplishing that was erroneously assumed to be banning booze. They were barking up the wrong tree. Ironically as you said, Prohib. increased criminality, because otherwise moral people still wanted to drink or found new ways to profit handsomely from booze.
- The cause-effect relationship with gun violence and lack of gun control is much more solid. It is true that the majority of guns are not used in crimes, and the majority of gun owners are not criminals. Those people could be affected by selective gun control, but only weakly (we're not talking about a full ban on guns here, though I wouldn't mind that). For the minority who do intend to use guns for violent crime (or those who don't realize it until it's too late, like Belcher), smart gun control should make it harder for them to accomplish their goal.
Prohib. was like chemo - hurting healthy cells and cancer cells alike. Not that smart and obviously not popular or sustainable. But targeted gun control should make it much harder for people to commit serious crimes using guns (won't be 100% perfect of course), but not preclude the regular gun owners from using their guns for lawful purposes. Though the NRA is constantly pushing the envelope as to what constitutes "lawful" gun usage.
It may be hard to tell which gun user intends to commit violent crimes a priori, but clearly certain types of guns are more likely to be used in crimes than others (Tek-9, AK-47, high-penetration rounds, extended mags, etc.). So regulate those more. It's like how motorcycles have different insurance premiums and driving laws than passenger cars or semi-trucks. Target the laws appropriately based on the specific risk profile. Though for that balancing act, I would prefer that the laws err on the side of caution. I'd rather piss off a million hunters than have one more child slaughtered or spouse shot during a fight.
But I think I wasn't clear with my comparison of guns and Prohib. It's not about the % of use that is criminal as you suggested, it's about cause-effect. What I meant was:
- Prohib. was doomed to failure because the goal was to improve morality in society, and the vehicle for accomplishing that was erroneously assumed to be banning booze. They were barking up the wrong tree. Ironically as you said, Prohib. increased criminality, because otherwise moral people still wanted to drink or found new ways to profit handsomely from booze.
- The cause-effect relationship with gun violence and lack of gun control is much more solid. It is true that the majority of guns are not used in crimes, and the majority of gun owners are not criminals. Those people could be affected by selective gun control, but only weakly (we're not talking about a full ban on guns here, though I wouldn't mind that). For the minority who do intend to use guns for violent crime (or those who don't realize it until it's too late, like Belcher), smart gun control should make it harder for them to accomplish their goal.
Prohib. was like chemo - hurting healthy cells and cancer cells alike. Not that smart and obviously not popular or sustainable. But targeted gun control should make it much harder for people to commit serious crimes using guns (won't be 100% perfect of course), but not preclude the regular gun owners from using their guns for lawful purposes. Though the NRA is constantly pushing the envelope as to what constitutes "lawful" gun usage.
It may be hard to tell which gun user intends to commit violent crimes a priori, but clearly certain types of guns are more likely to be used in crimes than others (Tek-9, AK-47, high-penetration rounds, extended mags, etc.). So regulate those more. It's like how motorcycles have different insurance premiums and driving laws than passenger cars or semi-trucks. Target the laws appropriately based on the specific risk profile. Though for that balancing act, I would prefer that the laws err on the side of caution. I'd rather piss off a million hunters than have one more child slaughtered or spouse shot during a fight.
-----------
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/
It's very frustrating that Obama and other leaders have basically repeated the exact same quotes after the last few mass shootings in the US (Sikh temple, Giffords, Aurora, now CT). They vowed to "take action" each time, but we're still waiting. I know they must be frustrated too, but that does not grant them a pass. Since Day 1, reinstating the assault weapons ban (that expired under W) was part of Obama's policy agenda. I know he had wars, recession, and re-election to worry about, but come on it's been 4 years. He spent more time on DADT and other less important issues IMO.
This article seems to refute some of the points from the Freakonomics link that gun control "doesn't work": http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Major findings (I can't vouch for the quality of the research, and opinion surveys can always be manipulated, but it is Ezra Klein and the Wash. Post):
- The South is the region with the most "assault deaths" (not sure if that means gun attacks only, or any murder).
- The assault rate in the US now is actually 1/2 of what it was in the 1970s, but that probably also tracks with the overall trend of lower crime in the US (and Freakonomics would say that is mainly due to Roe v. Wade).
- There is a strong correlation between states' gun murder rates and the strictness of their gun control laws.
- Recent mass shootings have not really moved the public opinion needle on gun control (though it did in the wake of Columbine).
- Similar to opinions on Obamacare, Americans seem to generically favor gun freedoms over gun control (but since 9/11 it's about 50/50). When asked about specific policies however, they are much more pro-gun-control.
Some more data on global gun ownership and violence: http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/
The only nations ahead of us on gun murders per capita are basically lawless or war-torn: the LATAM drug nations, S. Africa, and probably also Sudan, Central Africa, the Middle East (data not collected for every nation). I'm not sure why Chile and Argentina are so high, about on par with the US.
Profiling mass murderers: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/14/
Since shootings seem to be on the news fairly often, we are inclined to think that they have increased in frequency recently. The guest says that's not so, as the US has had about 20 mass shootings per year (resulting in 100-150 casualties) for decades. I think Michael Moore tweeted that there have been 30 school shootings since Columbine. So while that is obviously unacceptable and tragic, it pales in comparison to the 10,000 other gun murders per year. Therefore it may not be best to fixate on how to stop mass shootings, since they are not the biggest component of the problem. Though if the mass shootings affect the populace and gov't enough to take actions that would also reduce the incidence of other types of gun murders, then that is helpful.
Some pro-gun conservatives believe that arming the "good people" is the answer, so we can kill the shooters before they kill so many victims. A more sane proposal is to increase mental health screening and "warning signs" monitoring. That is ironic because the conservatives want to cut the deficit by gutting a lot of social services. Therefore there will be fewer resources for mental health, and fewer services in general to go around, which will increase overall mental stress and possibly lead to the warning signs of homicidal behavior (but of course not every stressed person kills others). Not to mention more desperate people will be fighting over fewer resources/jobs, leading to more opportunities for hostility and conflict. And let's remember that a lost job or reduced gov't benefits affects the whole family, not just the individual. Any or all of of them could experience sufficient stress and depression to start to exhibit warning signs. So unless we discover a new funding source, we'll have fewer resources to prevent gun violence, and more people fitting the psychological profile of a shooter. It's similar to the VA finding itself ill-equipped to handle the huge spike of PTSD cases from returning war vets.
So what's the more economical alternative? Stricter gun laws and taxes (that would probably be revenue-positive). At least there is no gun deduction loophole that I am currently aware of, though I am sure gun makers have minimal tax exposure (plus they reaped all the bloated gov't contracts to supply our recent wars).
---------
A story of the same situation, but the dude didn't have a gun. No one got killed.
---------
That story he stabbed 2 people and fled. 6 other mass attacks on
children in 7 months. 20 dead and 50 wounded. Not a lot better than
gun deaths but I guess somewhat fewer dead on average. But it goes back
to my point that, for these types of attacks, guns aren't required just
enabling.
---------
I'm sorry but I have to strongly oppose your claim that guns are not
much more dangerous than knives or "home made bombs". Their track
records and body counts are completely different in recent history.
Those attacks in China are horrific, but keep in mind that their violent
assault rate per capita is one of the lowest in the developed world (at
least reported). If the US was the size of China, we'd have 40,000 gun
murders a year instead of 10,000. I don't like how some anti-gun-control
folks argue that there were mass killings in Norway, Finland, and South
Korea too, places with fairly strong gun control. Yeah, there was like
ONE such attack in those nations over 50 years. It's hard to make a
society 100% massacre-free, especially when there are a few guns
circulating, either legally or not. That is a poor argument to totally
refute the effectiveness of gun controls. In fact it may bolster the
case for them. It is very hard to thwart a methodical, dispassionate,
planned attack like Columbine or Norway. But the fact that Norway and
other such nations have so few "regular" gun murders vs. the US shows
that something is working, legally and/or socially.
FYI the US is 5% of the world's pop. but accounts for 11 of the worst 20 civilian gun massacres over the last 50 years
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/
Imagine that the "base rate" of violent assault deaths per capita is X (hypothetically no access weapons, just fists I guess). Now add knives, home made bombs, or other improvised weapons to the model and it's like 1.2X. Add guns to the model (a device whose primary purpose is to damage flesh, target shooting aside) and it would be like 20X. I'm making these #s up, but you get my point. Guns may not be technically "required" for a violent attack, but they are a huge multiplier. I wouldn't just say enabling, I would say exponentially magnifying.
I mentioned this previously in the thread, but "mass knife attacks" will probably only work against children, handicapped, or the elderly. Others can defend themselves, run, and call for help after the first slashing. It's harder to outrun a bullet. Also you need to have some skill to be able to kill with a kitchen knife, whereas any bozo who played a video game can probably get lucky and make a kill shot now and then. Or putting it another way, I would rather take my chances with a deranged knifer than a deranged shooter, and probably you would too (if we had to make that choice). The weapon makes a lot of difference, so let's not pretend it doesn't. Otherwise modern soldiers would still be using broadswords.
Also, I believe it was revealed today that the CT shooter Lanza was armed with 2 semi-auto handguns and 1 semi-auto rifle when he attacked the school. Those guns were legally registered to his relatives, he didn't buy or own them. There is a big problem. Shouldn't we hold the owners of those firearms liable because they failed to properly secure them? It's not good enough to check that the gun customer meets eligibility requirements just at the time of purchase, we also have to check that they are owning their weapons responsibly and legally thereafter. The NRA would find that intrusive and unconstitutional, but it is not unprecedented. We have to renew our car registration and prove to the state that we passed smog. Otherwise we are causing a health and environmental problem for others. Same thing with unsecured guns and negligent gun owners.
----------
Mine was a response to gun control = massacre prevention. China had 7 mass attacks in 7 months with 20 dead and 50 wounded. All against children. I'm not saying don't do gun control because of this evidence, I am saying gun control is NOT random mass attacks prevention. Gun controls number 1 benefit is all the non massacre deaths that occur everyday. The school shooting brings up gun control but that reactionary response is the same thinking that got us the tsa airport security. We would be 50 times safer if we took an honest and dispassionate look at why the attacks happened but instead we were reactionary. Craft good gun control legislation but for the right reasons. I bet instead we got security guards at schools and more guns near children. Massacre minimizing might be one of them but is a drop in the bucket compared to the total gun deaths in a year.
----------
I see, thanks. Yeah I agree with that. "School security" probably went overboard after Columbine, and metal detectors and rent-a-cops may not have deterred or prevented Lanza from doing what he did. But still, it's hard to prove how many potential attacks were actually averted because of those excessive, reactionary responses. So they may have had some value. I can't make a judgment as to if it was worth it.
We get a little irrational when it comes to protecting children. I guess that is understandable. You are right that TSA is "security theater", pretty much BS, and not really making us any safer vs. likely terror attacks involving commercial air. Smart gun control will also reduce the likelihood of massacres, though by how much is debatable. But as you said, massacres are about 1% of total US gun deaths, so devoting disproportionate resources to it (plus it's a harder problem to stop) is probably inefficient. Though let's be honest, America cares more about protecting kids like the ones at Columbine and CT more than stopping redneck-on-redneck attacks in the south, or urban violence involving poorer people of color.
Gun control doesn't have to be reactionary. The assault weapons ban expired years ago, but it could have been renewed by Congress before all this. I am not sure if it would have prevented the recent attacks of 2010-2012, but at least it would have kept more assault weapons and hi-cap mags off the streets for future criminals and shooters. Also I think law enf. would much rather patrol streets where they don't have to worry about perps potentially equipped with better armor and firearms than they have. As you would expect, the data regarding the effectiveness of the ban is unclear, and it depends on who you ask (pro-gun research says it was ineffective, pro-control research said the opposite). It is true that assault weapons are used in a small % of total gun crimes (probably due to their cost, size, complexity, and the fact that several states already ban them, even if the Feds can't). But in terms of the worst massacres, they are used much more often (and you can kind of see how their utility would increase specifically for mass shootings):
WORST 25 SHOOTINGS (assault weapons used in 14 of them, or 56%)
Aurora - yes (an AR-15 like rifle with 100 round magazine!, purchased I believe)
Columbine - yes (Tec-9 and other weapons taken from parents)
CT - yes (AR-15 taken from mom)
OR - yes (AR-15 stolen from an acquaintance)
Sikh temple - no (9mm handgun, but he had military training)
Norway - yes (semi-auto carbine)
Giffords - no (Glock 19)
Ft. Hood - no (3 handguns, but again he was a soldier)
Baku Oil Academy - yes (automatic pistol)
Binghamton - no (2 pistols)
Alabama - yes (AR-15 + others)
Finland schools (2 attacks) - no (pistol for each, but it's likely that assault rifles are banned in FIN)
V Tech - no (but he had 19 magazines on him for his 2 pistols)
Germany - no (shotgun + pistol, but like FIN, probably assault weapons are hard to get)
Australia - yes (AR-15)
Scotland - no (4 pistols, but probably couldn't get assault weapons)
Killeen - no (pistols)
Jacksonville - yes (M1 carbine, actually the only black man on the list)
Quebec - yes (same carbine as the Norway guy)
England - yes (assault rifle, carbine)
CSU Fullerton - yes (carbine)
Okla - no (pistols)
McDonald's in CA - yes (Uzi)
Austin - yes (M1 carbine + others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Of course the assault weapons ban law didn't get 100% of those weapons out of circulation, but the NRA and others were fighting it at every turn. If we get a better version of that law out there, with more cooperation and support, the results could be better and may prevent or reduce the body counts of massacres.
----------
Have you read what classifies something as an assault weapon? It is stupid. I can't have a semi automatic version of an ak47 with telescoping stock, but if it isn't modeled after the ak, with all other essential functions identical, it is legal. Or if I have a semi auto rifle that has a pistol grip and muzzle grenade launcher mount it is illegal. However if I favor the externally mounted grenade launcher it is legal. It is specifically designed for cosmetic features many of which are unrelated to lethality. You want legislation that is much better than that. How about no semi auto rifles or handguns period? Or perhaps super strict limits on magazine size? Things that actually impact your ability to harm and kill.
---------
Totally agreed. The original law was messy (their first attempt and all), and maybe all those cosmetic, confusing loopholes were injected into the bill from NRA pressure or whatnot. But as you said, version 2 should be a lot clearer.
I hope they ban:
- Any mags > 10 rounds
- Any full-auto/machine guns
- Silencers without a special permit and with a lot of restrictions
- Short-barreled rifles/shotguns (definition could get messy here)
- Any semi-auto rifle > .22 caliber (incl. shotguns, but single-load rifles are fine of course)
Mandatory 10 year jail time for any violators, with a big multiplier if the gun is also used in a crime. Also make gun owners liable for crimes committed by others using their weapons, unless forced to surrender their weapons under duress.
I am not sure if the original assault weapons law was retroactive and required all existing owners to surrender qualifying weapons, but for version 2 I would definitely support that (compensate them at fair market value). Higher taxes on new guns and ammo could help pay for this program and enforcement.
---------
Here is what the UK and AUS did in the aftermath of their worst mass shootings (according to wiki).
DUNBLANE, SCOTLAND, 1996
Similar to CT, a lone male gunman (Thomas Hamilton) entered a school armed with 4 handguns and killed 16 students and an adult. There was a lot of media coverage, victims organized, and put pressure on the gov't to act (700,000 people signed a petition calling for a gun ban). Both the Conservative John Major admin. and the incoming Labour Tony Blair admin. passed acts in 1997 to ban non-historical privately owned handguns in the UK. I am not sure how they went about confiscating all the guns, but a link to the actual text of the acts are in wiki. There has not been a major gun massacre in the UK since (going on 15 years), though a few people are still killed by guns obviously. The gun murder rate in the UK is 50 times lower than ours. But of course the cultural and legal environments for guns are much different in the US and UK, despite our commonalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
PORT ARTHUR, TASMANIA, also 1996
Evidence is a bit murky, but Martin Bryant was a lone gunman convicted for a shooting spree that left 35 dead and 23 wounded in a small tourist town (murders occurred over the span of hours at a cafe, gift shop, car park, roadway, etc.). AUS previously had fairly lenient gun laws (yet quite low crime rates), but that quickly changed. Conservative leader John Howard orchestrated a mandatory gun buyback program to remove any semi-auto rifles and shotguns with more than 2-shell capacity from private ownership. 85% of Australians supported the measure, but it was strongly opposed by some farmers and sportsmen. Howard was seen wearing a bullet-proof vest during the period, supposedly as precaution against gun extremists. There were 13 mass shootings (defined as >4 dead) in AUS in the 18 years prior to Port Aurthur, and not a single one since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
A foreign student with mental impairment killed 2 fellow students at an Australian university in 2002, with a handgun from his shooting club. The gov't then enacted restrictions that handguns should have <11 .38=".38" 120="120" 25="25" 5="5" a="a" actually="actually" again="again" also="also" and="and" approx.="approx." as="as" aus="aus" barrels="barrels" br="br" bribe="bribe" but="but" buyback="buyback" cal="cal" conducted="conducted" crime="crime" decline="decline" denounced="denounced" did="did" effects="effects" enjoyed="enjoyed" even="even" expect="expect" for="for" give="give" gov="gov" gun="gun" hard="hard" has="has" in="in" is="is" isolate="isolate" it="it" licensed="licensed" like="like" lot="lot" mm.="mm." more="more" no="no" not="not" nra="nra" of="of" offer.="offer." offered="offered" on="on" opinions="opinions" or="or" pistols="pistols" program.="program." program="program" qualify.="qualify." reduced="reduced" research="research" rounds="rounds" shooters="shooters" shorter="shorter" since="since" so="so" sport="sport" structural="structural" study="study" t="t" than="than" that="that" the="the" their="their" them="them" there="there" to="to" took="took" trade-in="trade-in" up="up" us="us" vary="vary" violence="violence" violent="violent" was="was" whether="whether" with="with" would="would" years.="years." you="you">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Of course we can't conclude that the gun law changes in AUS and UK were the major factors responsible for the lack of massacres (maybe no massacres would have happened anyway), nor if they were even cost-effective, but those nations are showing no desire to lessen their gun restrictions.
----------
I think the common link here which is hard to get in the US is a total handgun ban. Most criminal gun deaths are with handguns. I think somewhere (DC?) Tried this and it was eventually repealed. Precedent is always hard to overcome.
----------
Agreed. Yeah it was DC, and the High Court over-ruled them. But it would have been tough to enforce anyway. I remember gun owners in DC were talking about storing their firearms in lockers in neighboring VA or MD instead. But at least it would have taken a drive to get them, and maybe they would have cooled off by then and reconsidered using them. I am not sure how prevalent unregistered guns would be in such an environment. But I highly doubt violent crime would spike after a gun ban, especially in a place like DC that already had a lot of violent crime to begin with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
FYI the US is 5% of the world's pop. but accounts for 11 of the worst 20 civilian gun massacres over the last 50 years
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/
Imagine that the "base rate" of violent assault deaths per capita is X (hypothetically no access weapons, just fists I guess). Now add knives, home made bombs, or other improvised weapons to the model and it's like 1.2X. Add guns to the model (a device whose primary purpose is to damage flesh, target shooting aside) and it would be like 20X. I'm making these #s up, but you get my point. Guns may not be technically "required" for a violent attack, but they are a huge multiplier. I wouldn't just say enabling, I would say exponentially magnifying.
I mentioned this previously in the thread, but "mass knife attacks" will probably only work against children, handicapped, or the elderly. Others can defend themselves, run, and call for help after the first slashing. It's harder to outrun a bullet. Also you need to have some skill to be able to kill with a kitchen knife, whereas any bozo who played a video game can probably get lucky and make a kill shot now and then. Or putting it another way, I would rather take my chances with a deranged knifer than a deranged shooter, and probably you would too (if we had to make that choice). The weapon makes a lot of difference, so let's not pretend it doesn't. Otherwise modern soldiers would still be using broadswords.
Also, I believe it was revealed today that the CT shooter Lanza was armed with 2 semi-auto handguns and 1 semi-auto rifle when he attacked the school. Those guns were legally registered to his relatives, he didn't buy or own them. There is a big problem. Shouldn't we hold the owners of those firearms liable because they failed to properly secure them? It's not good enough to check that the gun customer meets eligibility requirements just at the time of purchase, we also have to check that they are owning their weapons responsibly and legally thereafter. The NRA would find that intrusive and unconstitutional, but it is not unprecedented. We have to renew our car registration and prove to the state that we passed smog. Otherwise we are causing a health and environmental problem for others. Same thing with unsecured guns and negligent gun owners.
----------
Mine was a response to gun control = massacre prevention. China had 7 mass attacks in 7 months with 20 dead and 50 wounded. All against children. I'm not saying don't do gun control because of this evidence, I am saying gun control is NOT random mass attacks prevention. Gun controls number 1 benefit is all the non massacre deaths that occur everyday. The school shooting brings up gun control but that reactionary response is the same thinking that got us the tsa airport security. We would be 50 times safer if we took an honest and dispassionate look at why the attacks happened but instead we were reactionary. Craft good gun control legislation but for the right reasons. I bet instead we got security guards at schools and more guns near children. Massacre minimizing might be one of them but is a drop in the bucket compared to the total gun deaths in a year.
----------
I see, thanks. Yeah I agree with that. "School security" probably went overboard after Columbine, and metal detectors and rent-a-cops may not have deterred or prevented Lanza from doing what he did. But still, it's hard to prove how many potential attacks were actually averted because of those excessive, reactionary responses. So they may have had some value. I can't make a judgment as to if it was worth it.
We get a little irrational when it comes to protecting children. I guess that is understandable. You are right that TSA is "security theater", pretty much BS, and not really making us any safer vs. likely terror attacks involving commercial air. Smart gun control will also reduce the likelihood of massacres, though by how much is debatable. But as you said, massacres are about 1% of total US gun deaths, so devoting disproportionate resources to it (plus it's a harder problem to stop) is probably inefficient. Though let's be honest, America cares more about protecting kids like the ones at Columbine and CT more than stopping redneck-on-redneck attacks in the south, or urban violence involving poorer people of color.
Gun control doesn't have to be reactionary. The assault weapons ban expired years ago, but it could have been renewed by Congress before all this. I am not sure if it would have prevented the recent attacks of 2010-2012, but at least it would have kept more assault weapons and hi-cap mags off the streets for future criminals and shooters. Also I think law enf. would much rather patrol streets where they don't have to worry about perps potentially equipped with better armor and firearms than they have. As you would expect, the data regarding the effectiveness of the ban is unclear, and it depends on who you ask (pro-gun research says it was ineffective, pro-control research said the opposite). It is true that assault weapons are used in a small % of total gun crimes (probably due to their cost, size, complexity, and the fact that several states already ban them, even if the Feds can't). But in terms of the worst massacres, they are used much more often (and you can kind of see how their utility would increase specifically for mass shootings):
WORST 25 SHOOTINGS (assault weapons used in 14 of them, or 56%)
Aurora - yes (an AR-15 like rifle with 100 round magazine!, purchased I believe)
Columbine - yes (Tec-9 and other weapons taken from parents)
CT - yes (AR-15 taken from mom)
OR - yes (AR-15 stolen from an acquaintance)
Sikh temple - no (9mm handgun, but he had military training)
Norway - yes (semi-auto carbine)
Giffords - no (Glock 19)
Ft. Hood - no (3 handguns, but again he was a soldier)
Baku Oil Academy - yes (automatic pistol)
Binghamton - no (2 pistols)
Alabama - yes (AR-15 + others)
Finland schools (2 attacks) - no (pistol for each, but it's likely that assault rifles are banned in FIN)
V Tech - no (but he had 19 magazines on him for his 2 pistols)
Germany - no (shotgun + pistol, but like FIN, probably assault weapons are hard to get)
Australia - yes (AR-15)
Scotland - no (4 pistols, but probably couldn't get assault weapons)
Killeen - no (pistols)
Jacksonville - yes (M1 carbine, actually the only black man on the list)
Quebec - yes (same carbine as the Norway guy)
England - yes (assault rifle, carbine)
CSU Fullerton - yes (carbine)
Okla - no (pistols)
McDonald's in CA - yes (Uzi)
Austin - yes (M1 carbine + others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Of course the assault weapons ban law didn't get 100% of those weapons out of circulation, but the NRA and others were fighting it at every turn. If we get a better version of that law out there, with more cooperation and support, the results could be better and may prevent or reduce the body counts of massacres.
----------
Have you read what classifies something as an assault weapon? It is stupid. I can't have a semi automatic version of an ak47 with telescoping stock, but if it isn't modeled after the ak, with all other essential functions identical, it is legal. Or if I have a semi auto rifle that has a pistol grip and muzzle grenade launcher mount it is illegal. However if I favor the externally mounted grenade launcher it is legal. It is specifically designed for cosmetic features many of which are unrelated to lethality. You want legislation that is much better than that. How about no semi auto rifles or handguns period? Or perhaps super strict limits on magazine size? Things that actually impact your ability to harm and kill.
---------
Totally agreed. The original law was messy (their first attempt and all), and maybe all those cosmetic, confusing loopholes were injected into the bill from NRA pressure or whatnot. But as you said, version 2 should be a lot clearer.
I hope they ban:
- Any mags > 10 rounds
- Any full-auto/machine guns
- Silencers without a special permit and with a lot of restrictions
- Short-barreled rifles/shotguns (definition could get messy here)
- Any semi-auto rifle > .22 caliber (incl. shotguns, but single-load rifles are fine of course)
Mandatory 10 year jail time for any violators, with a big multiplier if the gun is also used in a crime. Also make gun owners liable for crimes committed by others using their weapons, unless forced to surrender their weapons under duress.
I am not sure if the original assault weapons law was retroactive and required all existing owners to surrender qualifying weapons, but for version 2 I would definitely support that (compensate them at fair market value). Higher taxes on new guns and ammo could help pay for this program and enforcement.
---------
Here is what the UK and AUS did in the aftermath of their worst mass shootings (according to wiki).
DUNBLANE, SCOTLAND, 1996
Similar to CT, a lone male gunman (Thomas Hamilton) entered a school armed with 4 handguns and killed 16 students and an adult. There was a lot of media coverage, victims organized, and put pressure on the gov't to act (700,000 people signed a petition calling for a gun ban). Both the Conservative John Major admin. and the incoming Labour Tony Blair admin. passed acts in 1997 to ban non-historical privately owned handguns in the UK. I am not sure how they went about confiscating all the guns, but a link to the actual text of the acts are in wiki. There has not been a major gun massacre in the UK since (going on 15 years), though a few people are still killed by guns obviously. The gun murder rate in the UK is 50 times lower than ours. But of course the cultural and legal environments for guns are much different in the US and UK, despite our commonalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
PORT ARTHUR, TASMANIA, also 1996
Evidence is a bit murky, but Martin Bryant was a lone gunman convicted for a shooting spree that left 35 dead and 23 wounded in a small tourist town (murders occurred over the span of hours at a cafe, gift shop, car park, roadway, etc.). AUS previously had fairly lenient gun laws (yet quite low crime rates), but that quickly changed. Conservative leader John Howard orchestrated a mandatory gun buyback program to remove any semi-auto rifles and shotguns with more than 2-shell capacity from private ownership. 85% of Australians supported the measure, but it was strongly opposed by some farmers and sportsmen. Howard was seen wearing a bullet-proof vest during the period, supposedly as precaution against gun extremists. There were 13 mass shootings (defined as >4 dead) in AUS in the 18 years prior to Port Aurthur, and not a single one since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
A foreign student with mental impairment killed 2 fellow students at an Australian university in 2002, with a handgun from his shooting club. The gov't then enacted restrictions that handguns should have <11 .38=".38" 120="120" 25="25" 5="5" a="a" actually="actually" again="again" also="also" and="and" approx.="approx." as="as" aus="aus" barrels="barrels" br="br" bribe="bribe" but="but" buyback="buyback" cal="cal" conducted="conducted" crime="crime" decline="decline" denounced="denounced" did="did" effects="effects" enjoyed="enjoyed" even="even" expect="expect" for="for" give="give" gov="gov" gun="gun" hard="hard" has="has" in="in" is="is" isolate="isolate" it="it" licensed="licensed" like="like" lot="lot" mm.="mm." more="more" no="no" not="not" nra="nra" of="of" offer.="offer." offered="offered" on="on" opinions="opinions" or="or" pistols="pistols" program.="program." program="program" qualify.="qualify." reduced="reduced" research="research" rounds="rounds" shooters="shooters" shorter="shorter" since="since" so="so" sport="sport" structural="structural" study="study" t="t" than="than" that="that" the="the" their="their" them="them" there="there" to="to" took="took" trade-in="trade-in" up="up" us="us" vary="vary" violence="violence" violent="violent" was="was" whether="whether" with="with" would="would" years.="years." you="you">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Of course we can't conclude that the gun law changes in AUS and UK were the major factors responsible for the lack of massacres (maybe no massacres would have happened anyway), nor if they were even cost-effective, but those nations are showing no desire to lessen their gun restrictions.
----------
I think the common link here which is hard to get in the US is a total handgun ban. Most criminal gun deaths are with handguns. I think somewhere (DC?) Tried this and it was eventually repealed. Precedent is always hard to overcome.
----------
Agreed. Yeah it was DC, and the High Court over-ruled them. But it would have been tough to enforce anyway. I remember gun owners in DC were talking about storing their firearms in lockers in neighboring VA or MD instead. But at least it would have taken a drive to get them, and maybe they would have cooled off by then and reconsidered using them. I am not sure how prevalent unregistered guns would be in such an environment. But I highly doubt violent crime would spike after a gun ban, especially in a place like DC that already had a lot of violent crime to begin with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
No comments:
Post a Comment