I think D's smoking analogy is spot on. There needs to be, on the
whole, a social change in how guns are viewed in this country. The USA
was rated at 88.8 guns per 100 persons, that sounds like an awful damn
lot. That number of guns for, probably, no reason should be socially
unacceptable.
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.
-----------
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-statement-newtown-shooting-3-15-p-m-195212145--politics.html
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/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
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/2012/12/14/the-united-states-of-firearms-americas-love-of-the-gun/
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/2012/12/14/167287373/many-mass-killers-have-had-chronic-depression
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/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/
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/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
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/Dunblane_massacre#Gun_control
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/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29
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/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences
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/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
