Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?

[Guyute]

There was a shooting in PA during the NRA statement, 4 dead, 3 wounded.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16069042-four-killed-including-gunman-in-shooting-incident-in-pennsylvania-three-troopers-injured?lite

[mbw]

I can't believe that on the 1 week anniversary of this tragedy the NRA came out and made that statement.  Blaming everything else, not even discussing assault weapons.

you really cant believe that?  they held heir annual conference in Littleton 10 days after Columbine.

and this:

MOAR Guns!

If you're really weighing someone's right to shoot clips of ammo into a tree stump against the "relatively small percentage" of children who are "actually" shot in classrooms... well I don't know what to tell you.

[Buffalo Budd]

MOAR Guns!

If you're really weighing someone's right to shoot clips of ammo into a tree stump against the "relatively small percentage" of children who are "actually" shot in classrooms... well I don't know what to tell you.

Ser.

[mattstick]

I've never shot an assault rifle, so now I'm wondering if it's really safe to shoot clips of ammo into a tree stump.

[aphineday]

I've never shot an assault rifle, so now I'm wondering if it's really safe to shoot clips of ammo into a tree stump.

We don't think about stuff like that! Shoot first, ask questions later!
'Merica!

Fuck the NRA.

[Guyute]

The best way to prevent forest fires is more forest fires.

It was like asking an addict how to solve the drug problem.

[whatapiper]

Instead of paying for more armed security guards why don't we tighten regulations, give a nice tax credit for those who do not own a gun and tax those heavily who do.   

[runawayjimbo]

Damn, I go away for a couple days and miss all the fun. +k to twatts for making all my points for me though. Some of my favorites:

The Chinese Gov't couldn't care less about human rights, they banned guns because having armed civilians threatens their hold on power. 

ie getting rids of guns is not synonymous with getting rid of murder.

You could say something about high-capacity magazines, but Bloomberg showed us people will just buy (2) small cokes instead of (1) large one... 

Pretty much any reference to the soda ban is an automatic +k

Or maybe murder by firearms has little to do with existence of guns or how easily they are accessed.....

FYP

"Those people" obtain guns like you or I do - they are NOT criminals and they buy them legally.  Then they commit a criminal act.

Or they buy them illegally, which (by definition) is illegal.

Perhaps we can find a model in the Tobacco Law Suits.  Why should health insurers pay for all the "damages"?  Why not make the manufacturer's pay for some of it, even if owning and using tobacco is entirely voluntary by a third party, namely the individual citizen.

The difference, however, is that the tobacco manufacturer liability lied not in the fact that they were selling a dangerous product but that they willfully knew and concealed this information from the public. I'm not sure you could make the same case against the gun manufacturers for liability without that willful deceit, especially where their product is used in a criminal act (e.g., should baseball bat makers be held accountable if a maniac beats someone to death with a Louisville Slugger?).

But most of all, this:

Fuck the NRA.

[VDB]

MOAR Guns!

If you're really weighing someone's right to shoot clips of ammo into a tree stump against the "relatively small percentage" of children who are "actually" shot in classrooms... well I don't know what to tell you.

:roll:

Way to completely misinterpret (or misrepresent) my point, Matt.

I was specifically addressing a proposal put forth here that would have left assault weapons legal but would have nevertheless penalized the vast majority of (safe, law-abiding, non-murdering) owners by having them pay more in order to pick up the tab, in effect, for the evil deeds of the criminals.

And, if you were paying attention, you would have noted that my conclusion was that, instead, the further manufacture and sale of assault weapons should simply be once again outlawed, in my opinion.

As for the NRA, it's sad that they are unwilling to give up any ground whatsoever, but I can't say I'm too surprised by LaPierre's statement. Of course the NRA is going to continue to resist any and all forms of gun control, and instead propose the answer that they did. These positions are fundamental to the NRA's core beliefs.

But did you notice that in the Mother Jones article RJ posted earlier that purported to debunk the myth of the hero armed civilian, several of the case studies stated that credit for stopping or subduing the shooters lay not with civilians but armed guards or otherwise trained law enforcement/military personnel? So, is having armed guards at places (like schools) where these incidents might occur a good idea or not?

[mattstick]

It was a broader statement not directed at anyone, apologies if you felt singled out or misrepresented.

[VDB]

It was a broader statement not directed at anyone, apologies if you felt singled out or misrepresented.

Well, you did use the pronoun "you" and then referenced the stump remark, which I made, so I simply applied deductive reasoning. But I appreciate the clarification.

[mattstick]

Well, if you think that your right to own guns is more important than trying to prevent mass shootings, then yes, I don't know what to tell you.

[Superfreakie]

Or maybe murder by firearms has little to do with existence of guns or how easily they are accessed.....

FYP

WRONG. there are direct correlations between the amount of guns in the hands of a public and shooting deaths/murders. Ample studies have highlighted these trends and many countries' legislative agendas have borne them out, seemingly balanced against a concept of individual freedom. And, while each has its own particular set of circumstances and environments it must address, prescient examples are abound. That said, I am aware that statements on this board require statistical support, so I suggest you start with Harvard University's School of Public Health study on Homicide's, with links/bibliographies to the review journals used in ascertaining its conclusions. In a law class of mine, we addressed this issue years ago and the numbers are striking, regardless of other societal conditions. 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

One of the many interesting factoids I took from this class, was an Israeli (iirc) policy whereby if you wish to purchase a gun, you must first leave a deposit for said gun prior to taking its possession. Then, at the end of a certain period, lets say a week, you are to return to pay the remaining amount on the gun as well as collect it. What they discovered was that close to 80% of potential gun owners changed their mind over wanting a gun during this "cooling off period" and simply went back to pick up their deposit. Extrapolate what you wish from this. 

Using supply side economics, there are certain givens that permit us to address the proliferation of weapons within a populace. They may similarly be applied to other issues that inevitably cause harm no matter which side the legislation falls you lean. Let us take drugs. If we were to not only legalize all drugs tomorrow morning but make them free, one would inevitably wind up with more drug addicts. But you would now spend less money on police, jails, lawyers, judges etc... Additionally, crime fueled by the need to purchase drugs would also plummet. Concerning this argument, one then has to weigh which side's toll is more enviable. 

If you are one who believes you will eventually have to take up arms against your government, or defend yourself in a collapsed society, then very little of this matters to you. In fact, you're calculating that the ten of thousands of lives lost a year to wanton proliferation of high powered weapons are a worthwhile tradeoff to the eventual Hellscape you will have to battle in. Or you could be someone who just wants to blow the fuck out of shit on his property, in which case you're still making the same calculation, but in this case as opposed to your existential fear, it is your personal fun at stake. The question is then: towards whom should the laws be writ? For a present, the laws concerning guns in the US are written for a very small segment of the population. Most hunters generally do not require an AR-15 to go about their business, although they are great at killing those pesky prairie dogs.           

Within the majority of developed nations, legislation seeks to temper itself with that which causes the least amount of societal dislocation or harm. Regrettably, legislation devoid of political power wrangling does not exist, however, the aforementioned impetus is rarely completely discarded. In the US, irrefutable evidence entwined with economic realities now seem to be putting the final nails into the prohibition of narcotics argument, that which was solely driven by politics for close to a century. We are now left to question when firearm legislation will join suit.   


An aside:

Gun Legislation
 
Concerning the United States, one need look no further than the UK, they with comparative demographics: education/wealth/governance/population size. In '87 and '96, the Brits bore witness to emotionally charged rampages that in turn ushered in some of the strictest gun laws found in the Western world. Do read on:

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).

With the exception of Northern Ireland, it has been public policy that police officers in the United Kingdom should not generally be armed with firearms. Despite police being unarmed, shooting fatalities of members of the police are extremely rare; there were three in England and Wales in the eleven-year period from 2000/01 to 2010/11. About 7,000 police officers have received firearms training.Standard police firearms include semi-automatic carbines, and pistols, such as the Heckler & Koch MP5SF, and Glock 17.

Britain has had few firearms rampage incidents in modern times. During the latter half of the 20th century there were only two incidents in which people holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale, the Hungerford massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane school massacre of 1996; each led to strong public and political demands to restrict firearm use, and tightening of laws. The result has been among the strictest firearms laws in the world.

After Hungerford, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 criminalised most semi-automatic long-barrelled weapons; it was generally supported by the Labour opposition although some Labour backbenchers thought it inadequate. After the second incident, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 criminalised private possession of most handguns having a calibre over .22; the Snowdrop Campaign continued to press for a wider ban, and in 1997 the incoming Labour government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, which extended this to most handguns with a calibre of .22 (there are exceptions for some antique handguns and black-powder revolvers.) The Cumbria shootings in 2010 led to 13 fatalities and 11 injured when Derrick Bird shot and killed three people connected to himself, and 12 others in an apparently random shooting spree before turning the gun on himself. Bird held legal permits for three shotguns and a rifle.

Aside from special temporary exemptions for major events such as the 2012 Olympics, pistol shooting for sporting purposes has been effectively banned since 1997. As a result, the GB pistol squad has to practice abroad.

Single-barrelled, double-barrelled shotguns, or those with a lever-action or, pump-action, or semi-automatic and fixed magazine capacity, of no more than two cartridges are permitted on a Shotgun Certificate. Shotguns with a detachable magazine or larger fixed magazine are permitted on a Section 1 Firearms Certificate. Certain types of shotgun ammunition, such as rifled slugs and larger shot sizes can only be bought following the grant of an FAC (firearms certificate). There is no limit on the amount of guns or ammunition that a SGC (shotgun certificate) holder can acquire or possess at one time.

A 2006 study using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) statistical analysis found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall". Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences.

Except for Northern Ireland, fully automatic (submachine-guns, etc.) and self-loading (semi-automatic) weapons of calibre larger than .22 rimfire are totally banned, pistols are limited to .22 calibre in short barrel, while calibres up to .357 magnum are allowed in long barrel pistols (of total length at least 60 cm). All other rifles and their ammunition are permitted with good reason, which may include target shooting, hunting, and historic and black powder weapons, but not self-defence.

A firearms certificate issued by the police is required for all weapons and ammunition except air weapons of modest power (of muzzle energy not over 12 ft·lbf for rifles, and 6 ft·lbf for pistols).

[sls.stormyrider]

I realize that the cause of these killings are multifactorial. Also, the 2nd Amendment exists and there is a lot of pro gun sentiment in this country. And, the vast, vast majority of gun owners hasn't commited a crime and has no intention of doing so.
I still have a problem with "military" or "assault" weapons (agree - definition is arbitrary"
the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms - it doesn't say any arms we want, all arms, or certain kinds of arms. We can argue all day long but it is obviously open to interpretation.
As far as facts go, here is some data



other than Columbine, it seems as if the assault ban had a beneficial effect on mass murders.

common sense, that is all I ask for

[Superfreakie]

Unfortunately, horrific as they are, mass murder killings are only a drop in the bucket in relation to the tens of thousands being mowed down in more discriminate fire. Sadly, mass killings move the emotional needle and thus politicians and law making, yet the American war zone that is claiming young black men essentially flies under the radar.