It's the Guns.

[youknowme]

Of course they are bad things. My point in using the traffic accident comparison is this; For reasons of convenience, drivers would be intolerant of at reduced speed limits, they accept the risk of a higher possibility injury. The new car buyer would be upset over the additional cost. Harsh enforcement of drunk drivers would upset and enrage the civil liberty types. So the roadway accidents continue.

On the other hand, there are those that believe that regardless of the Constitution, gun ownership should be banned, because any death by a firearm is totally unacceptable, unlike traffic accidents, which are accepted by a shrug.

Americans are unique in that throughout our history firearms have been part of our culture, millions upon millions own firearms legally. Yet, those millions are not murderers, are good citizens, yet so called gun control laws are virtually always designed to effect and hinder them.

When I begin training a neophyte shooters, the first thing I do is require them to stare at a gun for 5 minutes. It becomes a very long period of time. Then, I ask them how long they think it would take before the firearm jumped up and began shooting at people. The point is obvious.

As society continues to unravel, emphasis on controlling firearms violence should be aimed at identifying potential abuser behavior, not access to a firearm, which can never be controlled. Only the good citizen is harmed by these kinds of restrictions on a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The drive to DO SOMETHING, no matter how ineffective, is ridiculous and stupid. Legal gun owners are made to be scapegoats for lawmakers who refuse to address the real issues.

Your "point" is a strawman we are not talking about traffic we are talking about guns. Also I have not seen anyone here say guns should be ban, maybe I missed the one person but I haven't seen it.

 

[esmith]

When are you people going to learn that this isn't Canada, Australia, or any other country.
When are you people going to lean that new "feel good" laws will do nothing.
When are you people going to learn that the majority of those that are advocating for more stringent laws know little or nothing about firearms or the current laws on the books.
However, since this is still a free country you have the right to express yourself.

 

[shmogie]

No,

Your "point" is a strawman we are not talking about traffic we are talking about guns. Also I have not seen anyone here say guns should be ban, maybe I missed the one person but I haven't seen it.

it isn´t a strawman, it is an objective comparison of different attitudes related to causes of death. Apparently the life of one killed by a firearm is of infinitely more value than that of one killed in a traffic accident. I have rarely have heard politicians even address the loss of life in traffic accidents, yet a shooting brings them out in droves demanding so called gun control.

This hypocrisy shows clearly the prejudice toward legal gun owners.

The NRA, that nefarious group that has been around since the 1890´s and to which I belong has been begging the Federal government to rigorously enforce existing gun laws, to have mandatory prison sentences for those who break these gun laws, to increase the penalties for their violation, to no avail.

Gun deaths will not decrease significantly till the real cause of them is seriously addressed, the person who pulls the trigger.

 

[Stevicus]

Too many people live in poverty. If the economy truly served the working man making the median wage gun crimes would be far less because people would be too busy with commerce. Instead, today, crime pays much better than hard work.

I agree. It's this and a number of other issues related to the overall malaise and social angst in our society. Dysfunctional families with diminishing ties. More people are disconnected and disaffected. A lot of mental health issues. The state agencies in place to deal with these issues tend to be overloaded, understaffed, and underfunded.

As far as crime, statistically, the murder rate has actually come down in recent decades. According to one source (United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2017), the murder rate peaked in 1980, but now the rate is about half that (although it appears to be inching up again).

I would say that it could be reduced even further if they could call off the war on drugs and bring about serious reforms in that area. That would at least reduce a major impetus for gang warfare and might even make our borders a little safer. It would also reduce our prison population and free up resources which could be better utilized.

As for the guns themselves, that's a tricky issue, politically speaking. A lot of it is historical and cultural - and perhaps considered outdated by today's standards. But it strikes me that certain segments of the population tend to reflect a sub-set in American political culture which is/was somewhat separate and detached from the official government. Some of this phenomenon was circumstantial, such as when various settlements arose quickly and were days away from the closest magistrate or fort. They had to settle their issues and problems on their own, for the most part.

The whole reason they needed any kind of "militia" at all was because, if there was a problem affecting a local area, they had to be ready to deal with it on their own, since it could take days before any troops could arrive.

That phenomenon developed and permeated into a certain aspect of the political culture which still remains to some degree.

 

[shmogie]

Any comparison between death by gun and death by traffic accidents is absurd. Vehicles have a specific, non-killing function, and they fulfil this function millions of times every day for millions of people without leading to death or injury. Guns in private hands, by comparison, are far more likely to cause unnecessary harm to innocents when used than they are to achieve their claimed function to protect people. What's more, vehicles are heavily regulated, requiring strict laws on who is qualified to drive certain kinds of vehicles, speed limits and what kinds of vehicles can be used in which situations.


Because guns aren't achieving their stated aims, and people in countries with stricter gun control and/or far less guns in general are statistically better off and safer. This is like complaining that you want to retain the right to punch yourself in the face just because you feel upset that a minority of self-face-punchers accidentally knock their teeth out and their teeth fly out and hit other people in the eye (or they just straight up decide to hit other people in the face instead).


The point is that you're bad at training people on the dangers of guns?


And what do you base that assertion on?


The real issue being how easy it is for people who wish to cause harm to others to obtain guns.

Seems like a problem with gun control, to me.

Your reasoning is seriously flawed on a number of levels.

You make a false claim about the stated aims of why people own guns. Few primarily own them for self defense. For most, that is a secondary usage. most are used for hunting, or target shooting, or just for shooting cans.

You say that drivers are well regulated and that millions of them drive with relative few deaths, yet more of them die than those from firearms who are owned legally by millions. Further, driving is a privilege not a Constitutionally guaranteed right as is firearms ownership.

My practice of having trainees stare at a firearm apparently was too deep for you to grasp. Thankfully the trainees instinctively understand it. A gun is an inanimate object. In and of itself it is perfectly harmless.

The danger of a firearm rests in the person who uses it. There are no incidents where the gun ¨just went off¨, or where a gun kills someone without action by the one using it. There are no excuses for unsafe handling of a firearm, the rules are few and simple, but they must be rigidly followed and never violated.

Until access to illegal firearms by those who have no right to own them is curtailed, there will be no lessening of firearm death and injury statistics.

Illegal guns flow into this country from Mexico primarily. Most on the black market that crooks access have been stolen or obtained in some illegal manner. A convicted felon can readily and easily obtain a gun in most cities in the,US,totally illegal, but very commonplace.

I understand that the murder rate in London has surpassed that of New York. Those English killers are using knives, and more effective knife control measures are being called for.

I wonder why London has changed from a relative safe city to one where people are being sliced up and stabbed at an alarming rate.

 

[youknowme]

No,

it isn´t a strawman, it is an objective comparison of different attitudes related to causes of death. Apparently the life of one killed by a firearm is of infinitely more value than that of one killed in a traffic accident. I have rarely have heard politicians even address the loss of life in traffic accidents, yet a shooting brings them out in droves demanding so called gun control.

This hypocrisy shows clearly the prejudice toward legal gun owners.

The NRA, that nefarious group that has been around since the 1890´s and to which I belong has been begging the Federal government to rigorously enforce existing gun laws, to have mandatory prison sentences for those who break these gun laws, to increase the penalties for their violation, to no avail.

Gun deaths will not decrease significantly till the real cause of them is seriously addressed, the person who pulls the trigger.

For the third time, I have no interest in debating your strawman. Deal with it. . .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your reasoning is seriously flawed on a number of levels.

You make a false claim about the stated aims of why people own guns. Few primarily own them for self defense. For most, that is a secondary usage. most are used for hunting, or target shooting, or just for shooting cans.

And this usage is not protected by the second amendment.

You say that drivers are well regulated and that millions of them drive with relative few deaths, yet more of them die than those from firearms who are owned legally by millions.

Yet the ratio of uses to deaths and injuries is vastly superior for vehicles than it is for firearms. Statistically speaking, you are far more likely to harm someone when using a gun than when using a vehicle, so the comparison is meaningless.

Further, driving is a privilege not a Constitutionally guaranteed right as is firearms ownership.

A constitutional right that specifies that the right of owning guns is specifically for the purpose of a well-regulated militia.

My practice of having trainees stare at a firearm apparently was too deep for you to grasp.

No really. Just too dumb to make sense.

Thankfully the trainees instinctively understand it. A gun is an inanimate object. In and of itself it is perfectly harmless.

Except when put in the hands of people who would use them to cause harm, which the current laws regarding gun control in the USA allow them to do far too often. This exercise is profoundly childish and misses the whole point. You can put an atomic bomb in a room and stare at it for five minutes and learn it does not harm without being activated, but that tells you absolutely nothing about the actual issues surrounding its use and the problem of the responsibility of those who choose to use it. Your exercise is pointless and you're wasting your trainees time.

The danger of a firearm rests in the person who uses it. There are no incidents where the gun ¨just went off¨, or where a gun kills someone without action by the one using it. There are no excuses for unsafe handling of a firearm, the rules are few and simple, but they must be rigidly followed and never violated.

Yet mass shooting seems to happen in America on a shocking regular basis, and gun laws in America are among the softest in the world.

Until access to illegal firearms by those who have no right to own them is curtailed, there will be no lessening of firearm death and injury statistics.

And what about the deaths caused by legally-owned firearms and the general problems caused by the sheer abundance of firearms in America generated by a poorly-regulated firearms industry? Do you seriously believe the only problems are illegal gun owners?

Illegal guns flow into this country from Mexico primarily.

And, as per usual, it all comes down to "dem foreigners". Rather than reflect on America's own problems caused by lack of regulation, excessive capitalism and generations of social inequality, corruption, racism and blind zealotry to revolutionary-era thinking, the problem is always, always down to "somebody else, somewhere else".

I understand that the murder rate in London has surpassed that of New York. Those English killers are using knives, and more effective knife control measures are being called for.

Nope.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...me-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html
New York murder rate is much higher than London's, new figures show | Metro News
Reality Check: Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's?

I wonder why London has changed from a relative safe city to one where people are being sliced up and stabbed at an alarming rate.

It hasn't.

 

[oldbadger]

yes....

and shortly after.....America will be disarmed

and invaded

first rule of occupation.....disarm the public

Invaded by who?

 

[oldbadger]

This country is practically begging for the chains of slavery. In many ancient societies only slaves were unarmed. People should soberly consider this fact before abandoning the liberties that have been secured for them by the blood of patriots.

Surely you meant ''by the blood of innocent school children'?

 

[shmogie]

I agree. It's this and a number of other issues related to the overall malaise and social angst in our society. Dysfunctional families with diminishing ties. More people are disconnected and disaffected. A lot of mental health issues. The state agencies in place to deal with these issues tend to be overloaded, understaffed, and underfunded.

As far as crime, statistically, the murder rate has actually come down in recent decades. According to one source (United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2017), the murder rate peaked in 1980, but now the rate is about half that (although it appears to be inching up again).

I would say that it could be reduced even further if they could call off the war on drugs and bring about serious reforms in that area. That would at least reduce a major impetus for gang warfare and might even make our borders a little safer. It would also reduce our prison population and free up resources which could be better utilized.

As for the guns themselves, that's a tricky issue, politically speaking. A lot of it is historical and cultural - and perhaps considered outdated by today's standards. But it strikes me that certain segments of the population tend to reflect a sub-set in American political culture which is/was somewhat separate and detached from the official government. Some of this phenomenon was circumstantial, such as when various settlements arose quickly and were days away from the closest magistrate or fort. They had to settle their issues and problems on their own, for the most part.

The whole reason they needed any kind of "militia" at all was because, if there was a problem affecting a local area, they had to be ready to deal with it on their own, since it could take days before any troops could arrive.


That phenomenon developed and permeated into a certain aspect of the political culture which still remains to some degree.

I note your Arizona flag avatar. I too live in Arizona in a rural community where at times law enforcement can be 45 minutes away. b To put it bluntly, the community is armed to the teeth. We will defend ourselves and our community.

But there is more to it. During the various hunting seasons one can hear hunters firing in the hills and deserts. A number of us have built persona;l gun ranges on our land and hearing firearms discharges from these is commonplace, as is seeing people carry firearms openly. Yet there is no demand for restrictions no upset citizenry.

Our community is multicultural, 50% Hispanic, yet there are no race wars, or folk being murdered because of their racial ancestry.

The last gun death in the community was years ago, a man committed suicide because he had terminal cancer.

I live in a gun control advocates worst nightmare, yet the population of the immediate town, seasonally as high as 6,000 is safer by far than in the cities with the strictest gun control laws in the country. There are thousands upon thousands of like communities throughout the country,

Interesting, huh ?

 

[shmogie]

Surely you meant ''by the blood of innocent school children'?

Hey Badger, are you marching for stricter knife control in London and the rest of the UK ? Something needs to be done about your epidemic of knife murders.

 

[Thief]

Invaded by who?

not who.....

how

disarm the public
then armed resistance will not be a problem

no revolt

 

[Stevicus]

I note your Arizona flag avatar. I too live in Arizona in a rural community where at times law enforcement can be 45 minutes away. b To put it bluntly, the community is armed to the teeth. We will defend ourselves and our community.

But there is more to it. During the various hunting seasons one can hear hunters firing in the hills and deserts. A number of us have built persona;l gun ranges on our land and hearing firearms discharges from these is commonplace, as is seeing people carry firearms openly. Yet there is no demand for restrictions no upset citizenry.

Our community is multicultural, 50% Hispanic, yet there are no race wars, or folk being murdered because of their racial ancestry.

The last gun death in the community was years ago, a man committed suicide because he had terminal cancer.

I live in a gun control advocates worst nightmare, yet the population of the immediate town, seasonally as high as 6,000 is safer by far than in the cities with the strictest gun control laws in the country. There are thousands upon thousands of like communities throughout the country,

Interesting, huh ?

Smaller communities do tend to have much lower rates in crime, due to factors which don't seem to have anything to do with the prevalence or lack of guns. Maybe they have closer ties and a greater sense of community which is absent in the more urbanized settings. A smaller pond is easier to manage.

 

[BSM1]

The vast majority of guns used in past mass shootings have been with weapons obtained legally and many of the buyers had signs of prior metal health concerns. It is too easy for nut jobs to get guns.

Here are some simple graphs I made last year, when I was looking into this on my own:

US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation (my graphs are up to 2018)

But this shoots your background check argument in the head (no pun intended). The problem is in the process for obtaining a weapon, it's the laxness of reporting by the authorities concerning the backgrounds. Again, if you want to rail against the one's responsible for this lack, then I'm your huckleberry.

 

[youknowme]

But this shoots your background check argument in the head (no pun intended). The problem is in the process for obtaining a weapon, it's the laxness of reporting by the authorities concerning the backgrounds. Again, if you want to rail against the one's responsible for this lack, then I'm your huckleberry.

You need to learn how to read:

Better background checks is defiantly needed, most of the mass shooting in the US happens with firearms obtained from legal vendors.

 

[shmogie]

And this usage is not protected by the second amendment.


Yet the ratio of uses to deaths and injuries is vastly superior for vehicles than it is for firearms. Statistically speaking, you are far more likely to harm someone when using a gun than when using a vehicle, so the comparison is meaningless.


A constitutional right that specifies that the right of owning guns is specifically for the purpose of a well-regulated militia.


No really. Just too dumb to make sense.


Except when put in the hands of people who would use them to cause harm, which the current laws regarding gun control in the USA allow them to do far too often. This exercise is profoundly childish and misses the whole point. You can put an atomic bomb in a room and stare at it for five minutes and learn it does not harm without being activated, but that tells you absolutely nothing about the actual issues surrounding its use and the problem of the responsibility of those who choose to use it. Your exercise is pointless and you're wasting your trainees time.


Yet mass shooting seems to happen in America on a shocking regular basis, and gun laws in America are among the softest in the world.


And what about the deaths caused by legally-owned firearms and the general problems caused by the sheer abundance of firearms in America generated by a poorly-regulated firearms industry? Do you seriously believe the only problems are illegal gun owners?


And, as per usual, it all comes down to "dem foreigners". Rather than reflect on America's own problems caused by lack of regulation, excessive capitalism and generations of social inequality, corruption, racism and blind zealotry to revolutionary-era thinking, the problem is always, always down to "somebody else, somewhere else".


Nope.
The truth behind the claim that London's murder rate is now higher than New York's
New York murder rate is much higher than London's, new figures show | Metro News
Reality Check: Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's?


It hasn't.

The Heller decision makes it clear that that the second amendment applies to gun ownership, period. The right to own a firearm is sacrosanct, for whatever legal purpose.

So, you don't believe that guns are illegally brought into the country from Mexico. Well, I spent 25 years as a LEO in Southern California, and I know it is true. I only had to disarm a legal gun owner one time., Those that had no legal right to a gun, many times.

When you say the gun industry is unregulated, what exactly do you mean ? Their products are mechanically safe to use, their distribution is closely regulated, the sale of their product is closely regulated, what kind of regulation do you want. ?

The so called war on drugs is a dismal failure. The interdiction of illegal drugs, and the arrest and prosecution of dealers is a lesson in futility.

ANY illegal commodity for which there is a market will be supplied.

A person in any major city can score cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, whatever, in a matter of a few hours, though it's possession is illegal, it's sale is illegal, it's use is illegal, it's importation is illegal, yet the country is awash in illicit drugs,

Until the underlying causes for drug use are addressed, the situation will never change.

Prohibition is another great example of totally ineffective laws passed to control the behavior of a large portion of the citizenry.

Any person can obtain a firearm illegally, if they choose. Millions of people, have obtained theirs legally, and are no threat to anyone.

Thousands and thousand buy illegal firearms and have no legal right to own a gun. Both purchase and ownership are prohibited by federal and state law. The illegal sellers don't care, the illegal buyers don't care, the laws are totally ineffectual.

Confiscation will start a civil war, restrictions on gun sales will have no effect on the tens of millions of guns already in the country, and will have no effect on the availability illegal guns for illegal purposes. most importantly, it will have little effect on the mortality rate from guns.

Until the knee jerk reaction to an object is replaced by serious efforts to understand and mitigate the motivation of those people who commit these heinous acts, nothing will change.

 

[metis]

Several years ago in China, one may remember that a madman went into an elementary classroom and stabbed 22 children, each of which survived. Now, I wonder if that would have been the same result if he had used an AR-15?

 

[youknowme]

But this shoots your background check argument in the head (no pun intended). The problem is in the process for obtaining a weapon, it's the laxness of reporting by the authorities concerning the backgrounds. Again, if you want to rail against the one's responsible for this lack, then I'm your huckleberry.

Also my chart for weapon was obtained legally accounts for unknown cases, that is why it has an unknown category. There were two observations were that category was unclear.

Here is my summary of unclear datum:

Concerning if the weapon used was obtained legally, two of the observations were not format correctly and have been rewritten for the analysis. For the Chattanooga military recruitment center shooting the entry was listed as, “Yes (” some of the weapons were purchased legally and some of them may not have been “), since it is unclear if the shooter used illegally obtained weapons in the event the value was changed to Unknown. For the Texas First Baptist Church massacre the entry was listed as,”Kelley passed federal criminal background checks; the US Air Force failed to provide information on his criminal history to the FBI“, this value was changed to Unknown, as even though the weapons were obtained legally it was due to error in the background check and while that is concerning it is not the focus of this analysis.

 

[metis]

BTW, I do believe some should take a look at relative homicide stats internationally as they pertain to westernized-industrialized countries, and then maybe ask themselves why ours here in the States several times higher that almost all of them?

BTW, the most dangerous gun here in the States by numbers is not the AR-15 or AK-47 but is the far easier to conceal handgun.

 

[shmogie]

You need to learn how to read:

Two questions,. Is the shooter in the mass shootings likely to be the legal purchaser and owner of the gun.

I agree that solid background checks, not investigations, should be done for a firearms purchaser.

However, what use are they when authorities fail in documenting appropriate background information, or fail to notify sister agencies of background issues, or fail to act on background material because of political issues ?