IGX

DPR wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... rialPage_h

From the article

out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun.

A sample size of 117 is so small, identifying real trends is a joke. Meanwhile, In those two years, we had...
http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional (see figure 2). Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings.1

So we had about 12,000 gun homicides in one year to their 117 in two years.

The real lesson is that different countries are different. International comparisons that focus on one difference are silly.

That said, Australia's ban on certain weapons is mentioned as a gun control success. It's not clear that it should be.

Pinky wrote:The real lesson is that different countries are different. International comparisons that focus on one difference are silly.

That said, Australia's ban on certain weapons is mentioned as a gun control success. It's not clear that it should be.

I am surprised generally at the lack of solid data to rely on when trying to figure out best courses of action. It seems apparent that more permissive CCW laws don't cause problems. My impression was that the AWB had no effect at all (Columbine happened 5 years in), but that seems disputed now.

Australia seemed to be pretty cut and dry as "effective" though. Where does the doubt on its effectiveness?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Pinky wrote:The real lesson is that different countries are different. International comparisons that focus on one difference are silly.

That said, Australia's ban on certain weapons is mentioned as a gun control success. It's not clear that it should be.

I am surprised generally at the lack of solid data to rely on when trying to figure out best courses of action. It seems apparent that more permissive CCW laws don't cause problems. My impression was that the AWB had no effect at all (Columbine happened 5 years in), but that seems disputed now.

The data on guns in the US suck. No one really knows who owns how many guns where. All of the research on both sides of the issue has relied on shitty proxies for gun ownership like magazine subscriptions and the number of gun suicides.

The data on crime is a little better. We do know how many people get shot, and at some other details about the shootings (how many people were shot, etc.). It's this data that suggests that "assault weapons" are used too rarely in crimes for a ban to have a large (or even noticeable) effect on crime.

Feinstein is claiming that the previous AWB helped, but I don't think there's anything supporting that claim.

Australia seemed to be pretty cut and dry as "effective" though. Where does the doubt on its effectiveness?

Some researchers have claimed dramatic effects, and some claim little to no effect. A quick look at the Leigh and Neill paper that is the source of the most dramatic claims leaves me unimpressed. Their results do not hold in models that account for the fact that the number of homicides can't be less than zero. The only cut and dry part was the expense borne by taxpayers.

In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional (see figure 2). Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings.1

Even this stat is not particularly revealing. Suicide by firearm is primarily done by white males (in 80-90% of cases if I recall), and rarely involves assault weapons. Homicide is concentrated in different demographic and income profiles, and rarely involves assault weapons. Grouping the two together seems pretty simplistic and unproductive.

Just curious. And I'm not being facetious.

I don't like the whole "take away guns" vs "I have a right to own guns" debate. I don't think it will go anywhere.

I think there needs to be a cultural change in how we view guns and gun ownership. Yes, criminals will always get guns and I don't know what to do about that.

However, there are a lot of accidental and intentional shooting deaths every year with legally owned guns.

Is there anything we can do culturally or legally to stop this?

For example, if a person has a restraining order for stalking or violence, should he or she still be able to buy a gun? We had a guy stalk his ex-wife for months and then shoot her in her place of work. The police could do nothing about the stalking and his gun was owned legally.

If someone was doing irresponsible things with his or her gun, would peer pressure for responsible behavior have an effect? Ridiculous example, but do any of you remember the Simpsons episode when Homer got a gun and hosted an NRA meeting? (Everyone was disgusted with him and left.)

Could the NRA start an ad campaign on what it means to be a responsible gun owner? Would this help, would anyone listen? Could the risks of children having access to guns be more plainly stated in a way that makes an impression?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems to me a middle ground needs to be reached and if we want to maintain our freedoms, we need to rise to the occasion and not just cling to the 2nd amendment. I think education could help. But, the current trend seems to be, "don't ask, don't tell, unless somebody gets shot".

Again, I'm not being snarky or disrespectful. Having grown up with guns, they don't scare me and don't want them taken away. However, what people choose to do with them scares me a lot. And I don't think there is a public conversation on the role of society and responsible gun ownership as of yet.

syaigh wrote:For example, if a person has a restraining order for stalking or violence, should he or she still be able to buy a gun? We had a guy stalk his ex-wife for months and then shoot her in her place of work. The police could do nothing about the stalking and his gun was owned legally.

These laws exist in many states, and they're relatively popular. If you examine the literature written by proponents of these laws, they present no evidence they work. However, the studies I saw were all pretty poorly constructed.

syaigh wrote:Could the NRA start an ad campaign on what it means to be a responsible gun owner? Would this help, would anyone listen? Could the risks of children having access to guns be more plainly stated in a way that makes an impression?

Depends on the market-- in areas with high rates of homicides committed by children, there tend to be strong anti-gun laws, the guns tend not to be legally owned, and there tends to be low NRA presence. A different focus on media coverage of sensational gun violence stories (like Columbine and Sandy Hook) would likely do more good-- they are more than capable of showing more restraint in their coverage.

syaigh wrote:I don't like the whole "take away guns" vs "I have a right to own guns" debate. I don't think it will go anywhere.

Extreme A vs Extreme B is sort of the way the US has turned out in most areas, including guns. It basically ensures that no real progress will be made outside of a half-baked "compromise" that really does nothing.

My understanding is that the NRA used to be far more involved in areas related to gun safety, hunter safety and responsible gun ownership. Then, around thirty years ago, they decided to take the organization in a far more political direction which currently means staking out an extreme position and taking loudly to your base. It is hard to disagree with the decision when you look at the kind of money and power they have though that prevents them from being able to come to the table for any kind of meaningful dialogue.

It is not productive to compare gun statistics from various countries. Yes, countries without guns are safer in most ways. However, the fact is that there is essentially a gun for every man, woman and child in the US - getting rid of them is not possible. However, the argument that each of these people should be packing as much heat as they can strap on to their bodies is just as unproductive.

Terry B. wrote: My understanding is that the NRA used to be far more involved in areas related to gun safety, hunter safety and responsible gun ownership. Then, around thirty years ago, they decided to take the organization in a far more political direction which currently means staking out an extreme position and taking loudly to your base.

1 - The NRA does more gun safety education than ANY other organization.

Here, dispel your ignorance: http://programs.nra.org/

Then compare to Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Or the Violence Policy Center.
How many gun safety classes do they offer?


2 - The NRA became "more political" in response to the encroaching Nanny State that wants to treat its citizens like children and disarm them. Political self defense on behalf of gun owners.

syaigh wrote:However, there are a lot of accidental and intentional shooting deaths every year with legally owned guns.

Is there anything we can do culturally or legally to stop this?

Given the number of guns we have in the US, accidental shooting are relatively rare.

But I'm all for responsible gun ownership, and I strongly support safety education and training. The NRA also works to promote education about safe handling, as well as other training. The problem is reaching the people who buy a gun, put it in the bedside table and never go to a range. The NRA doesn't reach them.

What I would like to see more discussion of is safe storage practices, specifically as it relates to theft. Guns are an outstanding target for burglars, and stolen guns tend to end up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. People need to understand that their NRA stickers don't deter burglars when they aren't at home, and they should be encouraged to secure their weapons against theft.

Could the NRA start an ad campaign on what it means to be a responsible gun owner?

I would support this, but they would have to be very careful to not make the ads political. I'm not sure they could resist that temptation.

Again, I'm not being snarky or disrespectful. Having grown up with guns, they don't scare me and don't want them taken away. However, what people choose to do with them scares me a lot. And I don't think there is a public conversation on the role of society and responsible gun ownership as of yet.

I still think you're a little too focused on reckless behavior. Accidents are bad, but our problems with guns are mostly suicide and criminals carrying guns. The first is a messy mental health issue, and the second is a matter of more (and better) enforcement.

syaigh wrote:Just curious. And I'm not being facetious.

I don't like the whole "take away guns" vs "I have a right to own guns" debate. I don't think it will go anywhere.

I think there needs to be a cultural change in how we view guns and gun ownership. Yes, criminals will always get guns and I don't know what to do about that.

However, there are a lot of accidental and intentional shooting deaths every year with legally owned guns.

Is there anything we can do culturally or legally to stop this?

For example, if a person has a restraining order for stalking or violence, should he or she still be able to buy a gun? We had a guy stalk his ex-wife for months and then shoot her in her place of work. The police could do nothing about the stalking and his gun was owned legally.

If someone was doing irresponsible things with his or her gun, would peer pressure for responsible behavior have an effect? Ridiculous example, but do any of you remember the Simpsons episode when Homer got a gun and hosted an NRA meeting? (Everyone was disgusted with him and left.)

Could the NRA start an ad campaign on what it means to be a responsible gun owner? Would this help, would anyone listen? Could the risks of children having access to guns be more plainly stated in a way that makes an impression?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems to me a middle ground needs to be reached and if we want to maintain our freedoms, we need to rise to the occasion and not just cling to the 2nd amendment. I think education could help. But, the current trend seems to be, "don't ask, don't tell, unless somebody gets shot".

Again, I'm not being snarky or disrespectful. Having grown up with guns, they don't scare me and don't want them taken away. However, what people choose to do with them scares me a lot. And I don't think there is a public conversation on the role of society and responsible gun ownership as of yet.

As i read your bolded comment, it seems if he had a gun it was not legally.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdeme ... lence.html

Rights do not come without responsibility. If you choose to own a gun, you must accept the responsibility to know how to use it, how to teach children in your home respect for it, and you must commit to practicing regularly so that in the event of needing to use it you are proficient. My personal opinion is that gun ownership is not simply a right for a few interested people, but a responsibility for every citizen. I'm not a gun lover. Practicing is something I feel responsible to do, not something I particularly enjoy.

Bad guys and crazy people who feel the urge to kill, will do so by any means, and they don't need guns. As I recall, Timothy McVeigh had no firearms. You simply cannot prevent evil and insanity with legislation. You cannot eliminate all risk. The more responsible gun owners out there, the safer I will feel.

I want to have equal firepower to the bad guys, the police, and my government. That is my 2nd amendment responsibility.

Screaming Flying Monkey wrote: Bad guys and crazy people who feel the urge to kill, will do so by any means, and they don't need guns.

Then why are guns the go-to weapon of choice? Why don't we see bombs going off everywhere from the crazies and thugs?

Why, when he had a pistol and a shotgun, did the Rochester shooter go with the assault weapon? Why, when he had two pistols in his pocket, did the Sandy Point shooter go with the assault weapon? It would have been a lot cheaper, and as suggested by your argument just as easy to use a spork.

nafod wrote:Then why are guns the go-to weapon of choice? Why don't we see bombs going off everywhere from the crazies and thugs?

Gangs the US have been using explosives. ATF&E has been working on that angle far years, trying to cut off the flow of explosives to drug gangs.

The US Media focuses on "Gun Crime" because they're a profit driven institution. If it "bleeds it leads".

Most folks don't know that three times the number of people die of medical screw ups, nosocomial infection and other preventable issues than die of shootings. The US Media doesn't think that people dying of MRSA or drug mistakes is newsworthy.

More people probably die from a shitty Diet than all other reasons combined.... but that's not newsworthy either.

nafod wrote:Why, when he had a pistol and a shotgun, did the Rochester shooter go with the assault weapon? Why, when he had two pistols in his pocket, did the Sandy Point shooter go with the assault weapon? It would have been a lot cheaper, and as suggested by your argument just as easy to use a spork.

Google "Booyah". Gangs do use shotguns. If an "assault weapon" appears anywhere near a crime scene it gets on the news.

syaigh wrote:I think there needs to be a cultural change in how we value life.

Amended that for you. It's very broad but the way I see it, it's not about guns, it's about violence.

nafod wrote:Why, when he had a pistol and a shotgun, did the Rochester shooter go with the assault weapon? Why, when he had two pistols in his pocket, did the Sandy Point shooter go with the assault weapon? It would have been a lot cheaper, and as suggested by your argument just as easy to use a spork.

One of the Columbine shooters chose to go with shotgun over assault rifle. And they prepared and detonated many homemade bombs. Not sure what an AWB would do against homemade bombs...
http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

What about the antipsychotic drugs a lot of these shooters were taking?

kreator wrote:
One of the Columbine shooters chose to go with shotgun over assault rifle. And they prepared and detonated many homemade bombs. Not sure what an AWB would do against homemade bombs...
http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

From the website you linked to, one had an assault rifle, one had a Tec 9, they both had sawed off shotguns, they both fired off a lot more 9mm than shotgun shells.

kreator wrote:

nafod wrote:Why, when he had a pistol and a shotgun, did the Rochester shooter go with the assault weapon? Why, when he had two pistols in his pocket, did the Sandy Point shooter go with the assault weapon? It would have been a lot cheaper, and as suggested by your argument just as easy to use a spork.

One of the Columbine shooters chose to go with shotgun over assault rifle. And they prepared and detonated many homemade bombs. Not sure what an AWB would do against homemade bombs...
http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

While valid to a degree these types of arguments dodge the issue still.

Bombs exist, this doesn't render the AWB ineffective; it's an entirely different issue.

I'm and against the AWB, I think the movements are aimed more at getting votes than actually being effective at protecting anyone.

kreator wrote:One of the Columbine shooters chose to go with shotgun over assault rifle. And they prepared and detonated many homemade bombs. Not sure what an AWB would do against homemade bombs...
http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

The homemade bombs were a complete failure, despite the shooters intentions and efforts.

JamesonBushmill wrote: As i read your bolded comment, it seems if he had a gun it was not legally.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdeme ... lence.html

He already owned a gun. He did not get it after the stalking incidents. So, theoretically, he could have been kept from getting a permit, or buying another, but it didn't matter because he already had a handgun and we don't require them to be registered in this state unless they are fully automatic. So, he had a legally owned gun. Granted, he could have run her over with a car or shot her with a crossbow or killed her with a chef's knife, but things like that make me wonder.

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:
One of the Columbine shooters chose to go with shotgun over assault rifle. And they prepared and detonated many homemade bombs. Not sure what an AWB would do against homemade bombs...
http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

From the website you linked to, one had an assault rifle, one had a Tec 9, they both had sawed off shotguns, they both fired off a lot more 9mm than shotgun shells.

Look again. Neither had an assault rifle, even by the false definition of "assault rifle" pushed into use by anti-gun advocacy groups.

Pinky wrote:

nafod wrote:

kreator wrote:
One of the Columbine shooters chose to go with shotgun over assault rifle. And they prepared and detonated many homemade bombs. Not sure what an AWB would do against homemade bombs...
http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

From the website you linked to, one had an assault rifle, one had a Tec 9, they both had sawed off shotguns, they both fired off a lot more 9mm than shotgun shells.

Look again. Neither had an assault rifle, even by the false definition of "assault rifle" pushed into use by anti-gun advocacy groups.

The Tec 9 was banned under the 1994 AWB law. Whichever of the two that was using it carried a 50 round clip and a couple of 30s. As for the 995, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=MIaowjjK ... IaowjjK93U

How many people get killed by bows and cross bows in the US?
Genuine interest on my part.I was interested in getting a crossbow a while back,but it seems you have to have a licence for those here in the nanny state of Sweden.