It's the Guns.

BSM1 said:

Your focus is definitely in the wrong place. If you would read the article you posted you would see that a background check was done but his conviction was not found due to the laxness of the state to enter the conviction in their filings. This is a failure of enforcement, not of a lack of a background check. Now if you want to campaign for the better enforcement of the laws already on the books, then I'm in your corner.

Click to expand...

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)

james dixon said:

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.

I want---

[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)

[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)

[3] provide a valid home address

[4] illegal to carry a firearm in public places


Any objections-?
-

Click to expand...

yeah.....I have the right to keep and bear arms

and that right should not be infringed upon

It’s not the guns. There are other countries (i.e. Canada and Switzerland) with even higher gun ownership per capita than the U.S. that don’t have high gun homicide rates. It is other factors.

Shaul said:

It’s not the guns. There are other countries (i.e. Canada and Switzerland) with even higher gun ownership per capita than the U.S. that don’t have high gun homicide rates. It is other factors.

Click to expand...

That is not true at all.

Data from the Small Arms Survey, supported by more recent figures from other sources, puts the US way out in front in terms of guns per 100 residents, with 112.6, meaning there is more than one gun for each American citizen. The US figures come from a 2012 Congressional Research Service report.

Second in the ranking is Serbia, with 75.6. Its firearm habit is in part a hangover from the break-up of Yugoslavia in the Nineties, subsequent wars, as well as gun laws considered liberal by European standards.

Click to expand...

The 10 countries with the most guns

1. USA - 112.6 guns per 100 residents
2. Serbia - 75.6
3. Yemen - 54.8
4. Switzerland - 45.7
5. Cyprus - 36.4
6. Saudi Arabia - 35
7. Iraq - 34.2
8. Uruguay - 31.8
9. Sweden - 31.6
10. Norway - 31.3

Click to expand...

Mapped: The countries with the most guns (no prizes for guessing #1)

youknowme said:

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)

Click to expand...

How many mass shootings have there been, how are they determined to be mass shootings, and what is the total number of those killed ?

Take that number, and place it next to the number killed in auto accidents every year. You will find that mass shootings result in far, far fewer deaths.

I can virtually guarantee that reducing speed limits by 15%, and mandating an extra 2,000 dollars of safety equipment in new cars will reduce significantly the number of deaths on the road. Add long jail sentences for repeat drunk drivers, and I will guarantee it.

So, lets do that and save more lives, huh ?

Actually, the overall deaths by firearms, not just the ¨mass shootings¨ are about 50% by suicide, and the rest by murderers who have the firearm illegally. Murders by legal firearms owners are relatively small.

I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, but I support effective background checks.

I also support the effective communication between agencies regarding potentially violent people, which dead bodies on the ground have shown not to exist.

I served 25 years as a LEO in the peoples republic of kalifornia, with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books. The overwhelming majority, a huge majority, of crooks who are disarmed by the police have the gun illegally, the same for murderers.

Anyone in that state can obtain a firearm illegally if they truly want one. A crook can do it in an hour.

The myth is continually perpetuated that legal gun owners are apt to commit a murder with their firearm. So, gun laws keep getting proposed and enacted that restrict the legal gun owners.

The criminals laugh at the gun laws and arm themselves, and take advantage of the good citizen following the law who cannot defend himself.

So, what is going to be done to stop a 3 time felon from obtaining a pistol that came across the border as the result of an order of 100 ?

youknowme said:

That is not true at all.





Mapped: The countries with the most guns (no prizes for guessing #1)

Click to expand...

You are correct. I miswrote. I meant to write that other countries with high gun ownership don’t have as similar gun homicide rates, But my main point is still valid. Neither Switzerland nor Canada have gun homicide rates similar to the U.S. Ergo, it is not the guns.

Furthermore, if guns were the cause then the U.S., have the most guns per capita should also have the highest gun homicide rates. But the U.S, doesn’t, it is 31st on the list of gun homIncides by country.

shmogie said:

How many mass shootings have there been, how are they determined to be mass shootings, and what is the total number of those killed ?

Click to expand...

I used the standard definition of a mass shooting when looking at these data: An event will be considered a mass shooting if there are at least three victims involved and a victim will be defined as someone killed or injured by the shooter(s). When I was looking at these data there were 98 observations, each observation was a mass shooting. I could sum up the total killed if I wanted to, but I don't see the point. Mass shootings are still a bad thing no matter how many people die in auto accidents, I hope you understand that.

Shaul said:

You are correct. I miswrote. I meant to write that other countries with high gun ownership don’t have as similar gun homicide rates, But my main point is still valid. Neither Switzerland nor Canada have gun homicide rates similar to the U.S. Ergo, it is not the guns.

Furthermore, if guns were the cause then the U.S., have the most guns per capita should also have the highest gun homicide rates. But the U.S, doesn’t, it is 31st on the list of gun homIncides by country.

Click to expand...

Canada is not even in the top ten on gun ownership and the US is estimated to have more than double the number of guns per 100 people than Switzerland.

Sunstone said:

In the article, David Frum, who is one of the last genuinely moderate Republicans in the country, does not propose any specific solution to the gun problem in America. That's not his point. His point is that change is coming -- slowly -- but coming.

With that in mind, do you think the minority of people in favor of maintaining the status quo when it comes to guns will be able to do so forever? Or do you agree with Frum that change is coming?

Click to expand...

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.

james dixon said:

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.

I want---

[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)

[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)

[3] provide a valid home address

[4] illegal to carry a firearm in public places


Any objections-?
-

Click to expand...

Yes.

1) This burdens legal sales between private parties unnecessarily. Further, this prevents purchasing a gun for an immediate family memeber, this also interferes with estate laws.

2) No problem here as long as it is limited to commercial sales by FFLs.

3) prevents purchase of guns by people without a home address.

4) Unconstitutional

Nowhere Man said:

Well there already was one civil war in our history.

Click to expand...

... which was still fought between governments. The Confederate Army was made up of the armies of the southern states; it wasn't a popular uprising of armed private citizens.

james dixon said:

It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.

I want---

[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)

[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)

[3] provide a valid home address

[4] illegal to carry a firearm in public places


Any objections-?
-

Click to expand...

Safe storage laws have worked well in Australia. Mandatory firearm safety courses for gun owners, too.

Shaul said:

It’s not the guns. There are other countries (i.e. Canada and Switzerland) with even higher gun ownership per capita than the U.S. that don’t have high gun homicide rates. It is other factors.

Click to expand...

That's right. Comparing Canada to the US, here are the biggest differences that I see:

- gun types. Canada's legal guns are almost all long guns for hunting: long rifles and shotguns. Pistols, M-16/AR-15 variants, and many other weapons are considered "restricted" and need special licenses and have heavy restrictions on use. Many weapons that are legal in the US are considered "prohibited" here and can't be purchased at all (e.g. short-barrelled pistols).

- storage. All guns must be stored locked and unloaded. For restricted weapons, there are more stringent storage requirements, and if it has a removable bolt, it also has to be removed.

- usage. Except for very limited cases (e.g. police, security guards and military performing their duties), carrying a weapon to be ready to use it in self-defense is illegal. Restricted weapons can only legally be used on a firing range, and non-restricted weapons are generally only used for hunting, target shooting, killing vermin on a farm, or defense against predators in the wilderness.

- licensing and registration. All firearm owners have to be licensed, including a background check and safety course. For restricted weapons, there's a special license with additional requirements, and all restricted weapons (including all pistols) must be registered with the police.

The short version: while Canada has plenty of hunters, our laws do not reflect the idea of keeping guns for "self-defense."

Your country's problem isn't your number of firearms; the problem is mostly its number of handguns and the rules you have about firearm ownership, storage, and use.

youknowme said:

I used the standard definition of a mass shooting when looking at these data: An event will be considered a mass shooting if there are at least three victims involved and a victim will be defined as someone killed or injured by the shooter(s). When I was looking at these data there were 98 observations, each observation was a mass shooting. I could sum up the total killed if I wanted to, but I don't see the point. Mass shootings are still a bad thing no matter how many people die in auto accidents, I hope you understand that.

Click to expand...

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.

Shaul said:

It’s not the guns. There are other countries (i.e. Canada and Switzerland) with even higher gun ownership per capita than the U.S. that don’t have high gun homicide rates. It is other factors.

Click to expand...

By all means implement the gun laws Switzerland has, rather than just citing them removed from all context.

shmogie said:

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.

Click to expand...

.
That you can't teach without using Strawmen?

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.

Click to expand...

Why not try doing something that WOULD be effective?

Kangaroo Feathers said:

Safe storage laws have worked well in Australia. Mandatory firearm safety courses for gun owners, too.

Click to expand...

Safe storage laws ? How does ¨ safe storage¨ affect the firearms violence incidents in the USA ? I suspect it is minimal.

Mandatory gun safety courses ? How many deaths in the USA are attributed to b unsafe handling of a firearm by a legal gun owner ?

Where the murders are, say the south side of Chicago where virtually all killings are committed by people who own a gun illegally, who is going to go there and force the gangsters to take a gun safety course ?

These ideas are ¨ busy work" straining out the gnat, so the camel can be swallowed, doing ¨something¨.

Acts kill people, intent kills people, behaviors kill people, and until these are addressed so called gun control laws that are only effective in curtailing the good citizen are all smoke and mirrors

shmogie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

shmogie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

shmogie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

shmogie said:

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.

Click to expand...

And what do you base that assertion on?

shmogie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

shmogie said:

Safe storage laws ? How does ¨ safe storage¨ affect the firearms violence incidents in the USA ? I suspect it is minimal.

Mandatory gun safety courses ? How many deaths in the USA are attributed to b unsafe handling of a firearm by a legal gun owner ?

Where the murders are, say the south side of Chicago where virtually all killings are committed by people who own a gun illegally, who is going to go there and force the gangsters to take a gun safety course ?

These ideas are ¨ busy work" straining out the gnat, so the camel can be swallowed, doing ¨something¨.

Acts kill people, intent kills people, behaviors kill people, and until these are addressed so called gun control laws that are only effective in curtailing the good citizen are all smoke and mirrors

Click to expand...

And yet Australian gun crime rates plummeted after such measures were introduced.

I'm extremely disheartened that someone claiming to teach weapons handling to "neophytes " is so dismissive of safety training, and apparently unfamiliar with accidental shooting stats.

I'm guessing the stats are much higher than you think Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics

Kangaroo Feathers said:

By all means implement the gun laws Switzerland has, rather than just citing them removed from all context.

Click to expand...

Exactly since their gun laws are much tougher, including in Israel, than what we have here in the States.

A few years ago I was "talking" on-line with a guy who lives in one of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and he says that they tend to think we're nuts here because we allow just about anybody and everybody to get a gun, and there's no way they'd allow that in Israel.