It's the Guns.

[esmith]

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?

One can not say everyone hit with a .223 or 5.56 mm FMJ will die.
One can not say anyone attacked with a knife will live.
Again it all depends on may factors.

Also do you realize that a .223 or 5.56 mm can be used in a semi-auto, a bolt action, slide action, lever action, or break action single shot.
So, I really don't understand why you are picking on a AR-15; any rifle using a .223 or 5.56 mm round can kill you.

 

[youknowme]

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 ?

You can look at the data set (the link a few pages back) and see where they got the gun, I don't feel like making a new chart for that since those data are text (text makes things more time consuming) and there are a lot of missing datum for that variable that I would have to track down. However, just by inspection you can see that there are many accounts where the weapon used was obtained by the shooter(s) at a legal vendor. I would have to account for missing data in that variable and crunch some numbers before I could give you a likelihood, which I don't really feel like doing.

My analysis was on past shootings, this was not a random sample so generalizations to future mass shooters are not fully support by a probability model. However, it is a comprehensive list of past shootings and if we consider that representative of how future shooters may behave then based on my estimations there is a 59% to 77% chance that a weapon used is obtained legally, which I think suggests the majority of mass shootings will be done with weapons that are obtained legally.

Since many past mass shooters have also shown signs of metal health concerns, then perhaps this should be a factor when we do background checks, and perhaps gun owners should be required to lock up all firearms to help prevent friends or family members from using them without their consent.

 

[metis]

One can not say everyone hit with a .223 or 5.56 mm FMJ will die.
One can not say anyone attacked with a knife will live.

"False equivalency", and I assume you know that-- at least I hope you do.

 

[Deeje]

Anyone wanting to fight the US military has lost their mind. Citizens don’t need to be cowboys in the US.

I am always bemused, as a distant bystander, that American people can even entertain the possibility that their puny guns would ever repel the kind of weaponry that is possessed by their government.

It is clear to all intelligent people in the civilised world that if a nation wants to be described as "great", then how can they have more to fear from their own armed citizens than they do from any other threat?

The climate of fear that is perpetuated by the media, dictates a very unrealistic approach to the issue of personal security IMO. Aren't the people's fostered attitudes towards guns, the problem?....and isn't that attitude seriously promoted?.....these weapons (particularly military assault rifles) in the hands of unstable people, kill more children and innocent people than occurs from your military operations.

What stops gun obsessed people from seeing what is obvious to all other observers? I am baffled. Surely this is a case of pure indoctrination.

 

[esmith]

"False equivalency", and I assume you know that-- at least I hope you do.

Just about any person would know that you can do more damage with a firearm than you can with a knife. But I understand your reasoning for the post was nothing more than semi-automatic rifles are bad. However, one must realize that not all of us agree with that position, especially me.
But this is a free country and you can say almost anything you want. We just don't have to agree to or accept your position.

 

[metis]

But I understand your reasoning for the post was nothing more than semi-automatic rifles are bad.

That's not what I was saying nor implying as I was responding to a previous post by someone else dealing with knives.

 

[esmith]

That's not what I was saying nor implying as I was responding to a previous post by someone else dealing with knives.

Reading the below post sure says that you are saying that.

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?

However, let me ask you a very simple question.
Using your above example, what would happen if the "madman" were to attack 22 children with the intent to kill them; It is somewhat easy for a adult to grab a child and slash their neck and they would die. So, your statement is predicated on the fact that it appears that the "madman" did not want to "kill".
An adult with a knife or a firearm with the intent to kill can do so with relative ease especially when it comes to children.

 

[shmogie]

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.

No gun is dangerous, it is the user that can be very dangerous indeed.

 

[Shaul]

A simple correlation study between per capita gun ownership and gun homicide rate shows there is no connection between the two. A R^2 close to 1 would show a correlation and a R^2 closer to 0 would show there isn’t a correlation. The R^2 between guns per capita and firearm Homicide Rate is 0.0107. There is no correlation.

 

[Shad]

I am always bemused, as a distant bystander, that American people can even entertain the possibility that their puny guns would ever repel the kind of weaponry that is possessed by their government.

Afghanistan.... The US has issue fight non-conventional warfare

It is clear to all intelligent people in the civilised world that if a nation wants to be described as "great", then how can they have more to fear from their own armed citizens than they do from any other threat?

The fear is paranoia from the anti-gun crowd.

The climate of fear that is perpetuated by the media, dictates a very unrealistic approach to the issue of personal security IMO. Aren't the people's fostered attitudes towards guns, the problem?....and isn't that attitude seriously promoted?.....these weapons (particularly military assault rifles) in the hands of unstable people, kill more children and innocent people than occurs from your military operations.

False. Most homicides are with hand-gun

What stops gun obsessed people from seeing what is obvious to all other observers? I am baffled. Surely this is a case of pure indoctrination.

The same government that attempted to force JW to do X and persecute your religion for being "unamerican" or what is happening in Russia to JW. People like yourself have merely boxed yourselves in with your pacifism waiting for better people to do what you will not.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am always bemused, as a distant bystander, that American people can even entertain the possibility that their puny guns would ever repel the kind of weaponry that is possessed by their government.

Government wouldn't be able to use its more powerful weaponry if there were a
revolutionary fight. Friend & foe would be in close proximity, making nukes, tanks,
bombers, etc too likely to cause collateral damage. And there'd be backlash among
supporters & within government if they were excessively brutal. So as in typical
modern wars, small arms are still effective.

 

[Deeje]

Afghanistan.... The US has issue fight non-conventional warfare

"As of July 27, 2018, there have been 2,372 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,856 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,320 American servicemembers have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,720 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities."
United States military casualties in the War in Afghanistan - Wikipedia

"During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 31,000 civilian deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900 civilians have been wounded. Over 111,000 Afghans, including civilians, soldiers and militants, are estimated to have been killed in the conflict."
Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present ...

The fear is paranoia from the anti-gun crowd.

LOL...now that is just funny. If everyone is carrying a weapon for self defense, then who is the enemy? Everyone else? What a sad and sick situation....

False. Most homicides are with hand-gun

Yep......mostly semi-automatic weapons...

The same government that attempted to force JW to do X and persecute your religion for being "unamerican" or what is happening in Russia to JW. People like yourself have merely boxed yourselves in with your pacifism waiting for better people to do what you will not.

"Unamerican"? What is that? Is it the same as being "unaustralian"? I think not. I am very happy to be "un" whatever the world thinks is a good thing, but violates the laws of my God. I'd rather obey my God than obey man and offend him.

When have "better people" ever made anything "better" with violence? When has war ever ended war? When has violence ever ended violence.....I think you kid yourself. I know who will be boxed in by their own stupidity. Waco comes to mind....all in that compound were armed. Who won? We do not rely on weapons to make us feel secure....we have something so much more powerful....our faith.

When a government comes after its own citizens who are peaceful, law-abiding and unarmed, that says a lot about the people in government. But when the government goes after those who are armed and ready for a fight......guess who isn't going to be any threat to them?

 

[Deeje]

Government wouldn't be able to use its more powerful weaponry if there were a revolutionary fight. Friend & foe would be in close proximity, making nukes, tanks,
bombers, etc too likely to cause collateral damage.

You assume that collateral damage is a worry for them? Since when has that ever been the case?

And there'd be backlash among supporters & within government if they were excessively brutal. So as in typical modern wars, small arms are still effective.

"Excessively brutal"....what does that mean? Was dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "excessively brutal" in your estimations? How many people thought so at the time? Is vaporizing human beings something that can be justified somehow?

If you live in a country where everyone is packing a weapon....who is the enemy? Its your own citizens!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Well there already was one civil war in our history.

an has nobody learned a lesson from that.?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Sure, but it's still missing the point of the amendment if you're using guns for the purpose of poorly-regulated recreation.

So, you don't believe that guns are illegally brought into the country from Mexico.

Nope, never said that, so the rest of this paragraph is a childish strawman.

When you say the gun industry is unregulated, what exactly do you mean ?

Once again, I didn't say that. I said it was poorly-regulated. Once again, you're engaging a strawman.

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

And yet countries like the UK where firearms are practically non-existent and countries like Sweden which have much stricter gun control don't seem to have the same problem with gun violence that America has. Go figure.

Any person can obtain a firearm illegally, if they choose.

So you're arguing that obtaining a gun illegally is just as easy as obtaining one legally, or that putting regulations on the guns sold or supplied legally, and the industry that produces them, won't make it more difficult to get a hold of them?

Millions of people, have obtained theirs legally, and are no threat to anyone.

And many people get a hold of them legally and pose a massive threat and kill hundreds of people. Do you really think it's worth the deaths of thousands of people every year just so a few million people can own a thing which either they a) will never actually use or, b) will use and statistically make themselves and their family less safe? Again, I'm not even calling for a gun ban, just more regulation. Better regulation doesn't harm the people willing to own and operate firearms within the law at all, all it will do is prevent people who will use guns to harm others from being able to do so as easily. You seem under the unusual impression that putting regulations on a tool made exclusively to kill will somehow harm people who don't want to kill people, which is pretty wrong-headed.

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.

And do you think the sheer number of guns currently in America, both legally and illegally, that have been mass-produced by an extremely lucrative and poorly-regulated industry seeking to flood the market whilst wielding massive political power pays absolutely no role whatsoever in that?

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.

Translation: "There's just nothing we can do despite all the global evidence that suggests gun regulations work to reduce murder rates - our country (the only one in which mass shootings can be considered a regular occurrence) is just completely powerless and no decisions we can make or act on will ever have a tangible difference on this issue despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary".

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.

Great idea! Why didn't I think of that?? Rather than putting guns out of the hands of people who would use them to harm others, or put tighter regulations on an industry which isn't concerned with how much harm their products cause, all we need to do is investigate and eradicate the fundamental causes of all violent crime!

While we're at it, why don't we end all other forms of crime too? And no more war would be a nice idea. And here I was wasting my time thinking of putting more regulations on an industry that regularly causes violent death due to lack of regulation - but, obviously, such thinking is far too unrealistic and utopian.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am not sure why we are still having discussions and debates about Gun ownership and control in the USA
Guns are a religion in the USA. The process of deconversion is nigh on impossible. faith in them is far too ingrained to be changed by rational argument or statistics.
Gun worship is far more important than the few hundred innocent deaths they cause each year.

 

[Revoltingest]

You assume that collateral damage is a worry for them? Since when has that ever been the case?

It has been the case since the Vietnam war.
But collateral damage within our country would be tolerated even less.
Just look at the national outcry whenever a black guy is wrongfully shot.

"Excessively brutal"....what does that mean? Was dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "excessively brutal" in your estimations? How many people thought so at the time? Is vaporizing human beings something that can be justified somehow?

Usage in WW2 against Japan was of course brutal.
Do you believe that our government would use them within our
own borders to take down revolutionaries? I don't think so.
Consider the backlash against government for the Waco incident.

If you live in a country where everyone is packing a weapon....who is the enemy? Its your own citizens!

Many around me carry concealed handguns.
And none is the enemy.
But I don't advocate that everyone carry.

 

[metis]

An adult with a knife or a firearm with the intent to kill can do so with relative ease especially when it comes to children.

It's far easier with a gun because of proximity and it's far deadlier.

One cannot stop all homicides, so the key is to make it more difficult. Having a loaded gun in the house is taking a chance that someone may "lose it" and kill someone else and/or themselves. Instead, there are far superior ways to protect your house and family with relatively little effort that are far more effective according to studies, such as:
outdoor lights (motion detector and/or day/night)
security doors (both screen doors and main doors)
a dog
security systems
not broadcasting that you're going on vacation
keeping a radio on when gone
etc.

My son, who is 47 and suffers from bipolar disorder, tried to commit suicide twice back in his teens by slashing his wrist, and later I asked him that if I had a gun around would he have used it, and he said absolutely he would have.

 

[metis]

A simple correlation study between per capita gun ownership and gun homicide rate shows there is no connection between the two. A R^2 close to 1 would show a correlation and a R^2 closer to 0 would show there isn’t a correlation. The R^2 between guns per capita and firearm Homicide Rate is 0.0107. There is no correlation.

View attachment 27043

That's simply not true because you're throwing other elements into the equation when one compares countries that are modern industrialized countries versus poor countries with much poverty and often unstable governments.

If we compare the US with Canada, France, Belgium, the UK, etc., we have a much higher homicide and violent crime rate than they.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's far easier with a gun because of proximity and it's far deadlier.

One cannot stop all homicides, so the key is to make it more difficult. Having a loaded gun in the house is taking a chance that someone may "lose it" and kill someone else and/or themselves. Instead, there are far superior ways to protect your house and family with relatively little effort that are far more effective according to studies, such as:
outdoor lights (motion detector and/or day/night)
security doors (both screen doors and main doors)
a dog
security systems
not broadcasting that you're going on vacation
keeping a radio on when gone
etc.

And those are all just about preventing an attack or break-in. If we're looking at just keeping one's family safe in general, there are also things like getting a home AED, residential fire sprinklers, and filling in the pool (if the person has one).