School shootings and gun control

[subgard]

Jacob said

the media can be said to have blood on their hands.---At least they're a fundamental part of the recurring-school-shooting-machine.

This. Every time there's one of these shootings, I wonder if most of them could be prevented simply by not having the media go on and on about it.
Several mass shooters have actually had "becoming famous" as one of their primary motivations.

As for the original OP, homicides and mass shootings would definitely be reduced if there was a comprehensive ban on firearms. No doubt. But it's not going to happen in the US any time soon (or maybe, ever).

[Scrubby]

Even though it would open another can of worms, if we are serious about lowering homicide rates, prohibition might be the policy we should look at first as it would remove the motive for an enormous number of homicides.

Drug use is illegal and about as common in several other Western countries without creating anywhere near the same amount of homicides. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... -map-world

[GandK]

These are emotional issues, tied to personal ideas of power and identity. That is why the arguments are all emotional drivel on both sides. There is no reasoning it out, because it truly is all about feelings. Do you feel better about yourself and your world when you think you are an empowered individual, a master of your own fate? You are likely to favor gun ownership. Are you empowered by your relationships, your place within the community that surrounds you? Then you are likely to be against gun ownership.

No amount of reason is going to argue someone away from their sense of identity, and attempts to do so meet emotional reactions.

For the record, I used to be anti gun, I'm currently very pro gun, and if there's one thing Ruby Ridge should have taught us all, its that firearms keeping tyranny at bay is a complete myth.

I want to thank you for your post. It's extremely insightful. After chewing on it, I believe I agree with you... this is all about emotion and identity. And I think that's been my problem with this issue. I think I'm having a hard time with everyone's reactions because I don't personally see this issue as any different than other civil liberties issues. It isn't part of my own identity (at least not consciously), so I wasn't processing that it is part of other people's.

Ruby Ridge happened the summer after I graduated high school (1992). I didn't remember much about it so I went and looked up the facts after you mentioned it. It's truly mind-boggling how much the government screwed up there. So, so sad.

But nowhere but in the US has I seen the existence of the "everybody has a right to 'defend' themselves (in terms of other humans) with deadly force"-meme. It is even very strong in the US---perhaps part of the culture; Wild West ethics? My point is ... in other countries, it doesn't really occur to use firepower to 'settle' issues such as home intrusions, arguments, gang violence, ... Of course a few do, but it's not a first choice.

Wow. Yeah, very different then. I'm a woman with children to protect. If I detected someone breaking in, I would definitely (1) herd my children into a closet with me, (2) call 911, and then (3) grab and load a gun. That is literally the only scenario I can think of where I would load and perhaps fire the guns that I own outside a rural/hunting situation. If the burglars took my stuff and left, I wouldn't touch them. But if they tried to come into the closet after us? Game over. In defense of my children during a break-in at our home, I would shoot to kill. No question. My assumption at that point would be that it's him or us.

For those here who are not US citizens: every US state has different laws about what you can and cannot do if someone breaks into your home (castle doctrine). Basically in public spaces an American civilian has a duty to flee or to de-escalate any armed situation. But in your home you generally have no duty to flee. In some states you can legally shoot an intruder the second he sets foot in your home. In other states, you can only shoot an intruder if you believe your life, or the life of another person, is in imminent danger. In such circumstances, you are not considered guilty of murder. Legally, it's the intruder's fault that he's dead (had he not broken in, he wouldn't be).

Gangs: this is completely different. In the US, gangs are largely racial/ethnic organizations. White people gangs typically involve either motorcycles or organized crime. Black and brown people gangs are usually street gangs. Pretty much all of them revolve around having a territory in which they are the primary supplier of drugs and, to a lesser extent, prostitution. (Another anecdote: according to G, 98% of the accused criminals he defends are either on drugs or are selling them, and almost all of those cases involve heroin.) But illegal drugs are the main issue with gangs. As @jennypenny said, legalizing drugs would be the undoing of a lot of those folks. That's their money-making engine. Without that cash, they'd dry up pretty quickly. And most Americans don't really concern themselves with gangs and gang violence, because almost all gang violence is infighting. If you stay out of gangs/drugs yourself, your odds of being a victim of gang violence are pretty much zero.

Another anecdote: a British friend of mine, who has lived in Ohio for 15 years now, agrees. He told me once that, "I feel much safer walking the streets here than I did in England. You don't see pods of angry young men here like you do over there. I mean, you have them here, but they're all in bad neighborhoods, and they only go after each other. In England, yobs are all over the place and they go after everyone. You really can't get away."

Mass shootings are unrelated. (Guns just make it easier ... but some year ago, someone in Germany used the same concept with a sword.) Mass shootings, like hijackings, seems to be media-driven. These are very novel ideas if you think about it and generally wouldn't occur to anyone if they didn't read about them in the newspaper all the time. Depending on how one likes to put blame/cause-effect in a complex system, the media can be said to have blood on their hands.---At least they're a fundamental part of the recurring-school-shooting-machine.

Yes. The media has a lot to answer for. When they sensationalize violence, they not only incite more school shootings, but they make the paranoid more so. Everyone who has a gun then holds it tighter out of fear that it will be taken, and everyone who doesn't panics about the gun owners, also out of fear.

[EMJ]

President Obama challenged the media to put gun violence into context. The media responded.

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/3 ... responded/

[Solvent]

@Solvent
Gun control debates frustrate me because the majority gets punished for the few. I also feel that most people's idea of a "cure" is extremely simplistic and in many cases a violation of fundamental rights.

Maybe. Or possibly the few* are being punished (that is, slaughtered) so the many can carry around bushmasters and glocks.

*Although it's not quite 'few,' but I guess you need to put 32,000 people in the context of a population of 319 million.

[Scrubby]

Currently there are conservative estimates that over 300 million firearms are circulating in the United States. Let's pretend a moderate stance on gun control were enacted, say a hunting rifle and a shotgun allowed per household. What happens to all of the "assault rifles" and handguns? Think about the reality of that situation. Millions of guns would suddenly become illegal and everyday, normal people would then be subject to the actions of the government. The situation would create a whole new class of criminals overnight because I can assure you that not everybody is going to willingly turn their weapons over to the government. What then? War on Drugs, anyone?

What you describe I would consider quite strict, not moderate. It's certainly more strict than the rules in my country. Lots of people have both several rifles, shotguns and hand guns here. The main limiting factor is that you have to be an active member of a gun club, a licensed hunter or a registered gun collector to have them. In the US I imagine the only thing that would happen is that they would have to be registered, and perhaps you would have to store them locked up in a safe way when they are not being used.

[Dragline]

So has anyone changed their mind yet?

I prefer to look at this as a set of risk factors, and find that both sides of this debate are wrong about their fundamental beliefs. And these beliefs are emotionally and/or culturally driven.

The gun control side is wrong in believing that the likelihood of being killed by someone else with a gun has been increasing or is significant for most people.

The gun ownership side is wrong in believing that having a gun is likely to increase your personal safety.

*************************

Basic stats on gun-related deaths are found here: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/ ... c-unaware/

Summary:

"U.S. Firearm Deaths

In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, compared with 7.0 in 1993, according to CDC data.

In 2010, CDC data counted 11,078 gun homicide deaths, compared with 18,253 in 1993.5

Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).

By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims in 2010 were ages 18 to 40, an age range that was 31% of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 40.

A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55% in 2010, compared with the 13% black share of the population). Whites were 25% of victims but 65% of the population in 2010. Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population in 2010.

The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981."

************************
You can compare likelihoods of death by firearm with other ways to die here:

http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowled ... chart.aspx

It's relatively high, but not as high as getting killed in car crash. As noted above, most gun deaths are suicides. This is likely because, contrary to popular belief, most suicides do not involve a lot of planning, but are almost spur of the moment decisions by very depressed people who may also be abusing substances. The availability of a firearm at the time the decision is made greatly increases the likelihood the person will succeed in killing themselves. Most people survive other methods -- pills are the most common.

************************

Having a gun in your home makes you less safe on average: http://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home

Of course, this does not account for how it is being stored -- which I would expect makes most if not all the difference.

This statistic is confirmed by the professional risk assessors known as "the insurance industry": http://www.costulessdirect.com/blog/doe ... ance-rate/

Unlike an alarm system, you do not get a discount for having a gun and may have to pay more depending on your insurer and location. As they say, money talks and bullshit walks.

************************

So what does this tell me as to decisions based on risk factors and not emotions?

Most people get hung up on what the laws are or should be and don't think about what they should be doing themselves. It's more useful to assume the laws are not changing in the near future and act accordingly.

First, for most people, there is no rational safety-related reason to own a gun, unless you are a professional (law enforcement, etc.) or live somewhere that has a lot of crime or is isolated and lacks law enforcement. You may have many other reasons, but they are probably emotional (it makes me FEEL safer), cultural/identity-related (being part of the family/club/movement), or hobby-related (it's a source of personal enjoyment/I'm a marksman or a hunter). Gun ownership may also carry potential financial liabilities.

Second, you are unlikely to be a victim of gun violence if you: do not have an unsecured one in your house; stay out of homes/places with unsecured firearms and/or unstable people; stay away from young men known to be likely to have firearms; and stay out of high crime areas.

Note that if the heads of households would have followed the foregoing recommendations, neither Columbine, Sandy Hook or the latest tragedy would have happened, or at least not in the way they happened. Mrs. Lanza was particularly idiotic, and am still scratching my head as to why the latest shooter's mother allowed him to purchase and keep 13 firearms in their apartment when the guy was obviously disturbed and couldn't even hold down a job.

My own personal experiences:

We had guns in our house and they were not secured. My mentally ill brother took one and held up a convenience store in a drug fueled frenzy. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

I was a witness to a shooting once by a disgruntled employee at NBC in New York. I was across the street when he started shooting. My advice is such situations is to get down -- its difficult to tell where shots are coming from right away.

I like shooting guns. It's fun and I've done it on many occasions. But not fun enough to be responsible for one. I don't own skis either.

YMMV

[Scrubby]

What are we disagreeing about then? Many guns laws and restrictions are in place already in the United States. And the proposals going forward either are extreme or they are completely ineffective. When the President says that "we must do something" what does that mean? I am truly interested in what others solutions might be.

Straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaul ... e_full.pdf
He mainly wants to fix the background check system because it's flawed, ban "assault weapons" and magazines with a capacity of more than 10.

According to factcheck.org this would not mean confiscating existing "assault weapons" (which I think really means semiautomatic rifles), only banning the sale of new ones. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-ob ... n-control/

[jennypenny]

According to factcheck.org this would not mean confiscating existing "assault weapons" (which I think really means semiautomatic rifles), only banning the sale of new ones. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-ob ... n-control/

That article is from a couple of years ago. IMO, Obama hinted at confiscation by referencing what Australia and the UK did in response to mass shootings in his speech the other day ... "We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours -- Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it." Source.

Semi-auto and automatic weapons make up about 2% of privately-owned guns in the US. I don't think a 2% reduction would accomplish anything except give politicians something to crow about. That's why I feel like all of the rhetoric is just political lip service.

I wish this issue was left to the States. I don't really care if NY wants to ban all guns. I have the option of living somewhere else if I choose. I can't imagine what would happen if the Federal government tried a universal ban/buyback. There are states that would secede before giving up their second amendment rights. (I'm not trying to be dramatic. I honestly think it's true.)

[Dragline]

[

I wish this issue was left to the States. I don't really care if NY wants to ban all guns. I have the option of living somewhere else if I choose. I can't imagine what would happen if the Federal government tried a universal ban/buyback. There are states that would secede before giving up their second amendment rights. (I'm not trying to be dramatic. I honestly think it's true.)

Well, the Second Amendment allows US citizens to own guns, as set forth in the Heller case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller

Despite popular delusions to the contrary, the US courts get to decide what the Constitution means and have interpreted the Second Amendment similar to every other Constitutional right, which means it exists and has teeth, but is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. The parameters and limitations are being worked out in the courts right now. but most current restrictions are in compliance. It's only in DC and a few other places there are serious challenges.

There is an abominable ignorance among US citizens about the Constitution, encouraged by some politicians of all stripes, because many insist that they are allowed to interpret it on their own or as a political matter, as if it were Christians arguing about the Bible. That function belongs to the courts, under a federalist/Constitutional doctrine known as the "separation of powers", which many have heard about, but few seem to appreciate.

Most of what was "left to the states" under the 10th Amendment was reversed by the 14th Amendment. Amendments are permitted by Article V of the Constitution. No discussion of prior amendments is meaningful without considering subsequent amendments and their interpretation.

What's most interesting about Heller in my view is that the gun lobby (NRA) did not want it to go to the Supreme Court for interpretation. They would have preferred the issues remain ambiguous, so that they could interpret them favorably or unfavorably as the current appeals for funds warranted. If you understand the economics of lobbying, you'll understand that the best thing that can happen to your lobbying organization is LOSING a Supreme Court case.

Here, the gun lobby "won", although the decision was a trojan horse of sorts, because it allows for reasonable regulation. To be interpreted by the courts, not you, your uncle or favorite politician or commentator.

[SimpleLife]

Wonder why sooo many of these shootings happen in "gun-free" zones? Hmmm...If we only knew the reason they target places where people are unarmed or disarmed, I should say, by policy/law.

[Riggerjack]

"But there is no empirically and morally defensible position for maintaining gun rights at their current level in the US, if you also hold that frequent mass murders are bad"

Honestly, I don't think mass shootings are a real problem. Yes, people die, lives are changed, etc. Yes, it is bad. But your odds of being a mass shooting casualty is about the same as being a victim of shark attack. I have zero anxiety about nuts with guns. Honestly if I were seriously worried about being shot by a stranger, I would push for clearing up traffic. Road rage is a far bigger threat. Frustrated and entitled drivers are much more unstable than delusional engineers barking at the moon and hearing voices.

As for the link above pointing out that gun deaths go down in restrictive states, well, yes, if you include suicide. I don't think the gun control debate is really about suicide prevention, though. Incidentally, the lower gun death suicide rate in restrictive states is made up in other forms of attempted suicide. They don't even slow down suicides, they just ensure that the success rate goes down, and the pain experienced by the successes is increased.

[Scrubby]

I wish this issue was left to the States. I don't really care if NY wants to ban all guns. I have the option of living somewhere else if I choose. I can't imagine what would happen if the Federal government tried a universal ban/buyback. There are states that would secede before giving up their second amendment rights. (I'm not trying to be dramatic. I honestly think it's true.)

I wouldn't be surprised, and I think neither would Obama or most other American politicians. That's another reason why I think it seems extremely unlikely that that's what he means.

[Chad]

@Chad
See my point here? Let's deal with fundamental realities before we start attacking each other with implications that I am comfortable with nine people getting murdered.

And, my point is that fundamental realities include legit facts from other countries. You can't just toss aside information you don't agree with. Thus, my criticism of your argument. Especially, when you start by saying all you want to focus on are the facts and then a paragraph or two later say how annoying it is that others bring up facts in their arguments for gun control.

I don't like that it happened, I am certainly not comfortable with it, I don't chalk it up as the price of freedom, but I also know that most of these ideas to curb the violence will never have an effect or they will greatly infringe upon either our civil liberties or our Constitutional Rights.

I haven't discussed any specific law changes. There is no doubt that some suggested changes to the laws are foolish and some people are overly afraid of guns, but just because some extremists don't know what they are talking about doesn't mean we can't make smart changes to how guns are purchased and owned in this country. Ego's example is a good one.

Again, we shouldn't do this just because it would be hard?

[Chad]

That article is from a couple of years ago. IMO, Obama hinted at confiscation by referencing what Australia and the UK did in response to mass shootings in his speech the other day ... "We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours -- Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it." Source.

We both know this would never pass in the current environment. Though, I do think if we don't make intelligent proactive choices we risk having this happen 20-30 years from now. I'm not against guns at all, but I am against the extremism that exists on both sides. We don't need the wild west to just have guns.

Semi-auto and automatic weapons make up about 2% of privately-owned guns in the US. I don't think a 2% reduction would accomplish anything except give politicians something to crow about. That's why I feel like all of the rhetoric is just political lip service.

Except 2% is a very large number in our gun crazed market.

in its 2011 annual report to investors, Smith & Wesson Holding Company noted that there was a $489 million domestic, non-military market for “modern sporting rifles,” a euphemism for auto-loading, assault-style rifles

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... erica.html

Yes, I realize this is Slate. Yes, I realize they get extremist the other way. This was just for the dollar amount quote.

I wish this issue was left to the States. I don't really care if NY wants to ban all guns. I have the option of living somewhere else if I choose. I can't imagine what would happen if the Federal government tried a universal ban/buyback. There are states that would secede before giving up their second amendment rights. (I'm not trying to be dramatic. I honestly think it's true.)

Except you kind of need a floor put in by the federal government, so a few states aren't out of control and bleeding the problem over into other states. Such as making all laws applicable to gun sales at gun shows, laws correcting Ego's previous scenario, etc.

Also, allowing states to do whatever they want makes it very difficult to even move across states without breaking laws if you own firearms.

[Riggerjack]

@dragline
Thank you. You've posted some well articulated posts. A real pleasure to read.

I do have a bit to pick, though.

The bit about little thought going into suicides. This comes from an anti gun group called means matter. They surveyed unsuccessful suicides, to see how long they thought before deciding to commit suicide. The average was less than 5 minutes. From this, they extrapolated that the average suicide planned for less than 5 minutes, and therefore if you removed the tool that had the highest success rate (guns) you would save the majority of suicides...

This is wrong on so many levels.

If you only put 5 minutes of planning into your suicide, I'm not surprised that you are both around to be surveyed, and willing. To extrapolate from this group with a disproportionate number who were "crying for help" is PR, not science. This is just another group trying to tie the emotional damage of suicides to guns.

All the training I went thru shows a different story. That the suicide would go thru a period of depression, followed by a period of calm, often later described as happy, when the decision was made, and goodbyes said, then the suicide. This fits my own experience, and all the literature from 20 years ago. Maybe there are more impulse suicides now, but I think it is more likely that this is just more public manipulation.

But again, thanks for your posts.

[jacob]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2252120052

Aside from the wealth of qualitative evidence for imitation in massacre killings, there are also some hard numbers. A 1999 study by Dr. Mullen and others in the Archives of Suicide Research suggested that a 10-year outbreak of mass homicides had occurred in clusters rather than randomly. This effect was also found in a 2002 study by a group of German psychiatrists who examined 132 attempted rampage killings world-wide. There is a growing consensus among researchers that, whether or not the perpetrators are fully aware of it, they are following what has become a ready-made, free-floating template for young men to resolve their rage and express their sense of personal grandiosity.

... followed by how to prevent this template. [Hint: Don't publish it]

[GandK]

Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).

Men and boys are also the perpetrators. Between 1980 and 2008, males committed 90.5% of homicides in the US (source).

As a woman, this pisses me off. As the mother of sons, it frightens me. But, like mental illness, this is a risk factor that no one wants to discuss because it makes people squeamish: by and large it's our boys who are doing the shooting. It's easy to assume this is because of testosterone. But is there more to it?

First, for most people, there is no rational safety-related reason to own a gun, unless you are a professional (law enforcement, etc.) or live somewhere that has a lot of crime or is isolated and lacks law enforcement. You may have many other reasons, but they are probably emotional (it makes me FEEL safer), cultural/identity-related (being part of the family/club/movement), or hobby-related (it's a source of personal enjoyment/I'm a marksman or a hunter). Gun ownership may also carry potential financial liabilities.

No argument, but I'm reminded of the recent case in Kentucky where a man shot down a drone over his own property that he and his neighbors claim was hovering over his sunbathing teenage daughters.

[George the original one]

> and am still scratching my head as to why the latest shooter's mother allowed him to purchase and keep 13 firearms in their
> apartment when the guy was obviously disturbed and couldn't even hold down a job.

Because she believes most of the same loser racist skinhead crap that the shooter does, thus the two were self-reinforcing their waste of money on weapons that only took lives.

[jennypenny]

I thought his mom was black and he was bi-racial?

I think in his case, Mercer was just an angry guy in it for the glory. From a Daily Beast article, Mercer said of Vester Flanagan (VA shooter) ... People “like him have nothing left to live for,” Mercer wrote on August 31. “On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are... A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

Also, allowing states to do whatever they want makes it very difficult to even move across states without breaking laws if you own firearms.

In some places, it's already difficult ... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -c-w-cooke