Guns in America

[Tyler9000]

I wonder if they have the same types of arguments about trucks in Europe. Or knives in China. Or grenades in Sweden.

IMHO, focusing so much on the tools of killers rather than the motivations of killers misses the point entirely.

[ThisDinosaur]

@Tyler9000
I think it's significant that guns are tools designed specifically for killing, while vehicles and cooking implements are not. I think cigarettes are a better analogy here since there's no other redeeming quality about them.

Although people used that argument to make recreational drug use illegal, and I'm strongly pro-legalization. Even though I don't use. Interesting.

And I imagine if I'm convinced to agree with liberals about gun control, I'd probably agree with strong hand grenade laws, too.

[slowtraveler]

During the 1992 race riots, police did not defend many businesses from looting. Business owners had to take up arms to defend themselves from having their businesses pillaged. If it were not for guns deterring the criminal actions of looters, they would have suffered large losses to their livelihood.

[Peanut]

School shootings are on the rise. One a week roughly now in the US, I think it was reported. As a parent this is especially terrifying. It is a phenomenon that since Columbine has taken on a life of its own. Disaffected young men have a go-to script and compete with each other to cause the most terror and destruction. In my view it's blithely accepted as the collateral damage to owning guns by enough Americans that the trend will only intensify. Is there reason for anything but deep pessimism about the safety of churches, colleges, nursery schools?

Weapons do matter imo. Especially such brutally efficient ones. "Nukes don't kill people; people kill people" the satirist said.

[Tyler9000]

School shootings are on the rise. One a week roughly now in the US, I think it was reported.

I'm skeptical. The Washington Examiner debunked a similar claim just today.

TL;DR -- classifying suicide in an empty parking lot, shooting a pellet gun at a school bus, or a third grader pulling the trigger of an officer's holstered weapon as "school shootings" is highly misleading.

[IlliniDave]

Having firearms available certainly contributes to their use, but the "why" behind their use isn't their availability. I suppose like most things there is a balance that would optimally be struck. The thing I always wonder about is how people (for the most part lonely males of various ages) become so dissociated from the social structure that they either feel compelled (or maybe just want some sort of attention/validation) to strike out in such a bloody fashion.

[ducknalddon]

Prohibition does not work, never has and never will. What percentage of deaths come from mass shootings vs police brutality?

It has worked in the UK and Australia.

If you want to talk about police brutality there were four deaths attributed to the police in the UK during 2017 and one of those is disputed.

[Jason]

No guns, no America. They were the instruments used to establish the country and the original ideals it was based upon. Being a relatively "new" country, our history does not start with a bunch of guys on horses protected by iron stabbing the crap out of their enemies, but a bunch of guys with guns shooting the shit out of their enemies. We learn that at a young age. That's why even when I watch Game of Thrones with all that sword play, I assume that shit is going down in some alternate, pussy ass European universe. That's why comparing the US to other countries on this issue is apples and oranges. And of course, less than a hundred years later, we started shooting the shit out of ourselves and my understanding is that based upon book sales, for the majority of people living outside the US, that's the part of our history they are most interested in.

Do I personally think some people idealize our origins, specifically making the very notion of liberty itself commensurate with the right to own fire arms, absolutely. I think it's both simplistic and reductionist and oftentimes a rationalization to gather an arsenal for personal psychological reasons. However, guns got us here, then soon settled our own scores and its why all these episodes intermittently arise, get some attention/outrage but disintegrate before gaining any traction. No one let's someone take their ladder away just because they got to the roof.

[Peanut]

School shootings are on the rise. One a week roughly now in the US, I think it was reported.

I'm skeptical. The Washington Examiner debunked a similar claim just today.

TL;DR -- classifying suicide in an empty parking lot, shooting a pellet gun at a school bus, or a third grader pulling the trigger of an officer's holstered weapon as "school shootings" is highly misleading.

I looked at the article. I recommend it and I cannot believe anyone would think the vast majority of these incidents are no big deal. Just because these are not all mass shootings does not make these incidents harmless. They were almost all potentially deadly for innocent bystanders not to mention actually deadly for those involved in several cases.

Suicide on school grounds is not great either; nor is a child interfering with an officer's weapon. Taking away the three cases listed you're still left with sixteen incidents in the span of six weeks.

Anyway the rise in school shootings is tracked from 2013 not just the beginning of 2018 in a nyt piece published after Kentucky. I do know someone in my church whose nephew had to run away from that shooter.

I don't understand the desire to minimize the issue as what? liberal hysteria? Your children could die at school in a way that is uniquiely American. This has been shown every year for almost two decades.

We can't get rid of guns at this point that's clear. Nor is there the political will to do so. Really the NRA can rest easy. And apparently any desire to address the demented psychological motivations of shooters or irresponsible practices of too many gun owners is missing as well.

[ducknalddon]

That's why even when I watch Game of Thrones with all that sword play, I assume that shit is going down in some alternate, pussy ass European universe.

There is no need to insult all the Europeans here.

[vexed87]

Prohibition does not work, never has and never will. What percentage of deaths come from mass shootings vs police brutality?

It has worked in the UK and Australia.

It has worked, and it hasn't. In terms of deaths in school shootings, they have been reduced, murder rates, not so much, I think murder rates actually increased after the 97 gun control laws came in the UK. The issue is not really the guns, but the people wielding them. Truth is, anyone planning a school shooting can still get hold of a gun if they really wanted, but in the UK, they'd have to be really quite motivated. The general populace is no longer equipped to deal with this without calling in armed police which is a major con if you ask me. I think America has a school shooting problem because every time it happens, rightly or wrongly, it's widely publicised in the media. It has interesting parallels to how radicalised 'terrorist' now widely ram a van/lorries into a crowds of people, they see it on TV and want to get in on the action.

[Jason]

That's why even when I watch Game of Thrones with all that sword play, I assume that shit is going down in some alternate, pussy ass European universe.

There is no need to insult all the Europeans here.

You're right. I should have just said French. But if your European honor remains grieved, I'm willing to duel over it.

[IlliniDave]

What the young man did Florida is already illegal. In the end I suspect there will be a long list of gun-related charges brought besides the murder/attempted murder, or at least there could be if there is a trial (he's already confessed and is probably well into capital crime territory). IOW, more gun laws just means more charges can be piled up after the fact in these cases. The only choice in the realm of firearm possession seems to be disarming the population which would require amending or discarding the Constitution, both of which are problematic.

I don't know if it feasible to cull these individuals from the herd a priori without some serious trampling of people who would never turn into mass murderers. What if it is your child who is a loner and/or exhibits some antisocial behavior as a teen/adolescent and gets singled out as a potential future mass murder risk?

What could be done is to take some steps to make soft targets harder, but ultimately that would lead to enough of an armed presence at schools to provide a true deterrent, which people don't like, and to make entry into a school much like getting to the boarding area of an airport (in some places I believe it already is).

It might also help if people who did these things weren't awarded a celebrity of infamy, but the cat's already out the bag on that one.

[Sclass]

Hi My name is Sclass and I own a gun (or two).

I think it would be wise to look to countries that handle guns effectively, like Switzerland and Israel. There's a military rifle in nearly every home there, but the murder sprees are few and far between. I'm curious what would happen if you had to join a civil defense force or something to own a gun in the US, where you'd receive training and a uniform and would be booted for mental problems like in the military.

I like the Swiss system. My Swiss friends hated it. It was a lot of work and they hated having the responsibility of having an FAL in their dorm room. Think of it from the other side, if you’re a gun hating liberal and the govt forces you to be a gun owner.

[quote=slowtraveler post_id=161532 time=<a href="tel:1518708055">1518708055</a> user_id=4187]
Prohibition does not work, never has and never will. What percentage of deaths come from mass shootings vs police brutality?

It has worked in the UK and Australia.

I wouldn’t really call the UK prohibition. (I know you didn’t the quote did). It is more like strict regulation. I like the British FAC system. It certainly keeps guns out of the hands of idiots. You can have a gun if you are dedicated enough and have the resources. The FAC System is multiple hurdles to separate the serious from the idiots. It takes dedication, investment and time. People good at that generally don’t massacre people. By its construct you have a lot to lose if you appear to misbehave...both social capital or monetary capital.

Unfortunately it has other issues like if you don’t have hunting permissions, money and good standing in a club (a mental check of sorts) you’re out of luck. So every citizen cannot realistically be armed with a gun. You have to really want it. A big no no for Gun rights folks.

Just mentioning it because I like the vetting process of the FAC System and most people celebrating or condemning the UK law really don’t know the ins and outs of the FAC. It forces people to be responsible.

Having firearms available certainly contributes to their use, but the "why" behind their use isn't their availability. I ...,

Great point ID. I call it the idiots with guns effect. Just type that into YouTube and you’ll wonder why we have as few gun fatalities as we actually do. Restricting guns like they do in my native CA is not helping...they need to restrict people. That’s why I like the British FAC System.

As a hunter and gun owner I’d really like these guys taken out of the equation. But again if you take personal freedom and unalienable rights seriously you’ll have issues with this too.

[Jason]

America has always been conflicted over what should be prioritized when discussing "Freedom": liberty or equality. Liberty is usually expressed as "my right" and equality as "everyone's right." In the gun debate it manifests as "my right to have a gun in order to protect myself and my family" vs. "every child's right to be safe at school." This dichotomy is subsequently expressed in political philosophy (Conservative vs. Liberal), party affiliation (Republican vs. democrat), media preference (Fox vs. Washington Post). So now you're stuck with these competing narratives, codified at every level, that have become so entrenched in their opposition to one another that when these incidents happen the gun advocates fear mentioning guns and the gun opponents fear mentioning mental health in case they are acquiescing to the other side, as though guns and mental health are issues that define only one side of the argument, not issues that can be acknowledged by both sides. Mass shootings merely become anecdotal rationalizations or condemnations of two distinct viewpoints and one literally fears they are going to get their head blown off if they ask a question or raise a point in the discussion. Statistically I understand that I stand the same chance of having a piano fall on my head as I do getting slaughtered in a mass shooting. But that doesn't mean that the specific sub-category of "getting slaughtered in a mass shooting" cannot be addressed on its own terms. And raising that concern doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe people should own guns or that I blame guns for the event.

[Riggerjack]

Well, as I said, I'm a single issue voter, and this is that issue. But even I was cool with losing bump stocks. Faster than semi auto, slower and less accurate than full auto, and unreliable. The worst of all worlds, defending the right to bump stocks was strategically sound, but horrible tactics for the NRA.

TD, you are equating gun violence with violence. Easy enough to do in our culture, and that is the default position as a non gun guy, that you have been trained to do. But I have faith that if you apply yourself, you can see the distinction between the presented arguments on both sides.

Firearms empower the little guy. In a world without them, we go back to size, training, and numbers as the determining factors of behavior.

Firearms are an egalitarian force in our society. They empower the little guy. The people with power have to factor in that the guy they want to push, may have a surprising amount of push back.

We can talk all day about the damage people do with guns. Or knives. Or cars. Or tobacco. Or partially hydrogenated oils, but if we are only talking about one side of any subject, we aren't interested in the reality, we are interested moralizing. And if that is all one is looking for, I'm not interested.

[7Wannabe5]

Firearms empower the little guy. In a world without them, we go back to size, training, and numbers as the determining factors of behavior.

Off the top of my head, I would suggest that you are forgetting spying, sabotage, basement publication, passive resistance, trickery, fire accelerants, snares and clever use of toxins as possible "little person" options.

[Jason]

I would like to add internet trolling to that list.

[rube]

I compared the amount of guns and amount of death by guns in western countries with 25 or more guns per 100 inhabitants:
(number of people killed per 100K inhabitants) : (# of guns per 100K inhabitants) = %

 Finland 0.012%
 United States 0.010%
 France 0.009%
 Austria 0.009%
 Canada 0.006%
 Norway 0.006%
 Sweden 0.005%
 Iceland 0.004%
 New Zealand 0.004%
 Germany 0.003%

And the number of guns owned per 100 inhabitants:
 United States 101.05
 Sweden 31.6
 Norway 31.3
 France 31.2
 Canada 30.8
 Austria 30.4
 Iceland 30.3
 Germany 30.3
 New Zealand 30
 Finland 27.5

And the actual number of deaths per 100K inhabitants due to guns:
 United States 10.54
 Finland 3.25
 France 2.83
 Austria 2.63
 Canada 1.97
 Norway 1.75
 Sweden 1.47
 Iceland 1.25
 New Zealand 1.07
 Germany 1.01

Not taking into account all kind of other possible factors, my conclusion is that the high amount of guns in the USA results in substantially more deaths due to guns.

I'm not saying that shootings and killings won't happen if there are less guns, they will, but there will be simply less death by guns. Wouldn't that fact alone be sufficient to think about how people in other countries like Canada behave with guns and why this is so different from the USA?

Source data: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... death_rate

[Kriegsspiel]

Americans: simply higher skilled in killing. It is known.