Gun Control | Imamother

dancingqueen

Mon, Nov 06 2017, 11:27 pm

Can anyone explain, in light of two of the deadliest mass shootings in American history in the past month, why we can't make it harder for people to get guns, especially semi-automatic rifles?

Mommyg8

Mon, Nov 06 2017, 11:33 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Can anyone explain, in light of two of the deadliest mass shootings in American history in the past month, why we can't make it harder for people to get guns, especially semi-automatic rifles?

I think it's the Second Amendment. I'm not clear as to the procedure for changing an Amendment, my understanding is that it's complicated.

Boca00

Mon, Nov 06 2017, 11:47 pm

The wrong people will always be able to get guns. If we make it harder, the right people will have a harder time getting guns for their own protection.

Mommyg8

Mon, Nov 06 2017, 11:50 pm

I think this cartoon explains the anti-gun control people:

http://www.themainewire.com/20.....mies/

iluvy

Mon, Nov 06 2017, 11:54 pm

Boca00 wrote:

The wrong people will always be able to get guns. If we make it harder, the right people will have a harder time getting guns for their own protection.

Can you answer specifically with respect to (1) semiautomatic weapons and (2) domestic abusers?

amother

Teal

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 12:02 am

Because Americans have a bizarre obsession with their guns that the rest of us cannot even begin to understand.

amother

Teal

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 12:04 am

Boca00 wrote:

The wrong people will always be able to get guns. If we make it harder, the right people will have a harder time getting guns for their own protection.

This is one of those lines that Americans spew without thought.

Look at the countries that have effectively banned guns: Australia, England, possibly Japan.

It can be done.

Mommyg8

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 12:07 am

Yes, but America borders Mexico and South America. What will happen if they ban guns in America? The bad guys will get it from over the border, in a second, and the good guys will be stuck.

To be honest, though, it's probably a throwback to the days when there were wild animals and wild Indians all over, and Americans needed their guns in pure self defense. (I'm not advocating shooting Indians, I'm just stating history).

cbsp

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 12:08 am

Can we ban trucks while we're at it?

How about airplanes?

amother

Teal

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 12:13 am

An eye-opening chart:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/he......html

iluvy

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 12:13 am

cbsp wrote:

Can we ban trucks while we're at it?

How about airplanes?

Trucks and airplanes are useful. What does society gain from a weapon that a single person can use to murder and maim over 600 people in under ten minutes?

Also, why would a "good guy" want such a weapon?

amother

Pearl

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 12:18 am

I will let the always brilliant Dr. Thomas Sowell speak for me:

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?

That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.

But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.
If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.

But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murders, what is the point of tighter gun control laws — and what is the point of demonizing the National Rifle Association?

There are data not only from our 50 states but also from other countries around the world. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's empirical study, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," should be eye-opening for all those who want their eyes opened, however small that number of people might be.

Professor Malcolm's book also illustrates the difference between isolated, cherry-picked facts and relevant empirical evidence.
Many gun control advocates have cited the much higher murder rates in the United States than in England as due to tighter gun control laws in England. But Professor Malcolm's study points out that the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of the murder rate in London for two centuries — and, during most of that time, neither city had serious restrictions on gun ownership.

As late as 1954, "there were no controls on shotguns" in England, Professor Malcolm reported, but only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. Of these only 4 had real guns. But in the remainder of the 20th century, gun control laws became ever more severe — and armed robberies in London soared to 1,400 by 1974.

"As the numbers of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen" is her summary of that history in England. Conversely, in the United States the number of handguns in American homes more than doubled between 1973 and 1992, while the murder rate went down.
There are relevant facts available, but you are not likely to hear about them from politicians currently pushing for tighter gun control laws, or from the mainstream media, when those facts go against the claims of gun control advocates.

Despite hundreds of thousands of times a year when Americans use firearms defensively, none of those incidents is likely to be reported in the mainstream media, even when lives are saved as a result. But one accidental firearm death in a home will be broadcast and rebroadcast from coast to coast.

Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular. Is this because only people opposed to gun control do empirical studies? Or is it because the facts uncovered in empirical studies make the arguments of gun control zealots untenable?

In both England and the United States, those people most zealous for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals and most restrictive on police. The net result is that law-abiding citizens become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun control laws, as they disobey other laws.

The facts are too plain to be ignored. Moreover, the consequences are too dangerous to law-abiding citizens, whose lives are put in jeopardy on the basis of fact-free assumptions and unexamined dogmas. Such arguments are a farce, but not the least bit funny.

Fox

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:21 am

There are reasonable discussions going on about gun control, but it's hard to find them. Unfortunately, gun control is one of those issues where people seem to have imbibed a little too much Harry Potter, and appear to believe that passing laws is like casting a spell.

The most interesting idea I've heard is to ban the manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic weapons. Almost all weapons sold in the U.S. right now are gas-operated semi-automatics, but it's a reasonable argument that limiting sales to completely non-automatic and recoil-operated semi-automatics would lessen the fatal impact of guns without significantly defanging the 2A. Non-gas-operated semi-automatics and non-automatics do not have the same capability for modification and require significantly better aim to hit a target.

Another reasonable argument is to set up (despite the squabbling amongst states that would erupt) national guidelines that include reciprocity and include a national No-Sell list. National lists would make it harder for someone to simply travel to another state with more lenient restrictions and would likewise make it harder for paperwork mistakes such as that of the Air Force with regard to the Texas shooter.

Mass shootings, which of course are a very small fraction of gun fatalities in the U.S., are almost always committed by individuals displaying increasing alienation and incremental acts of violence over a period of time. Better tracking of non-criminal and misdemeanor altercations along with a civil option for temporary gun confiscation could potentially head off would-be mass shooters before they take the final step.

amother wrote:

Look at the countries that have effectively banned guns: Australia, England, possibly Japan.

In 1996 Australia legislated a mandatory gun buy-back of 650,000 guns. Homicides immediately plummeted. What frequently isn't mentioned, though, is that during that same time period, homicides plummeted by similar percentages in the U.S. -- while the number of guns manufactured doubled.

If you look at the homicide rate over time, you see that Australia's rate per 100,000 people only dropped from 1.9 in 1993 to 1.3 in 2006. Apparently Australians are just finding other ways to kill one another. Firearm homicides are now 20 percent of the total, so apparently guns are still making it to Australia somehow. AIC

England's case is discussed in the quote from Dr. Sowell, and Japan, with a homogeneous population and an enviable homicide rate of .31 per 100,000 people but a dismal 15.5 suicide rate, isn't a stunning success story, either.

Rather than a chart comparing raw data, a better argument is that Australia's homicide rate is 1.9 and the U.S.'s is 4.8, but given the diversity of people who have to get along with one another in America and the obvious problem of not having any of those cute flying fox bats to distract us, a difference of 3 people out of every 100,000 isn't a large difference.

iluvy wrote:

What does society gain from a weapon that a single person can use to murder and maim over 600 people in under ten minutes?

You lost me on this. The only weapon I'm aware of that could create 600 casualties in under ten minutes would be a bomb. I know more about guns than explosives, but I'm pretty sure that it's not easy to reliably make an explosive of that size using legally-obtained materials.

I'm not sure what a "good guy" would do with a powerful explosive, but I can tell you what this "good guy" would do with a semi-automatic handgun.

I don't actually have my CCP or own a handgun for the reason that I don't have time to practice adequately, and gun ownership requires a lot of practice. I did complete the initial coursework and an advanced class. But if I did own a weapon, I would use it for personal protection when I'm out at night or in the event of a home invasion. However, I don't need a gas-operated semi-automatic to do either of those things. That's simply what is sold. If I ever needed to fire my weapon, I'd be perfectly happy to manually re-cock the firing mechanism. Anyway, if a single shot doesn't discourage my assailant, I likely have more problems than a semi-automatic would help me solve.

I get it, Teal Amother and others. I really do. It seems absolutely insane that the U.S. goes from one gruesome scene of carnage to the next. I understand why everyone shakes their head and says, "What on earth is wrong with those people?"

Like everything else in life, it's messy and complex. It's not just an inconvenient Constitutional Amendment. It's about history and cultural legacy and lingering resentments from the Civil War. It's about sheepherding in Scotland and English landlords in Ireland and survival in the frontier. It's about mistaken social policy and misguided law enforcement. Yes, it's crazy. Every country is crazy in its own way.

amother

Teal

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:27 am

Fox, when you factor in the number of gun-related deaths that weren't homicides (ie. accidents) then the numbers become more meaningful.

Fox

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:41 am

amother wrote:

Fox, when you factor in the number of gun-related deaths that weren't homicides (ie. accidents) then the numbers become more meaningful.

Since less than 1 percent of accidental deaths in the U.S. involve firearms, I'm not sure where you're getting that.

Ruchel

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 5:01 am

It's their culture.

Israel and Switzerland also have guns (my FIL zal had one!) but they seem less crazy, less idolizing, and more regulating.

amother

Copper

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 5:16 am

I live in Israel in a settlement in Samaria and I have a licensed gun. In Israel there is no "right" to bear arms but citizens with no criminal past who live in remote or dangerous areas or have a profession that could endanger them can get a gun license (pistol) and a limited amount of ammunition. Given where I live and the terror attacks that have been on our area, I feel a lot safer having a gun in the house or with me in the car when I travel.
In Israel the wole attitude towards guns seems a lot different from the US. I mean, we have all these 18 - 19 year old soldiers walking around with guns in addition to armed citizens but I think no Jew ever permitted a random mass shooting against other Jews in the history of the State (there was against Arabs but in light of the ongoing violent conflict between them and us I think that's more part of the conflict).

amother

Burlywood

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 5:20 am

One part of the problem is the availability of semi-automatic weapons. There's no conceivable reason for a civilian to own such a gun, but the lobby of people who sell them is hugely powerful.

In Israel, gun ownership works as it should. It's almost impossible to own more than one gun, and it's a handgun, not an Uzi. Also, the sale of bullets is limited (I think fifty a year per owner). Here, gun owners have stopped terrorists by shooting them.

Other things in Israel's favor:
Army training means people really understand what guns can do and how to use them safely.
The licensing process is strict.
There's no culture of hunting.
Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.

So it's possible to have high rates of gun ownership with low rates of gun violence. The problems in the United States are complex. Some are easily fixable and some aren't.

Ruchel

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 5:23 am

I'm not sure Switzerland had a mass shooting. Probably less than France and France doesn't allow thank G-d. I never worry about that in Israel either. I dunno. Maybe it's the way guns are an idol in USA, a natural right of sorts. Messed up.

amother

Burlywood

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 6:30 am

Ruchel wrote:

What does it mean that "France doesn't allow"? The Charlie Hebdo killings, Bataclan, etc? Gun violence is a danger in France too. In Israel, no one gets away with shooting 130 people, because citizens with guns stop the killer.