Gun Control doesn't work... Except for when it does

[JoelUpchurch]

@Stratocaster

What’s up with Greenland?

Greenland is not very populous. A homocide rate of 19.2 works out to 11 homocides.

If you look at the stats, the homicide rate varies from 5 to 30.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/compare?country=gl#country=gl

[foolsguinea]

@Stealth_Potato

Assault weapon bans are useless feel-good measures even if they were to work perfectly.

So why did police departments want them?

Isn’t it more likely that they were anticipating future problems that hadn’t grown very large yet?

Is it possible that police departments have good reasons not to want lots of legal weapons around that look exactly like illegal weapons?

[Mr.Duality]

@Czarcasm

I thought the homicide rate was going down?

“Crime is down dramatically right now — even in states that have not passed such laws. To prove causation, which Gohmert’s statement implies, would require that those doing the study discern what would have happened if not for the law, and that is almost impossible to model.”

“In fact, crime is down in states that have not passed concealed-carry laws. The impact of such legislation is debatable.”

Quoted from http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

[Hbns]

@foolsguinea

So why did police departments want them?

Isn’t it more likely that they were anticipating future problems that hadn’t grown very large yet?

Is it possible that police departments have good reasons not to want lots of legal weapons around that look exactly like illegal weapons?

I think it is most likely that they don’t want to be “out gunned”.

[Cazzle]

@HurricaneDitka

Why do people keep saying this? It’s not true:
Cite

A mass shooting is defined as a shooting with at least 4 people killed. The Monash shooter killed 2. So it’s absolutely true to say there were 13 mass shootings in the eighteen years prior to the gun controls being tightened, and none in the sixteen years since. If we expand the definition of mass shooting to include Monash, then the pre-1996 count needs to be reviewed for additional incidents that fit the new criteria.

And I mentioned Monash a few days ago specifically to ensure I wasn’t accused of lying by omission. I just can’t recall if that was in this thread or another one.

Guns still exist. Crazy people still exist. There will be more mass shootings as long as we have both of those elements. They can never be entirely eradicted. HOWEVER…The undeniable reduction in these events since 1996 suggests we’ve done something right in reducing them as far as possible. It’s not like we’ve improved mental health services, stopped consuming violent media, banned video games, or ended excessive news coverage of mass shootings - which are all things America is being told to try. We did one thing and afterwards instead of having a 4+ body count mass shooting every 18ish months, we’ve lost two people in a single incident in 16 years.

[brazil84]

@foolsguinea

So why did police departments want them?

I doubt that all police departments wanted them. But surely some did. Why? I suspect it’s because police chiefs are political animals. They know that most people in the general public did not understand that the AWB was basically about guns which looked a certain way.

Anyway, there is either a good rationale for the AWB or there isn’t. If there isn’t, then it’s a feel good measure and all the appeals to authority in the world won’t change it.

[rat_avatar]

@Hbns

I think it is most likely that they don’t want to be “out gunned”.

That is a problem in some ways but the reality is that the AR is more effective and easier to use than the shotguns they are replacing. Also they are far more accurate and also have a lower risk if they miss their target.

Add in that most police officers are ex-military and thus have quite a bit of trigger time behind the AR platform is an added benefit.

Note that police departments can buy M4’s from the government for practically free.

The only reason to not use a rifle was politics and public opinion. A wood stocked shotgun is “friendlier” than a ugly plastic AR but with the escalation of the war on drugs and terror many police departments have decided that is no longer a high enough barrier to justify not adopting the AR style firearms at tools.

[Hbns]

I was looking through the stats from UNODC. Doing a little arithmetic (with the 2009 data) it seems that while the USA and the UK have very disparate gun homicide rates they have strikingly similar non-gun homicide rates. Conversely countries like Canada, Germany, France, and Australia that have similar gun homicide rates to the UK, have substantially lower non-gun homicide rates.

Then I looked at Brazil who have enacted greater regulation in recent years and see astronomically high rates for gun and non-gun homicide, but is almost identical to the USA as far as the ratio of gun homicides to total homicides.

Not exactly clear to me what this means. Is culture the most significant influence? Is regulation?

[Hbns]

@Eliahna

The undeniable reduction in these events since 1996 suggests we’ve done something right in reducing them as far as possible.

So what does the much more dramatic reduction 1980-1995* suggest?

*see the table FIREARM DEATHS BY TYPE OF DEATH. Specifically Standardized death rate (a) Homiceide and compare with the gun homicide rates from 1995 on in the UNODC data linked in my previous post.

[Cazzle]

@Hbns

So what does the much more dramatic reduction 1980-1995* suggest?

*see the table FIREARM DEATHS BY TYPE OF DEATH. Specifically Standardized death rate (a) Homiceide and compare with the gun homicide rates from 1995 on in the UNODC data linked in my previous post.

I’m sorry, but how is this relevant? I’m talking about the effect of our gun laws on mass shootings following the introduction of new gun control laws in reaction to a mass shooting event with the specific aim of reducing the number of mass shootings. Your link doesn’t seem to have any statistics on mass shootings, only on homicides in general. I have not touched on the effect of our gun laws on the overall homicide rate because we haven’t introduced gun laws with the specific aim of reducing the overall homicide rate.

Mass shootings increased in frequency after 1980, unlike the overall homicide rate you cited.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Eliahna

A mass shooting is defined as a shooting with at least 4 people killed.

Defined by who? That’s an awfully strange definition for “mass shooting” that doesn’t include the incident where 7 people were shot.

[Cazzle]

@HurricaneDitka

Defined by who? That’s an awfully strange definition for “mass shooting” that doesn’t include the incident where 7 people were shot.

So include Monash. In the six years following the shooting of 35 people at Port Arthur, there were no mass shootings. Following an incident at Monash University in which 7 people were shot, 2 fatally, hand gun laws were further tweaked. There have been no mass shootings in the decade since.

[rat_avatar]

@Eliahna

Mass shootings increased in frequency after 1980, unlike the overall homicide rate you cited.

Gun technology and availability did not significantly increase immediately before or after 1980.

The AR15 went into production in 1958 and rifles with exchangeable magazines were very common after the 1940s and could be ordered by anyone (along with machine guns pre 1936) through the mail until 1968.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect in February 28, 1994. This was after the trend had started to drop on overall murders and there were no background checks previous to this.

So what changed post 1980 that made firearms the problem?

Could it be that O’Connor v. Donaldson was decided by SCOTUS on June 26, 1975?

[

A State cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends, and since the jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, it properly concluded that petitioner had violated respondent’s right to liberty.

](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=422&invol=563)

So we had a system (like in many countries in Europe) where people with mental health issues were warehoused just due to concerns of their families.

SCOTUS decided (properly IMHO) that you cannot due so without cause and court action. Our response was to shutter the state hospitals and cut funding for mental health.

Yet we have maintained a similar taboo about seeking treatment while glorifying those who do go on mass shootings in the media.

There is a lot of talk about the ease of access to guns being the issue. I am not saying that it is not a factor but without some meaningful cite on why firearms are “more available” let alone the cause of the rise I think it is all just irrational fear.

A real conversation and laws in mental health could help fix a lot more than the very rare mass shooting, it could help with our homelessness problems, drug issues and also help reduce our prison population. If only people weren’t so obsessed with guns on both sides.

[Cazzle]

O’Connor v. Donaldson has what to do with the increase in mass shootings in Australia after 1980?

[gunchris]

@DMC

So it’s okay for you to quote some idiot who completely ignores the facts when making his point, but when we show actual data that calls his bluff, you decide that you’ll completely ignore the same facts because you find London a scary place?

I guess this is the proper forum for witnessing, so do carry on.

you guys never show factual data, calling it factual data is really swell and stuff.
I can call myself a brain surgeon but if you see me coming at you with a scalpel you’d better run.

Like the debunked kellerman study, like Bellisiles(SP) “Arming America” which had its Bancroft award taken away, you guys always have your flawed BS studies that say simplistic things like “50 kids killed a day with guns” but when you look at it the study is funded by the Tides Foundation and “the kids” killed were 19yr old gunmen killed by cops after raping babies and killing cops. I’ve seen the data a million times in the last 20 yrs, I’ve seen it debunked a million times.

Frankly, my dear. I don’t give a damn. I have this dangerous thing called*** rights.***
Freedom is scary and dangerous. Gun control is racist people control, evil control freaks like telling people what they can do. If we implemented every single law they wanted they would move on to other ways of controlling people and spree killings/crime would keep on going.

[rat_avatar]

@Eliahna

O’Connor v. Donaldson has what to do with the increase in mass shootings in Australia after 1980?

Sorry, missed the top line when I cut and pasted please add.

I don’t think there are enough massacres to even establish a statistical pattern in Australia even the US they are rare.

But I do see the 1980 number is only applied to the AU in your post, I do not know enough of your policies to know how your treatment of the mentally ill changed.

But what happened in 1980 in Australia to make a change? And how many events are you counting? I see 6 from 1980 until now. That is a pretty tiny sample size to start making legislation for millions of people.

7+7+9+8+35+2=68 deaths in 32 years (1980-2012)

So over three decades your risk of death by massacre in Australia would have been 0.0003% our about 17 to 5,655,000 over 32 years.

The math may be bad but that sets the odds to about 17 to 180,960,000 for it to happen any one year.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Eliahna

So include Monash. In the six years following the shooting of 35 people at Port Arthur, there were no mass shootings. Following an incident at Monash University in which 7 people were shot, 2 fatally, hand gun laws were further tweaked. There have been no mass shootings in the decade since.

I think that mass shootings are already so extremely rare that it’s rather silly to try to perform any sort of statistical analysis or assign a schedule to them. Sort of like me saying, “Look, ever since we created the TSA we haven’t had any more 9/11’s.” I don’t think that not seeing many more fluke events can really be attributed to what you’re trying to attribute it to. If you think Australia’s gun control laws are the reason they haven’t had any more mass shootings (well, except the one), then I’m happy for you, but I’m unconvinced. Places like England, Norway, Canada, Germany, Mexico, India, and Connecticut haven’t had the same luck.

Also, according to the WSJ:

Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

At the time, Australia’s guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom’s. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a “good reason,” Australia required a “genuine reason.” Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn’t.

With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported “a modest reduction in the severity” of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

Perhaps that’s where you got your 4+ dead definition for mass shootings.

[Cazzle]

@rat_avatar

Sorry, missed the top line when I cut and pasted please add.

But I do see the 1980 number is only applied to the AU in your post, I do not know enough of your policies to know how your treatment of the mentally ill changed.

But what happened in 1980 in Australia to make a change? And how many events are you counting? I see 6 from 1980 until now. That is a pretty tiny sample size to start making legislation for millions of people.

7+7+9+8+35+2=68 deaths in 32 years (1980-2012)

So over three decades your risk of death by massacre in Australia would have been 0.0003% our about 17 to 5,655,000 over 32 years.

The math may be bad but that sets the odds to about 17 to 180,960,000 for it to happen any one year.

I believe it was 11 events from 1980-1996.
The period 1996-2012 is the period post the introduction of gun control laws specifically targeting the kinds of guns used in massacres. It doesn’t seem fair to include those years in your calculation.

[rat_avatar]

@Eliahna

I believe it was 11 events from 1980-1996.
The period 1996-2012 is the period post the introduction of gun control laws specifically targeting the kinds of guns used in massacres. It doesn’t seem fair to include those years in your calculation.

Here are the ones I used above, what ones did I miss? Only one was post ban.

1994 Milperra massacre
1997 Hoddle Street massacre
1997 Queen Street massacre
1991 Strathfield massacre
1996 Port Arthur massacre
1992 Monash University shooting

The three decade plus body count doesn’t even match the one incident body count with gasoline here in the US from the horrid Happy Land Fire

Many spree killers plan for months or years, guns are not their only tool.

This is being problem focused vs. solution focused. The goal should be “Reducing the number of spree killers”

However it does appear that Australia did modify their involuntary commitment with the ‘Mental Health Act 1986’

This was after the Milperra massacre but if it was a statistical fluke maybe this is why there have been more in the past 30 years? I am not making this claim but where are the cites that the availability of guns caused the increase or even changed much?

[Cazzle]

The 4+ number that i keep seeing cited comes from a study co-authored by Simon Chapman.

Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm...

If you redefine his definition of mass shootings to 2+, we’ve had 1 in 16 years but I don’t know what that does to the figure in the 18 years prior to 1996; presumably it will be 13 or greater.

Other countries have had post-gun control massacres. That doesn’t mean their laws haven’t reduced the incidence of gun massacres. Also, Australia’s laws are often referred to as “strictest in the world”. If another country’s separate, different and more permissive gun control laws don’t work, that doesn’t invalidate the Australian experience.

I agree, gun massacres are rare and it’s hard to draw meaningful statistics from a dearth of events. Still, despite our fondness for American culture, our saturation with American media, our ever more connected world where mass killers are made famous as anti-heroes, we haven’t had a mass shooting event in over 10 years. These events are happening less frequently when we’ve only made copycat shootings ever more attractive in the ensuing years. That seemingly defies logic unless you give credit to the laws that banned and severely restricted the guns that were typically used in mass shootings prior to 1996.