Dial it back.
[ /Moderating ]
Maybe. And if so, so fucking what ?
Australia has yet to see a repeat of the Port Arthur massacre, and their crime rate is dropping. I’d say their gun ban, while obviously totes 'orrible and unconscionable and all that has worked out pretty well for them.
I must say, as a non-American I am bemused as to why you guys are so fucking in love with those things. That, and prisons, and for-profit healthcare. Those are the three things that fuck me up a wall re:the modern US. And it’s thoroughly fucked up that I can grok “why Trump. Seriously, like… just… WHY ?!” better than those, isn’t it ?
They have had three mass shootings since then. But then again, Australia never had that many mass shootings.
and how well it has done is disputed:*Multiple studies have been conducted by Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH). In 2006 they reported a lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, they found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide.[77] Subsequently, they compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand.[nb 1] The authors conclude that “if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia then New Zealand would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[5] In 2012, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia’s firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[78] Head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as “reputable” and “well-conducted” but also stated that “it would be wrong to infer from the study that it does not matter how many guns there are in the community.” *
Seeing how the Australia public treats people like Adam Goodes and the more recent decent into a US like drug war with a growth of a prison population by more than 40 percent this decade talk to us in a few decades.
Melbourne had 3.1 murders per 100,000 population, and New York City had 3.3…which isn’t a whole lot to brag about in comparision.
But the media is good at making the US sound like a war zone. We have our problems but when you have 70% of the landmass but only 8% of the population these stats aren’t as easy to compare as you would think.
But be glad your not our southern neighbor, when you consider the drug-related deaths in Mexico and the US the numbers become really grim.
Drug-related homicides are as much as 50 percent of the total homicides in the United States yet the media doesn’t care and only mass shootings get attention so I doubt we will improve on this but I would expect that it will continue to catch up with us on that part.
Criminalized drug users, perpetual racism and misguided tough on crime rules will take their toll as the stats show (if you ignore copy cat mass murder which is a very real problem in the US)
How about we try some liberal, federal level gun regulations. If that doesn’t work then you can complain about excuses.
It doesn’t matter if they “look scary”. You say that like the left is just over reacting as though are no real problems but only perceived ones.
Bottom line is guns are a scourge on our society. There is abundant evidence of the problems they cause. We get denial or if not denial pious proclamations from gun owners that they are responsible gun owners and should be allowed their guns even if others use them in bad ways.
But we have little upside for the guns. We are told they are needed for self defense but on the whole we do not see much of that (yes it happens but in vastly smaller numbers than gun crimes).
Imagine in the US we sell a Widget. It murders 30 per day and injures/kills 19 children per day and 58 people per day use it to kill themselves.
What other product could do that and we’d be fine selling it in the US? If 30 people get food poisoning in the US we pull products off the shelves en mass. If a toy chokes a half dozen kids the toy is pulled. But guns do far worse and we are ok with them.
Strawman,
Strawman? It is at the center of the argument.
Why do you think people oppose guns in this country? Only because they “look scary”?
Strawman,
The term ‘assault weapon’ is what I was referencing, which is a political term of art just like “anchor baby”.
If you don’t understand how that is about cosmetics you have some homework to do before you will convince anyone.
Pot meet kettle on the strawman. :rolleyes:
That our politicians produce worthless regulations so each side can be seen to get a “win” and doing something is nothing new and beside the point of the discussion on whether guns should be more firmly regulated.
And how does defending dog-whistle politics, using non-functional concepts like ‘assault weapons’, which does nothing to actually move legislation forward and only demonstrates ignorance to the opposing side help you with this goal?
I dunno. Can you point to where I did that?
No one in this thread has mentioned assault weapons (well, one post did but more as an aside).
You are the one bringing it up here.
Know what that is called? A strawman.
Maybe you should go re-read my post, maybe think about that there there is a world where people aren’t so binary in their stance. And people exist who don’t really care if firearms are banned, or think that it won’t be attainable without an amendment but get sick of their side provoking the other side to vote. Especially when never actually working on legislation that would do anything but appease a small part of the electorate without saving lives.
Your posts demonstrate exactly why, irrespective if their stance is correct, the NRAs actions should be expected.
If you want to ban and confiscate firearms, the other side will do what they can to prevent you from banning and confiscating firearms if they are against banning and confiscating firearms.
That should be obvious and yes this is related to what Elizabeth Warren has been suggesting, which is relevant to the NRA’s response.
Do you think the fact that our politicians produce worthless regulation has no bearing on whether there should be *more *regulation?
Given this thread is about the legality of open carry, what do you think *bear *means in the context of the 2nd amendment and given that, what regulation would you think appropriate?
1968 Gun act. which required ID and Form 4479 for all gun purchasers from dealers, and prohibited most interstate firearms transfers. Requires dealers to be registered.
Brady Bill, mandated background checks and waiting periods. Also Brady Bill (wiki)*prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.*
There was also a Assault weapons bill.
None of these had any demonstrable effect.
It’s nice to say that but overall the murder and violent crime rate is low and decreasing.
Many small acts of self defense are not reported (they dont need to be). Many studies have shown guns are helpful in self defense, especially since the police now are overworked and have no duty under the law to protect the taxpaying citizens.
Could I get a cite for this? A study by the CDC does not seem to agree -
Cite.
Even if you take the lowest estimate, 500,000 is not vastly smaller than 300,000.
If you do have a cite, it might help to know if you are including suicides under “gun crimes”. Since two-thirds or so of gun deaths are suicide.
Regards,
Shodan
I just want to make three quick comments about that.
- Although the firearm suicide rate in the US is indeed a little less than two-thirds of the total firearm death rate, data distinguishing between firearm homicides, suicides, and accidents is readily available, for example in the study cited in this analysis that I discussed in this post.
And what the figures always invariably show is that the US leads the world among economically advanced countries in ALL gun deaths from ALL causes, and by very wide margins. For example, in the US the firearm homicide rate per 100,00 is 3.6; firearm suicide rate 6.3; unintentional firearm death rate 0.2; undetermined 0.1; total firearm death rate 10.2.
These statistics are compared with 22 other economically similar countries, in all of which they are very much lower. Here are how those stats (in the same order) compare with Canada and the UK, and I’m not cherry-picking here because Canada, sadly, is tied with Portugal for the second-highest firearm homicide rate in the group:
US 3.6 / 6.3 / 0.2 / 0.1 / 10.2
CA 0.5 / 1.7 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 2.3
UK 0.0 / 0.2 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.2
But one can see that the US firearm homicide rate is still more than 7 times the second-highest rate in the group, and similarly for the other gun violence stats. If one were to draw a chart of gun violence in these 22 other countries, the US would be literally way off the chart and you’d have to rescale the graph to accommodate it. Whatever discussion one wants to have about gun violence in America, claiming that “it isn’t a problem” is a denial so irrational as to render the discussion useless.
Also, in my opinion the main reason that the UK figures are much lower than those for Canada is because of tighter gun regulation and the relative absence of American guns pouring across the border.
-
Treating firearm suicides as part of the gun problem along with homicides and accidents is valid because guns provide an easy means to suicide, and one that is fatal in a high proportion of attempts compared to many other means. It’s really not much different than the argument about guns as enablers of homicide. They are effective instruments of death, period.
-
The discussion about the defensive use of guns is a bit disingenuous because the principal justification of guns as defensive weapons is their use against other guns, so this reasoning essentially justifies an escalating arms race and a proliferation of increasingly deadly guns that exacerbates all the other problems. Which people respond to by buying more guns. To those who cite supposedly numerous examples of guns being used in defense, I would pose the question of what they imagine happens in all those other countries where guns generally aren’t used for defense to anywhere near the same extent. Do people, being defenseless, just end up robbed and murdered? Apparently not, because what the statistics show is that crime rates are generally lower than in the US, although not overwhelmingly so. And what about all those American households that don’t have guns? Are they constantly being victimized? So while the role of guns in enabling violence – homicides, suicides, and accidents – is well established, their role in preventing crime seems dubious. Moreover, there is evidence that in most cases a gun in the home actually increases, not decreases, the danger to the homeowner and other residents.
Yes, “economically advanced countries” is indeed cherry picking. Russia is a economically advanced country and most people would consider Mexico to be one also.
See, you can define “economically advanced countries” in any way, cherry picking out whichever nations fit what you want to prove.
Also, who gives a fucking rats ass about “firearm deaths”? What people care about is the overall murder and violent crime rate. Since most nations don’t report “firearms deaths” date is bad and is usually cherry picked. In any case, if you are lying there dead in the gutter, having been murdered, it doesn’t really matter if it was by gun, knife or even screwdriver. Dead is dead. Using Firearm deaths also allows you to conceal nations with a rather high suicide rate, but where guns are rather used, such a Japan, which has a much higher suicide rate than the uSA. Again dead is dead.
If you use ALL nations, no cherry picking allowed, the USA falls right in the middle, we are average in murders and violent crime.
No, using a gun to prevent being knifed to death is perfectly fine.
So, your data is worthless, biased and cherry picked to hell and gone.
Suicide rates may not be the best subject here, especially because stigma and a lack of services probably has more to do with the US rate and Europe is the most suicidal region in the entire world
But outside of the elections issue, the willingness of the gun control lobby to throw mental health under the bus is pretty shameful. Yes less firearms will result in some reduction in suicides, but stigmatizing mental health care more will result in lots of needless deaths and suffering.
The numbers are there to justify gun control efforts but right now the entire debate is leveraged to embolden both sides electorate and not towards actually passing legislation.