[Lorric]

I wonder how many lives would be saved if all the money spent on anti-terrorism measures within the US was instead put into measures to reduce gun deaths.

[Flipside]

I think that's the difference between the US and countries that have high gun ownership but low gun homicide levels like Sweden.

Whilst I don't like to generalize, I think it's something to do with exercising Rights and the American urge to do that as an expression of defiance. When it comes to Second Amendment, maybe it ends up higher on the list of options in a high-stress situation merely because it is an enshrined (and often mentioned) Right?

Edit : Or to put it in it's simplest form; being able to carry a gun is part of what it is to be American, like protesting in public, but if you mix the two, you have the potential recipe for a Mass-Homicide.

[MP-Ryan]

This is a point of interest for me too. It may be that other 1WCs have reduced gun violence because their populations don't care about guns.

This, I think, is not true.  Other 1WCs have significant "gun cultures" too; they differ mainly from the US in that none of them have a very loosely-interpreted "right to bear arms" entrenched in their Constitution, and their gun culture is not integral to their founding mythos.  The United States has a colossal hang up about firearms because of its history and its Constitution; where other 1WC's have enacted reasonable legislative limits on gun ownership, the US is a patchwork quilt of different regulatory regimes that have a net effect of almost nil-effectiveness because cross-state travel and transport is completely unimpeded.

Firearms ownership rates in a number of other 1WCs are not outlandishly different from the states, yet their gun violence stats are but a fraction of those in the US.  The other thing is that you have to consider the US is among the 5 largest geographic countries, and has a population of 300+ million people - there is a huge regional diversity in violence rates.  Look at the differences between DC and Idaho state.  ID actually has lower firearms homicide rates than some Canadian provinces.

The other major issue is literally no other 1WC does their firearms controls by region with almost no national oversight.  In Canada, being the closest example to US firearms culture and geographical makeup, the entire firearms control program is nationally-administered (with very slight additional controls in some regions).  It makes for a consistent model.  Compare to the US, where driving across a state line can be done multiple times in a day, and firearms controls can change drastically just by crossing a line on a map that does not impede the flow of goods or people.

Tying this back to mental health, while health care in Canada is administered by the provinces, there are nationally-mandated standards in health care (including mental health) and the way it interfaces with firearms licensing.  While some individual states have a system like that, there is nothing that blankets the entire US.  Moreover, Canada still has problems with mentally-unstable and/or ill individuals committing violence with firearms and we have a fully-funded health care system with significantly better mental health safeguards at the lowest levels of society than any American state; with the pay-for-service system of the US, there is virtually zero opportunity for identifying undiagnosed mentally ill with violence risk as they seek to obtain firearms if they have not self-identified and sought treatment, or been ill enough to actually be involuntarily committed.

The mass de-institutionalization of the mentally ill in the 1970s had some positive effect, but huge unintended consequences.  Instead of being institutionalized, most of the mentally ill who do not access health care are now left to self-medicate and often end up on the streets.  Police are now acting as social workers and psychologists to a degree they've never before experienced.  Society basically took the rug out from under the most seriously mentally-ill without leaving a safety net; those who can be treated at home and have the means and supports to do so are.  Those who do have an immediate violence risk are institutionalized, frequently in prisons never designed for them.  And there is a huge 'middle' population that are one crisis away from being self-medicating and living on the street.  Mental health in the US - and most other 1WCs - is a problem everyone talks about, but no one is willing to confront.  We don't have the supports these people need; most of them end up in self-harming tragedies, while a tiny few are often implicated in mass-violence. (most notably those who are likely diagnosable as ASPD or narcissists).

[General Battuta]

Edit : Or to put it in it's simplest form; being able to carry a gun is part of what it is to be American, like protesting in public, but if you mix the two, you have the potential recipe for a Mass-Homicide.

Most Americans can't carry guns and never seek to, though. I don't think it can be called a broadly accepted essentiality of being American.

[Bobboau]

being able to is the key though, I do not own a gun, don't want to, but I consider the fact that I can to be important, empowering, and fundamental. it's not the ownership per se, but the ability, the right that is considered something of an essentiality.

[Scotty]

Also worth pointing out is that the "American gun culture" varies as widely from state to state as ownership and homicide rates.  In Wyoming, Montana, or the less populated Northwest, gun ownership per capita is fairly high, owing to high numbers and good opportunity for hunting.  In Detroit, DC, or NYC, the homicide rate is through the roof compared to the more rural areas while the gun culture is different in terms of both availability and acceptability of firearms.

[General Battuta]

Ah, yes, New York City, that hotbed of homicide, often mentioned in the same sentence as Detroit. (NYC's homicide rate is actually extremely low, much like NYC crime in general - far lower than many rural areas.)

[Scotty]

Really?  Law and Order lied to me. D:

[Bobboau]

NYC has a reputation as being a seething cesspool of crime in most of the rest of the country (world?), because it was... 20-30 years ago, and it has had a dramatic change. I moved here about 3 years ago and was afraid of the city because of it's reputation, but having run around in it a bunch I now think of it as being a very safe place, like freakishly safe. I moved from St.Louis, which is on the top ten list of high crime rates twice. you can just wander about just about everywhere and not have to worry about someone harassing/robbing you.
but, unfairly, in much of the american (global?) popular imagination when the phrase "crime ridden big city" is uttered, NYC pops to mind.

[Nuke]

as a crazy person i think i have the right to bear nukes.
i also think i have the right to nuke bears.

[headdie]

as a crazy person i think i have the right to bear nukes.
i also think i have the right to nuke bears.

not much meat left if you do that, though I suppose it comes pre cooked

[Mongoose]

It's just a waaaaay faster microwave!

[jr2]

Edit : Or to put it in it's simplest form; being able to carry a gun is part of what it is to be American, like protesting in public, but if you mix the two, you have the potential recipe for a Mass-Homicide.

Most Americans can't carry guns and never seek to, though. I don't think it can be called a broadly accepted essentiality of being American.

Most Americans can't?  Where did that come from?

The idea that psychiatric drugs cause mass shootings is a myth that originated with 'alternative medicine' practitioners. It was pushed by a number of crank media avenues. Uptake has been about what you'd expect for a mildly plausible but ultimately baseless conspiracy theory.

Actual scientific studies on antipsychotic medication show a massive drop in per capita homicides among users as compared to the same populations without antipsychotics.

For real? (no insult intended, I was literally surprised that you though this was my line of reasoning)  Obviously they (drugs) don't (cause mass shootings); mentally disturbed people cause mass shootings, my point was, if someone is on medications to alter their mental state for the reason that their natural mental state is too unstable, perhaps they shouldn't be anywhere near firearms, and, if their condition spikes, until the docs manage to get a new medication or alter their dosage current one, they need help.

being able to is the key though, I do not own a gun, don't want to, but I consider the fact that I can to be important, empowering, and fundamental. it's not the ownership per se, but the ability, the right that is considered something of an essentiality.

Agreed.

Although, on a side note, I do own a rifle, an air rifle, and an air pistol.  And, on another note, it should be plain common sense that if you acquire a weapon, that you familiarize yourself with it and the appropriate safety rules:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire
Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire
Know your target and what lies behind it

For real.  If you own a firearm, you should be able to recite those.  It's not hard, and it's common sense.

[Phantom Hoover]

And yet there's no legal reinforcement of these basic safety rules!

[The E]

And all the basic gun safety rules in the world will not stop someone from killing someone else with a gun.

[MP-Ryan]

And yet there's no legal reinforcement of these basic safety rules!

That depends on what legal jurisdiction you live in.  In many American states, no, there isn't.  In some, there is.  And there is in most other countries as well.  Violation is usually covered under laws against "careless use or display" of a firearm.

Example:

Careless use of firearm, etc.

    86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-43.html#h-39

[Flipside]

Whilst they only cover a small fraction of US homicide, the odd thing about school shootings in particular is who is doing them. In many cases these people come from families with social backgrounds that, whilst not always affluent, are not necessarily 'poor' either.

There IS, I think, a deeper-seated issue of 'expectation versus non-importance', America has the same spectrum of achievement as any other country, but American culture does tend to embrace the idea of 'if you are not exceptional, you are just background'.

I think the reason you don't see many, if any, school- or mass-shootings among the very low-income groups is because they've grown up more or less knowing that the chances are they will end up in a medium to low income job, whereas middle-class American teens, I think, find themselves at a point in their lives where their self-image is more important than ever (as it is with every teenager, everywhere) and realizing that they stand a good chance of just being 'average' at best.

Elliot Rodger is an extreme example of this, someone who was convinced he was, because of his social position, entitled to have everything work the way he wanted it to and desperately wanted that 'Exceptionalism' that is so treasured in capitalistic mentality. As it was, he found a way which, in his mind will always make people remember who he was.

That's part of the meme problem I think, without belittling school shootings, they are the ultimate tantrum, and because school shootings tend to get massive amounts of media coverage unstable kids realize that it WILL get you noticed.

[karajorma]

And people buy Ferraris because they like owning a Ferrari.

And if someone claims that they don't want a Ferrari so they can drive it fast and/or pick up chicks what would you say to them? What would you say to anyone who on a debate about high speed car crashes claimed that it wasn't the reason most people bought a Ferrari?

While there are some people who may have a legitimate reason for having a handgun at home, a lot of people who make the target shooting excuse are doing just that, making an excuse for having a gun in their house.

1.  I dare anyone to find a way that the rifle in my home endangers anyone in the way its stored, or used by the people I allow to use it.

Easy. You're out and someone robs your house.

2.  Target shooting when you don't own your own firearm and don't buy your own ammunition is bloody expensive.

Sure it is. Cause there is no interest in making it an activity people do without owning the gun.

I'm not saying that controlled target shooting ranges is a necessary or desirable solution. My entire point is that there are solutions that allow people to do target shooting and not keep a gun at home. I know because the UK uses them. I am pointing out that the "I need to have a gun at home so I can go target shooting" is a flawed argument which could very easily be countered in most of the cases (certainly for anyone who lives within city boundaries where it is illegal to use that gun outside a gun range anyway). 

[MP-Ryan]

1.  I dare anyone to find a way that the rifle in my home endangers anyone in the way its stored, or used by the people I allow to use it.

Easy. You're out and someone robs your house.

And *if* they find it, break into the locked container, they get a long metal pipe that's completely useless because it has a secure lock on the trigger and its bolt is removed, locked in a separate container, and stored separately in the house.  And before you say "they can just get a different bolt," bolts are firearm-specific and matched to the individual gun.  While you could probably find another bolt that would work in it, that requires tracking down a parts catalog and finding someone who's willing to sell one to you that matches.

2.  Target shooting when you don't own your own firearm and don't buy your own ammunition is bloody expensive.

Sure it is. Cause there is no interest in making it an activity people do without owning the gun.

Also not correct.  There are several ranges in my city alone that allow for [supervised] recreational target shooting, with or without your own firearm, license, and training.  In North America, recreational target shooting is widely available for non-firearms owners and enthusiasts.  It is still expensive because you pay overhead.  A day at a range like that here is $30 (plus some additional ammunition costs).  On the other hand, I can drive 20 minutes to a range with a yearly membership of $55 with my $200 rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition that costs ~$30 as often as I like.  If I go 5 times in a year and shoot 100 rounds per trip, that's a cost per trip of ~$17 plus gas.

I'm not saying that controlled target shooting ranges is a necessary or desirable solution. My entire point is that there are solutions that allow people to do target shooting and not keep a gun at home. I know because the UK uses them. I am pointing out that the "I need to have a gun at home so I can go target shooting" is a flawed argument which could very easily be countered in most of the cases (certainly for anyone who lives within city boundaries where it is illegal to use that gun outside a gun range anyway).

You're applying a UK-specific model to countries that have significantly different geographical, legal, and cultural landscapes.  And a frankly unnecessary one; countries with strict licensing and storage laws have extraordinarily few incidents with unsafe storage resulting in injury or death, far less than something as innocuous as a family pool or child deaths in hot vehicles.

[karajorma]

And *if* they find it, break into the locked container, they get a long metal pipe that's completely useless because it has a secure lock on the trigger and its bolt is removed, locked in a separate container, and stored separately in the house.

Which they also rob.

Your argument is flawed at a fundamental level. No matter how heavily you secure the weapon you keep at home, it is still a bigger danger than not having a gun at home in the first place. If you feel that your security precautions mitigate the danger to an acceptable level, so be it. But trying to argue that it doesn't exist at all is rather silly. Especially when I was speaking in general and most people do not take the precautions you take.

Also not correct.  There are several ranges in my city alone that allow for [supervised] recreational target shooting, with or without your own firearm, license, and training.  In North America, recreational target shooting is widely available for non-firearms owners and enthusiasts.  It is still expensive because you pay overhead.  A day at a range like that here is $30 (plus some additional ammunition costs).  On the other hand, I can drive 20 minutes to a range with a yearly membership of $55 with my $200 rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition that costs ~$30 as often as I like.  If I go 5 times in a year and shoot 100 rounds per trip, that's a cost per trip of ~$17 plus gas.

It wouldn't be much more expensive to buy your own gun and store it at the range though. In fact, considering the cost of the precautions you have to take at home, it might even end up cheaper.

You're applying a UK-specific model to countries that have significantly different geographical, legal, and cultural landscapes.  And a frankly unnecessary one; countries with strict licensing and storage laws have extraordinarily few incidents with unsafe storage resulting in injury or death, far less than something as innocuous as a family pool or child deaths in hot vehicles.

The fact that the UK model exists belies the argument that a gun must be kept at home for people to be able to go target shooting. While that may be true in certain cases, it's not certainly not true for a large number of them. As pointed out above, you yourself can't make that argument because it would be fairly easy to make it so that it wasn't a requirement. You have a range within easy reach of your home, your guns could be stored there. If you choose not to do that, that's your choice.