[headdie]

One thing that does surprise me about the gun debate in the US is that the arguments about why gun control would be ineffective are also the exact same arguments their opponents use when discussing drug or sex issues. Not getting at you here, FlamingMamba, but it's perhaps another example of the deadlock any political debate in the US gets itself in.

I agree with you on there being simply too much guns in the country for gun control to be effective (unless one is willing to be harsh). Take a look at the gunpolicy website, and specifically the gun numbers tab...

The culture is so heavily ingrained into US society that you would need small incremental changes over several generations just to make change possible.  For example one statistic i have read puts the ownership situation at 1.126 guns per person in the states... you just are not going to get that number down for a long time, so if gun control is part of your goal you wont see a meaningful impact on ownership numbers in your lifetime without direct state intervention like a government buy back scheme on firearms.

[z64555]

@FlamingMamba:
You must realize that there is nothing simple when it comes to politics. People far too often try to simplify a political argument to "Black and White", but the reality is that everything is a different shade of "Gray." Thus, assuming that one side or the other is ignorant about the reality of the situation is a moot action.

As Goober and others have suggested, part of the problem of progressing the argument past each party's initial stance is the opinion that if either side offers an inch, their opponent will take the mile. They thus then solidify their position and won't budge any further. Communication breaks down, insults fly, and nothing happens to resolve the issue. Somebody or some group must step in and moderate when this happens, otherwise it'll be a fight of who has the bigger number of participants.

Also, there is no "one way" to do any thing. There are always options with their own level of effectiveness.

I don't really agree with tightening ammunition supply, but that is something that should be discussed.

I agree with self-defense training, but where are you going to supply that training?

I don't see how isolating groups from an assailant is a foolish defense, as it puts the assailant at a tactical disadvantage and slows him down. Entrance into classrooms are usually highly limited, so it is simple to barricade the door with desks, bookcases to prevent entry. Different rooms have different levels of defense.

@Joshua
I disagree with the number of guns in the country having anything to do with the effectiveness of controlling who can obtain a gun.

[FlamingCobra]

Okay I'll admit I wasn't thinking when I mentioned the isolating groups bit. Locking the doors when there's a school shooting is a brilliant tactic, except it doesn't work for the first classroom the shooter walks into. The first group will always get ****ed if they don't put up a fight.

And here's how to supply the self defense-training class. Every single student in the US education system has to take physical education. So each school year, one week or two weeks of PE is replaced by the police department coming down and teaching the students how to fight back in the event of an active shooter. They could even do practice drills where the police fire rubber bullets, paintballs, or airsoft pellets at the students.

[z64555]

Sounds good, although I would have it as an after-hours paintball course or maybe use like nerf guns or laser tag instead of rubber bullets and airsoft pellets, and have a student randomly selected as the shooter. Having the police act as the shooter will just confuse them and may actually make relations worse. Parents would need to sign a permission form of course.

[karajorma]

OK, good ideas so far. I think a buyback would be a good idea though. You don't need to even have the government do the heavy lifting. You could push for it in the same way that people suggest you get a rescue dog rather than one from a dog breeder. A sort of "Give a gun a safe home" campaign.

"Gunny's parents were abusive of her. They bought a gun but had no idea how to treat one. Rather than being kept in a safe lockbox like guns should, Gunny was forced to live under a pillow. 
 No gun should live like this."

I'm being somewhat facetious in the way I'm putting it but I think the basic idea is a good one. If you are a gun owner it is a far more responsible thing to take a poorly looked after gun off the streets and keep it somewhere safe than it is to buy a new gun. Yeah, people want a new gun, but people also wanted a puppy rather than a rescue dog and we've seen a big change in that attitude.

[z64555]

The gun buy back plan is not likely to hold water at all in most States. An exchange for newer models that have new safety features, such as thumbprint locks, may work.

I do like the "give gunny a good home" idea to push for sales of safes and cabinents.

[Goober5000]

And they think the exact same thing about you. So round and round it goes forever cause no one is willing to compromise.

So since you seem to recognize that compromise on gun control is unlikely, why not consider other means of reducing gun violence that don't involve gun control?  I mentioned one article that cited a person who examined the sociological causes of gun violence, and instead of engaging in a thoughtful discussion on that topic, you ranted about the citation and then claimed that the study wasn't actually a study.  (Apparently you didn't notice that the statistics are right there on the book's page for anyone to download.)

Goober, what i meant was that focusing on one particular incident (what could have prevented this tragedy from happening) is innefectual in itself. One has to look at the broader picture of the regularely occuring trragedies, find common points, and try to adress those common points.

The problem is that that's an easy way to shield your ideas from criticism.  Any proposal must be evaluated against the real-world scenario it is meant to address.  Study the actual cause and effect, not sweeping generalities.

The other problem is that this is a double standard.  Plenty of gun control advocates are focusing on this one particular incident to claim that "a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun" is false.

The gun buy back plan is not likely to hold water at all in most States.

It's not gun buyback, exactly, but there have been plenty of instances of police departments holding "gun amnesty days" where illegally owned guns can be turned in without fear of prosecution.  These usually net a large number of guns.

I think it's important for anyone proposing gun buyback to specify whether they mean voluntary or mandatory.

[karajorma]

I can't see why a voluntary gun buyback wouldn't work unless the problem is with financing. One idea that might make it even more practical is to give the money in a form that can be used to buy gun cabinets and lockboxes. Suppose you say that you give them a voucher worth $10 but also $50 towards some form of protection for guns.

So since you seem to recognize that compromise on gun control is unlikely, why not consider other means of reducing gun violence that don't involve gun control?

I've already suggested methods which don't involve gun control. And I don't think compromise on gun control is unlikely if people are reasonable, the problem is people are being very unreasonable.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Where do you live? Africa? The only semi-reliable gun you can get at that price is a second-hand Chinese AKM copy (and that's because being an AK, it's reliability is a given). And even then, they only go for that price in 3rd world countries. I can't really speak for the US, but I don't think you can get a decent weapon for less than 500$. And the AR-15 is a a big step up from simply a "decent weapon".

Whatever not 40 dollars but  120 dollars. Price of two console games will get you a pistol. So instead of getting the new Call of Duty plus a season pass, just get a real live gun instead.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/21_0/page/1/sort/6a
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21/products_id/411549349/Handguns/COB%20FREEDOM%20380%203.5IN%207RD-STN/

Assuming regular sale. I recall on the Columbine documentary by Michael moore that a bank was giving away free shotguns with new accounts, whether that still happens anymore who knows but in that case the price is zero.

ok you know what, ****it. why do you hate freedom?

Better question is why do you love fear?
American media from what I've seen of it is all about selling fear. Fear the terrorist. Fear the black man. Fear the government. Fear the mexican illegal immigrant man who is raping your daughter and stealing your job. Whatever.  Any media designed to keep people scared is basically a form of control.  Like keeping people on the bottom level of Maslo's hiearachy of needs. If a person never feels safe,  why would they need to start thinking about anything else? (like how ****ty their standard of life is) Keeping people poor or financially insecure is even better as throws them down another rung.



Your core concern should not be, why can't I have a gun? But rather why do I live in a society where I feel I need one?


Another problem with the whole gun killing spree thing is simply a society which has no compassion, ala "10 people got killed, man that sucks, but hey it isn't me so, what're ya gonna do? IF it happens, it happens, just glad it didn't happen to me."

[z64555]

Ok, a voluntary gun buyback for illegal firearms sounds good. Offering credit towards saftey gear is even better.

I believe that the volutunary gun buyback would be more successful than the mandatory buyback, largely in part that it makes citizens feel like they have a choice (because they do) when interacting with govt. agencies rather than being shepherded by them.

It's also good to see that psycho-analysis has finally entered the discussion, but unfortunately it seems to be aiming in the wrong direction. Please remember folks that the issue we're discussing is not each others flaws, but rather how to go about squelching this wave of mass violence in the U.S..

Thank you, Akalabeth, for showing us the Maslow hierarchy triangle, as it is an important thing to consider when discussing the psychology side of what happens before, during, and after a mass violence event. One thing I would like to point out, though, is that the Maslow hierarchy can differ from person to person, meaning that some people place more emphasis on, say, intimacy over safety.

[OverDhill]

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

[z64555]

So there is a correlation between gun bans and higher murder, homicide rates.

I must point out that correlation does not mean causation. I know, at least, that the years immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks were very stressful for folk in the United States, which likely had a larger influence than gun control policies.

That article also postulates that gun control in most instances are a rather poor method of reducing crime rates, which makes sense, because it does not do anything to address the cause of the violence, which is usually high psychological stress.

OverDhill: do you know of any studies that compare the gun control policy adoptions vs. violent crimes involving guns? I suspect most of the policies cited on your link were rather half-assed.

[headdie]

A few things to mention about the results posted

Ireland - 1960's - 1980's we have a low level multi faction civil war with the murder rates peaking on the graph at about the peak of the troubles
Jamaica - there is a discernible trend of rising homicides prior to the ban, also Jamaica has a very significant gang dynamic which makes the numbers for the country much more complicated than pure gun control.
UK - looks scary until you realise that graph peaks at 18 instances per million whereas the other stats on the page are per 100,000  also the 1997 date fails to take into account that the legislation was an amendment to existing handgun controls

[OverDhill]

It is a simple fact that if you take away guns from people then only the criminals and anyone wanted to use one will have them. Just look at the statistics of gun free zones in the country like Chicago. Drugs are illegal and yet no matter how much effort and money we spend on trying to stop it people who want it manage to get it. Also you can't compare country to country as you will not be taking in the cultures of those countries in account. Being the great melting pot means we probably have some of the best society has to offer but also the worst elements. The sanctity of life in this country has significantly gone down in the 60 years I have been alive. 

On a whole different view point. Our forefathers had a good reason to arm the people. It was to protect them not only from outside forces but also from their own government. Someday you will be glad that your neighbor is armed.

One last thing as this is a never ending debate subject.  If you really want to save lives and this is what it is all about there are a whole hell of a lot of other 'low hanging fruit' that could prevent people from dying.  Take a look on how many deaths involve texting or drinking while driving.  How many deaths are from cigarettes and yet we do little to stop either.  We also abort the innocent unborn by the millions. You can't not legislate morality.

Gun control for some groups including Washington is not about saving lives. It is about taking away the guns. People kill people with knives also. Don't see anyone suggesting we take them away. 

It is simple minded to think guns will ever be purged from society. It is more simple minded to think this will solve the problem. It would be better to spend those resources on mental health and moral education. Things that would strengthen the family unit.

But hey this is a free country (for now) so have your discussion. But remember we are talking about the second amendment. No executive order is going to over turn that. Politicians need to brush up on separations of power and the Constitution they swore to defend. The President does not make laws. If you want a dictator or Socialism then I suggest moving to a country that has it.

[z64555]

OverDHill please read through the thread before getting on the soapbox, it appears you have missed where others have expressed exactly the same views as you have.

headdie, very good points to bring up, these go towards showing that gun control laws alone do not have a direct influence over the acts of violence.

I'll ask again, is there any data comparing gun related crimes against policies vs time? The wording on the OverDHill's link seems to only cite Homicides, not Homicides due to gun inflicted wounds.

[karajorma]

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

When they refer to the island nation of England, I question their ability to understand anything, let alone something as complex as the relationship between gun ownership and crime. England is not a ****ing island!

[zookeeper]

When they refer to the island nation of England, I question their ability to understand anything, let alone something as complex as the relationship between gun ownership and crime. England is not a ****ing island!

...what?

England is not an island. England is an island nation.

[Grizzly]

When they refer to the island nation of England, I question their ability to understand anything, let alone something as complex as the relationship between gun ownership and crime. England is not a ****ing island!

...what?

England is not an island. England is an island nation.

England is not a nation -  The United Kingdom is.

[zookeeper]

England is not a nation -  The United Kingdom is.

Oh, right, that might be. Since he specifically pointed out "island" I assumed that the nation part wasn't what he objected to. I'm not sure about the nation/country/state terminology, really, but I presume England is a country that's not a nation, and the UK is a nation that's not a country?

[Grizzly]

England is not a nation -  The United Kingdom is.

Oh, right, that might be. Since he specifically pointed out "island" I assumed that the nation part wasn't what he objected to. I'm not sure about the nation/country/state terminology, really, but I presume England is a country that's not a nation, and the UK is a nation that's not a country?

Sort of. It's rather weird, but the key thing is that England is a part of the island of Great Britian which is part of the nation of the United Kingdom which in turn is a part of the British Empire.