How about we start treating criminals who use guns as the criminals they are? Maybe, just maybe the laws already on the books might work if they were enforced? Get tougher with gun laws and then maybe a criminal will think twice before using one? Take for example shooting a cop, if a thug kills you or I, they get one penalty, if they shoot a cop they get another and they know they get an entire department hunting them down, cops are not shot at with this in mind (for the most part) criminals know better than to mess with cops. Why not the same reasoning with all gun crimes, yeah using a gun is going to up their ante already but make it SEVERE and lock these guys up forever!

GMTom wrote:How about we start treating criminals who use guns as the criminals they are? Maybe, just maybe the laws already on the books might work if they were enforced? Get tougher with gun laws and then maybe a criminal will think twice before using one? Take for example shooting a cop, if a thug kills you or I, they get one penalty, if they shoot a cop they get another and they know they get an entire department hunting them down, cops are not shot at with this in mind (for the most part) criminals know better than to mess with cops. Why not the same reasoning with all gun crimes, yeah using a gun is going to up their ante already but make it SEVERE and lock these guys up forever!

Like I notice none of our liberal friends chatting up the situation in Rochester.

Again, a man with a long criminal history--one who beat his own grandmother to death with a hammer. He was on the streets. Why? A justice system that is more interested in rehabilitation than protection of the public.

The weapon(s) he used were all illegal for him to possess . . . yet, two firefighters were killed and two more were shot.

What additional laws would have changed that?

The fixation on magazines is farcical. If you limit magazines to 10 rounds, I'll just buy more of them. They're easy to replace.

And, btw, criminals will simply make and buy them on the black market. Such a law will only restrict the rights of those who already obey the law.

Yeah, you h ave no real argument as to their need for large magazines, we know of one shooting where the shooter was overpowered when he was reloading (Arizona), and unsupported allegations that criminals would have just as much access to these magazines (of course, at least with regard to mass shootings, the shooters don't appear to have criminal contacts). Convincing...

It's easy to ignore the facts. Sandy Hook ...strict gun laws, the killer was denied guns, he stole them from a legal owner.
Rochester, the killer was a felon who was not allowed guns, he got them illegally. Virginia Tech guns were bought but state laws were not enforced, Columbine had about 20 gun laws broken, the beltway sniper ...a stolen gun. Yes you can find some mass shootings where the weapons were bought legally (Gabrielle Giffords comes to mind)but to ignore the majority where laws were broken seems like a bit of cherry picking to me.

whoa,

unsupported allegations that criminals would have just as much access to these magazines (of course, at least with regard to mass shootings, the shooters don't appear to have criminal contacts).

...just like marijuana? That's illegal so I suppose only the criminals with nefarious contacts in the hood can buy it? It would be incredibly easy to buy black market guns or steal them if you wanted to. But that's an unsupported allegation (like those situations pointed out above?)

freeman2 wrote:Yeah, you h ave no real argument as to their need for large magazines, we know of one shooting where the shooter was overpowered when he was reloading (Arizona), and unsupported allegations that criminals would have just as much access to these magazines (of course, at least with regard to mass shootings, the shooters don't appear to have criminal contacts). Convincing...

I'm with Tom . . .

Additionally, it's interesting how you view things . . . a "need" has to be demonstrated in order to keep a right for law-abiding citizens.

#liberalsshredtheconstitutionwhenitsuitsthem

#whichismostofthetime

Again, there are two problems:

1. Is gun control legal? Certainly, there are limitations on what restrictions can be imposed given past USSC decisions.

2. Does it work? This article from the WSJ by a George Mason law prof argues it has failed in England and Australia.

What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

rickyp

If you knew that a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons like Australia's could effectively end mass shootings in 5 to 10 years.... would it be worth th sacrifice of your right to own such weapons?

bbauska
No, it would not.

rickyp
Why not?

The professor from George Mason completely loses any credibility when he does not discuss the fact that Australia had 11 mass shootings killing 121 people in the prior ten years prior to their instituting strict control and then zero mass shootings since then You can't just ignore inconvenient facts to make your point.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full
Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms.
Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.
Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.
Setting: Australia, 1979–2003.
Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

I'll Note that the intention of the Australiam ban was to prevent mass shootings. Any benefit or effect beyond that intention is worth considering. But the results since the ban have been conclusive...

freeman2 wrote:The professor from George Mason completely loses any credibility when he does not discuss the fact that Australia had 11 mass shootings killing 121 people in the prior ten years prior to their instituting strict control and then zero mass shootings since then You can't just ignore inconvenient facts to make your point.

"any credibility?"

Oh, I don't know . . . you failed to notice the author is a woman.

How much credibility does that leave you?

The "inconvenient facts" are these:

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.

So, Americans should be willing to give up much of the 2nd Amendment for a potential 9% decrease in homicides, a 33% decrease in armed robbery, but assaults up by 40% and sexual assaults up by 20%?

Let's vote on it.

Btw, how much easier do you suppose it is to interdict weapons coming into Australia vs. coming into the US?

The end result of the legislation you want will be a negligible effect on crime and the crooks will have a more free hand.

How well does gun control work in South Africa? That's a country with border problems, unlike Australia. So, how's it working out there?

Yeah, DF, the gender of the professor was relevant..Thanks, I needed the chuckle...

freeman2 wrote:Yeah, DF, the gender of the professor was relevant..Thanks, I needed the chuckle...

It is not relevant, but it says something about the care you put into reading the article. You strained to find a fact that would bolster your belief while dismissing her entire argument, which is fact-based.

I did more than skim the article. Obviously, I know prior to reading the article that there is something about it you like, that doesn't mean I am not giving to give her arguments careful consideration. I would really hope that a law professor from George Mason Law School, a reputable law school, making a contribution to the Wall Street Journal, a major publication, would have a thorough analysis of the issue. When she claims that gun control did not work in Australia but fails to account for the drop-off in mass shootings, she has made a major blunder. She claims that gun control has not stopped massacres in Australia when the evidence is very clear that it has done so.Is that she ignorant about a major "fact" in her story or is she willfully misrepresenting the facts. I don't know and I don't really care--she can't make such a major mistake and expect that her views will be respected.