I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this point...

...25 pages later

I think this puts the gun-control advocates in a corner they cannot escaped. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ich-lowry#

Ok I'll answer these questions from Mr Lowry...

(1) assault weapons have features that make them more dangerous--how many semi-automatic rifles that are not assault rifles shoot 6 bullets a second

(2) The Bushmaster should be banned. I don't know about power but it shoots bullets going three times the speed of sound and shoots them incredibly quickly
(3) gun laws reducing magazines almost certainly would have resulted in fewer deaths in New Town. The Arizona shooter was stopped when he reloaded
(4) oh so there are so many guns you ate not going to even attempt doing anything about it? Brilliant.
(5) No the Virginia Tech massacre does not affect my views because many other massacres have been done with assault weapons
(6) Violent crime has declined for reasons unrelated to gun ownership. Clearly, there are demographic changes, more police, stricter sentences,etc
(7) Yes columbine happened but overall mass shootings declined.
(8) local municipal gun laws are not that effective usually because guns can be brought in from the outside. However, Geojanes appears to think that New York City gun laws are effective (maybe because NY city cops are more aggressive in policing illegal possession of guns)
(9) Why would people shoot each other at gun ranges--nonsensical point
(10)Any evidence for his contention that gun free schools don't deter? Seems like an unsupported rant to me
(11) there was an armed guard at Columbine, at the Arizona shooting, and armed guards at Virginia Tech To have one at every school would be costly, ineffective, and change the experience of going to school for the worse
(12) people with tight gun laws own guns anyway? I don't get this point--presumably they have the right to own guns, so why wouldn't they particularly in high-crime areas? I support police acting within the Constitution in stopping illegal gun possession

(13) The last question is rhetorical and conclusory and there is no need to answer a question not asked in good faith

And Mr Lowry why are you so smug about letting 30,000 Americans die every year without doing anything about it? How do you explain that gun deaths are far in excess of every other advanced Western country? Are we worse people? Are we inherently more violent? Are we too religious (since Europe is far more secular and has far fewer gun deaths?

freeman2 wrote:Ok I'll answer this nonsense from Mr Lowry...

(1) assault weapons have features that make them more dangerous--how many semi-automatic rifles that are not assault rifles shoot 6 bullets a second

Seriously? You are asking this question with a straight face.

The answer is all of them if you can pull the trigger 6 times in a second. It is the way semi-automatic rifles work. It doesn't matter if the weapon as a semi-automatic assault rifle or a semi-automatic non-assault rifle. You insert the magazine, pull back the bolt and pull the trigger until you run out of bullets.

1 trigger pull = 1 bullet. If you can pull the trigger 6 times in 1 second then you will get 6 bullets a second whether the rifle is an assault rifle or not.

Ah, yes, I get that semi-automatic weapons shoot one bullet every time you pull a trigger...that doesnt mean they have the exact same rate of fire

ARJ - the point of a semi-automatic is that it drastically reduces the time that can be taken between shots.

I think the Archduke was trying to do you a favor, let you save a little face. You, and Danivon, are (not surprisingly) missing the point.

freeman2 wrote:Ok I'll answer these questions from Mr Lowry...

(1) assault weapons have features that make them more dangerous--how many semi-automatic rifles that are not assault rifles shoot 6 bullets a second

First, a question is not really an answer to a question.

Second, you (again) did not read carefully. I cite Mr. Lowry:

Rich Lowry wrote:What’s the functional difference between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic rifle? You do understand that the answer is “nothing”? An assault weapon is not an automatic weapon. It is semiautomatic like most guns now sold in the United States, i.e., it fires every time the trigger is pulled. What sets it apart is its scary-looking features.

What’s more powerful, the Bushmaster .223 used by Adam Lanza in his slaughter or the average deer-hunting rifle? If the answer is the average deer-hunting rifle — indeed, many states ban the Bushmaster .223 for deer hunting because it is too weak — will you attempt to ban them, too?

So, contra your assertion, real or implied, the Bushmaster is less powerful than many deer-hunting rifles.

(2) The Bushmaster should be banned. I don't know about power but it shoots bullets going three times the speed of sound and shoots them incredibly quickly

And yet, as Lowry points out, it's less powerful than hunting rifles. Will you ban them too?

It is the name and the look that make the "Bushmaster" more "menacing" than guns that are actually more powerful.

(3) gun laws reducing magazines almost certainly would have resulted in fewer deaths in New Town. The Arizona shooter was stopped when he reloaded

Which of the schoolkids was going to jump the Newtown shooter?

Your assertion is absurd. Your choice of comparison is even worse.

The Arizona shooting was nothing like this one. Even though some children were shot, they were not the primary people in attendance. The store situation was more crowded.

I went looking at .45s last night--7 round magazines. Do you really suppose that the children and teachers would have the wherewithal to count rounds, prepare themselves, and then charge during the 1 or 2 seconds it would take to change magazines?

Even the psychological profile you're creating is absurd.

(4) oh so there are so many guns you ate not going to even attempt doing anything about it? Brilliant.

Arizona and Newtown do share one common element: both shooters were known to have serious mental issues. That is far more germane than how many guns there are in the US.

You really don't address this:

Lowry wrote:What gun law would have stopped Newtown? Please be specific. Adam Lanza’s mother didn’t have a criminal record. Neither did he. If the Bushmaster .223 had been banned, he could have done the same with a semiautomatic rifle. If all semiautomatic rifles were banned — something that would never pass Congress — he could have done the same with a semiautomatic handgun.

What SPECIFIC gun law would have stopped Newtown?

(5) No the Virginia Tech massacre does not affect my views because many other massacres have been done with assault weapons

It doesn't affect your views because you find the truth inconvenient. Cho killed 32 people with handguns. Handguns, not assault weapons. This puts the lie to the notion that banning assault guns makes us safer.

(6) Violent crime has declined for reasons unrelated to gun ownership. Clearly, there are demographic changes, more police, stricter sentences,etc

Why is this "clear?"

Are there more police? Than when? Why has President Obama been trying to fund more police if there are already more of them?

What does demographic changes have to do with it?

Stricter sentences? Like the ones that lead to that Rochester shooting the other day? Only in a liberal state would the shooter have been out of prison.

(7) Yes columbine happened but overall mass shootings declined.

Yet, you don't know if there were other contributing factors. You want to cite a multitude of unproven factors in the decline of violent crime, but are more than happy to cite ONE reason for a decline in mass shootings. Not very scientific.

(8) local municipal gun laws are not that effective usually because guns can be brought in from the outside.

500 murders in Chicago this year--a place that has tried to punish gun owners in every way possible.

However, Geojanes appears to think that New York City gun laws are effective (maybe because NY city cops are more aggressive in policing illegal possession of guns)

Geo is a smart man. Many police states reduce violence this way.

(9) Why would people shoot each other at gun ranges--nonsensical point

Actually, it strikes at the heart of the anti-gun hysteria. You all believe that more guns = more gun deaths. Yet, where is there more guns per capita than on a gun range?

The problem isn't guns. The problem is people. There are bad ones out there and there are crazy ones out there. Good people should be permitted to protect themselves. Some people don't agree. Some people think only the State can protect you.

(10)Any evidence for his contention that gun free schools don't deter? Seems like an unsupported rant to me

???

That would be funny, if it wasn't so blatantly ignorant.

Why was Major Hasan able to shoot so many soldiers?

Because they were, by law, forbidden from carrying weapons. If they were all armed, he might have killed a couple, but not as many as he did.

If gun-free zones are so effective, why does the school the President's children attend have an 11-person security team? (Note well: this is in addition to the Secret Service details for his kids)

How many examples do you want? As I said, the entire town of Chicago is virtually a "gun-free" zone, but it's actually a war zone. Every weekend there are many shooting victims.

One more:

That problem was vividly illustrated by the second deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, which occurred in Killeen, Texas, a stone’s throw from Fort Hood. In 1991 George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck through the window of a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, jumped out, and began firing two pistols at the defenseless customers and employees inside, killing 23 of them.

One customer, Suzanna Hupp, saw Hennard gun down her parents. Hupp later testified that she had brought a handgun with her that day but, to her bitter regret, left it in her car, as required by state law. The massacre led the Texas legislature to approve a “shall issue” law that allows any resident who meets certain objective criteria to obtain a concealed carry permit.

But people with such permits are still barred from bringing their weapons into areas designated as gun-free zones. And when a killer fires on people he knows will be unarmed, it matters little whether he has 20-round or 10-round magazines, a detail emphasized in press coverage of the Fort Hood massacre. The second or two it takes to switch magazines is a minor nuisance when the people you are shooting at cannot shoot back.

Your answer is so weak it can't lift a metaphorical finger to object.

(11) there was an armed guard at Columbine, at the Arizona shooting, and armed guards at Virginia Tech To have one at every school would be costly, ineffective, and change the experience of going to school for the worse

Virgina Tech was a sprawling campus. The Arizona shooting and the Columbine shooting, I would have to see what the training of the guard was, etc.

Here's what is obvious: if after the shooter blasted his way into Newtown someone had been armed, it would not have been so easy for the shooter.

(12) people with tight gun laws own guns anyway? I don't get this point--presumably they have the right to own guns, so why wouldn't they particularly in high-crime areas?

Because gun laws are effective, right? So, why would people want to carry guns in "safe" areas? Wherever guns are banned, the places are safer, right?

I support police acting within the Constitution in stopping illegal gun possession

Me too. I am dubious whether stop and frisk is done in a Constitutional manner.

(13) The last question is rhetorical and conclusory and there is no need to answer a question not asked in good faith

Oh, but it is. He asks, "In your view, to make a public policy worth pursuing, should it have a discernible connection to its stated goal?"

So, if the "stated goal" is to stop a shooting like Newtown, what is the law that would do it? That should be easy enough to answer. Go ahead. Answer it.

And Mr Lowry why are you so smug about letting 30,000 Americans die every year without doing anything about it?

Misleading, unless you are talking about cars.

How many Americans die by murder committed by guns? Hint: it isn't 30,000.

How many of those guns are illegally obtained?

How many of those murders would be prevented (the suspect would not find some other means)?

If the goal is to prevent mass shootings, how many murder victims were there of "mass shootings" compared to all murders?

How do you explain that gun deaths are far in excess of every other advanced Western country? Are we worse people? Are we inherently more violent? Are we too religious (since Europe is far more secular and has far fewer gun deaths?

None of this supports your contention that gun laws would stop shootings like Newtown. Until you can give a law that would have prevented it, you've got nothing.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, her claims are that the people of Britain and Australia are not noticeably safer--violent crime, overall, is fairly similar. And, she claims massacres have not been prevented.

I think it's clear she's saying a massacre, or more, has taken place.

But Australia and Britain are different countries, and as such have different laws. Lumping them together and saying that the legal changes there have not done something is a little illogical.

What has happened in both is that massacres have reduced, and those that have happened in the UK are less deadly.

What I am seeing now are reports that the Rochester shooter was able to get his gun because a neighbour went to a legal seller and lied.

Which again raises the question - if these guns are so easy to get illegally, why do they seem to arrive in the market through legal sales? (while the buyer made a false declaration, the seller appears to have acted in good faith and so legally). In the Newtown case, the killer stole the gun, sure. But in his own house, from his mom. How well did her guns protect her? I believe it's been suggested through studies that owning a gun makes one more likely to be shot than not owning one. Which also undercuts their usefulness for protection.

This is the flaw in the 'the criminals will get the guns anyway' argument. They may, but a large proportion, indeed likely a majority, of guns now 'illegal' were originally 'legal'. If you can cut down the supply of legal assault weapons, that will have a knock on effect on the number that criminals can get hold of. That both of these recent killers obtained their AR-15 rifles from an original legal source quite close to them is quite important.

From the New Scientist in 2009: Carrying a gun increases the risk of getting shot and killed

Also, an illuminating report from Penn State on firearms. I would be interested to see what people get from the large number of statistics that are held within: PDF - 1.72MB

Edit: An excerpt:

Firearm Access
A debate is ongoing about the consequences of owning firearms: Is access to a gun protective or
an increased risk factor for the firearm owner to be killed?118,119,120,121,122,123 While some studies
suggest that firearms can serve a protective function, the bulk of evidence suggests that gun
availability increases the likelihood for individuals to be killed, or to kill another person:
• A gun in the home is a risk factor for household members to be shot fatally in their home.118
• The risk of being killed appears particularly high among women, which reflects the increased
likelihood for a woman to be killed by her spouse, partner or family member rather than a
stranger.124
• People with a family member who has purchased a handgun are at increased risk of being
shot and killed.125
• Owning a gun may moderately increase the likelihood of fatally shooting another person.126
• On the whole, carrying a firearm does not guarantee protection and may increase injury
risk.127 While individual circumstances vary, persons should take this into account this when
making decisions about firearm possession. Considering safety plans that provide alternatives
to firearms may be in order for individuals with minimal firearms experience.

There seems to be more evidence that owning a gun increases the risk of you or someone close to you being shot, than that it's 'protective'. For those claiming the protective function is more significant, I'd like to see some citations, not just assertion.

Arizona and Newtown do share one common element: both shooters were known to have serious mental issues. That is far more germane than how many guns there are in the US.
The problem isn't guns. The problem is people. There are bad ones out there and there are crazy ones out there. Good people should be permitted to protect themselves. Some people don't agree. Some people think only the State can protect you.

This is a canard. There are as many mentally ill people per capita in Japan and France as in the United States. Just as many ready to become violent any second.
They just don't have the convenience of generally convenient access to fire arms.

On the UK, though, what gun massacres have taken place since the laws were tightened up post-Dunblane?

All I can find is the Cumbria shootings by Derek Bird. There are some notable facets about this case. The guns were held legally. He had a shotgun license and a rifle licence, and the weapons were all legal. As I've tried to point out to you guys, we have not got a total ban on guns. So yes, our gun laws didn't 'prevent' it. But that is the only one for the past 15 years. And our gun law changes were not strict enough to make the weapons he held illegal. What we do know is that we haven't had anything similar using handguns or semi-automatics.

I also looked up our crime statistics for England & Wales. I can compare the last 22 years. The last four years have the following totals:

2008/9
Homicide - 662
GBH with intent ('Grievous Bofily Harm = our most serious assault charge) - 22663

2009/10
Homicide - 619
GBH w/intent - 22795

2010/11
Homicide - 638
GBH w/intent - 19489

2011/12
Homicide - 550
GBH w/intent - 17772

I detect a downward trend in both. Don't you?

And let's compare the average homicide numbers for those years with the average for the 4 years before the last major gun law changes (1993-6)

2008-12 Avg Homicide: 619.75

1993: 670
1994: 724
1995: 745
1996: 681
1993-6 Avg Homicide: 705

We can't compare GBH rates so easily, because the crime statistics were reported differently before 2008/9, and there were other changes in 2001

Consider also that our population has increased by about 10% or so in the meantime. So the murder rate as a proportion of the population has fallen further.

Not sure it's due to the gun laws, but it's certainly not the picture that DF's linked op-ed wants to paint.

Source: Home Office statistics - Offences recorded in England and Wales

rickyp wrote:

Arizona and Newtown do share one common element: both shooters were known to have serious mental issues. That is far more germane than how many guns there are in the US.
The problem isn't guns. The problem is people. There are bad ones out there and there are crazy ones out there. Good people should be permitted to protect themselves. Some people don't agree. Some people think only the State can protect you.

This is a canard. There are as many mentally ill people per capita in Japan and France as in the United States. Just as many ready to become violent any second.
They just don't have the convenience of generally convenient access to fire arms.

Indeed. We can all do with better diagnosis and care of the mentally ill (although I'm no sure we can be totally sure what was going on with the Newtown kid, as he's dead and all we know on diagnosis is that he had Aspergers which is not generally a cause of homicidal aggression). But one thing that would most definitely help would be to make it harder for people who are mentally ill and dangerous to others (and that can happen very quickly without warning), to obtain the easiest means of causing fatal harm - guns that are easy to use and can fire several rounds in quick succession.

rickyp wrote:

Arizona and Newtown do share one common element: both shooters were known to have serious mental issues. That is far more germane than how many guns there are in the US.
The problem isn't guns. The problem is people. There are bad ones out there and there are crazy ones out there. Good people should be permitted to protect themselves. Some people don't agree. Some people think only the State can protect you.

This is a canard. There are as many mentally ill people per capita in Japan and France as in the United States. Just as many ready to become violent any second.
They just don't have the convenience of generally convenient access to fire arms.

Please tell the victims mental illness is a canard.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, her claims are that the people of Britain and Australia are not noticeably safer--violent crime, overall, is fairly similar. And, she claims massacres have not been prevented.

I think it's clear she's saying a massacre, or more, has taken place.

But Australia and Britain are different countries, and as such have different laws. Lumping them together and saying that the legal changes there have not done something is a little illogical.

Kind of like lumping the US with other countries?

Oh, wait. That's all you all have been doing!