Where have we done that? We've said you can learn from other countries, and there are a lot of different places with different solutions you can look at.

That's not the same as taking data from one country and applying it to two as if they are homogeneous, just to make a point.

The contrast between Australia and the UK is this - while we had few mass killings with guns before controls were tightened, we now have fewer but not zero. Australia, for a smaller country, had a higher rate than we did, but since their law changed have had none so far. Which should tell any decent researcher that there's a bit of a difference between them.

Doctor Fate wrote:Please tell the victims mental illness is a canard.

It's not the sole cause. A mentally ill guy with a knife would have been less deadly. And it's too easy a get-out, like just putting it down to 'Evil'. The problem with concentrating solely on the mental illness angle is that it's not possible to predict who will become a danger in the future. Erring on the side of caution and using Krauthammer's solution of more commital would mean people who are not a danger being deprived of a lot of freedoms.

And please stop this appeal to moral superiority. It's one thing to have compassion. It's another to shove it into people's faces and make a deal of it. Hardly humility, is it?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Please tell the victims mental illness is a canard.

It's not the sole cause.

Neither are guns. Yet, if you read about the matter, all that is really being suggested are a bunch of gun restrictions that would not have stopped any of the recent shootings.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Please tell the victims mental illness is a canard.

It's not the sole cause.

Neither are guns. Yet, if you read about the matter, all that is really being suggested are a bunch of gun restrictions that would not have stopped any of the recent shootings.

Oh great, you are channelling GMTom now....

1) On 'all that is really being suggested' - Wrong. We have suggested improvement to mental health as well.
2) On 'would not have stopped any' Are you so sure? In both cases, the guns were semi-automatics that were bought from a legal outlet. It's conjecture to say that the killers would have obtained the same weapons a different way had that option been outlawed. Perhaps in the case of the Rochester killer, but it could hardly have been more straightforward for the Newtown kid than taking them from the person he lived with (and was his first victim). I would say that your assertion here (which you have made several times) cannot be proven and carries significant doubt. At best you could avoid repeating it as if it's a copper-bottomed fact.

Let me put it this way. Mental illness is not the sole cause (after all, we know that some killers are not mentally ill but just sociopathic). Guns are not the sole cause (after all, we know that many guns are nowhere near as deadly as AR-15 derived semi-automatics). However, the confluence of the two is most definitely a problem. We (freeman and I) have both suggested looking at both. The issue is, as I would hope you can understand, that the mentally ill are not all obvious or predictable. Many people who will pose a danger through their own illness are not diagnosed - or even currently diagnosable. However, we do know that any gun, and particularly one that's capable of easy multiple shots, does pose a danger in the wrong hands.

And yes, there are about 30,000 deaths in the US a year from guns, including suicides (which would likely be far lower as many suicide attempts using other means fail) and accidents (again, which would be lower if there were fewer guns even legally held). There are also about 30,000 deaths a year on the roads. However, in the latter case, there is a concerted effort being made - successfully - to reduce the toll through regulation (written law and most crucially the enforcement of it), industry efforts and education etc.

freeman2 wrote: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

Jesus Christ do you realize how stupid that sounds?

I don't mean to be insulting but seriously, if you get one bullet per trigger pull, how do you get a different rate of fire? I mean besides how fast the operator can pull the trigger?

danivon wrote:Oh great, you are channelling GMTom now....

1) On 'all that is really being suggested' - Wrong. We have suggested improvement to mental health as well.

I did say, "If you read . . . " thus indicating a world beyond these boards . . .

2) On 'would not have stopped any' Are you so sure? In both cases, the guns were semi-automatics that were bought from a legal outlet. It's conjecture to say that the killers would have obtained the same weapons a different way had that option been outlawed.

Semi-autos will not be outlawed. Period.

Perhaps in the case of the Rochester killer, but it could hardly have been more straightforward for the Newtown kid than taking them from the person he lived with (and was his first victim). I would say that your assertion here (which you have made several times) cannot be proven and carries significant doubt. At best you could avoid repeating it as if it's a copper-bottomed fact.

What specific law would have stopped the Newtown shooting? Write it out and let's test it.

Let me put it this way. Mental illness is not the sole cause (after all, we know that some killers are not mentally ill but just sociopathic). Guns are not the sole cause (after all, we know that many guns are nowhere near as deadly as AR-15 derived semi-automatics). However, the confluence of the two is most definitely a problem.

True, so for the fraction of the population bent this way, all must surrender their rights?

We (freeman and I) have both suggested looking at both. The issue is, as I would hope you can understand, that the mentally ill are not all obvious or predictable. Many people who will pose a danger through their own illness are not diagnosed - or even currently diagnosable. However, we do know that any gun, and particularly one that's capable of easy multiple shots, does pose a danger in the wrong hands.

What guns are relatively safe? As I've said before, revolvers can fire 12 accurate rounds in 30 seconds--more for some. How slow does a weapon have to be? What measures should we go to in order to make society free from threat?

And yes, there are about 30,000 deaths in the US a year from guns, including suicides (which would likely be far lower as many suicide attempts using other means fail) and accidents (again, which would be lower if there were fewer guns even legally held). There are also about 30,000 deaths a year on the roads. However, in the latter case, there is a concerted effort being made - successfully - to reduce the toll through regulation (written law and most crucially the enforcement of it), industry efforts and education etc.

I notice you all love the high figure. You mention suicides and accidents. You fail to mention self-defense. How many vehicular deaths are attributable to self-defense? How many situations are averted because of guns? For example, a man pulls a knife on me, I pull a gun, he runs away. How many?

If you want to change the law, move here.

Archduke, guns are not made the same, they have different parts, their trigger systems require different amouns of pressure,etc. I don't think you have thought about it , you had a snap reaction that all semi-automatic weapons fire at the same average rate of fire(obviously there are differences based on the individual shooter)
Here is a pro-gun article. http://www.gunsandcrime.org/firerate.html

Note that he specifies that are different rates of speed associated with different guns. He also states that the max you can pull the trigger was 4 times a second. Maybe at that time 4 times a second was the max. I don't really know why the Bushmaster is so fast but because it fires so fast it makes it very lethal in close quarters (if not so good at shooting deer)

Doctor Fate wrote:I did say, "If you read . . . " thus indicating a world beyond these boards . . .

Because you don't read these boards? How is 'if you read' indicating 'beyond these boards' anyway?

Besides, there have been similar discussions elsewhere too. The very fact that we have had them here means that if you had read them, you'd know. But there have been discussions about other aspects in the wider public debate.

One example is the proposal to add full liability to owners of guns for any damage caused by them. That doesn't force anyone to buy insurance (but they'd be wise to do so), or not have a gun (but they'd be unwise to not be more cautious). Looks completely constitutional and legal, and is a way of using a market solution: pricing in an externality.

2) On 'would not have stopped any' Are you so sure? In both cases, the guns were semi-automatics that were bought from a legal outlet. It's conjecture to say that the killers would have obtained the same weapons a different way had that option been outlawed.

Semi-autos will not be outlawed. Period.

So? There could still be effective regulation that wasn't a total ban and yet made it much harder for someone to buy them for domestic (as in 'home' rather than 'intranational') use.

Perhaps in the case of the Rochester killer, but it could hardly have been more straightforward for the Newtown kid than taking them from the person he lived with (and was his first victim). I would say that your assertion here (which you have made several times) cannot be proven and carries significant doubt. At best you could avoid repeating it as if it's a copper-bottomed fact.

What specific law would have stopped the Newtown shooting? Write it out and let's test it.

WTF? "If you'd read" you may get the idea that I'm not talking about one specific law. There are various measures.

Let me put it this way. Mental illness is not the sole cause (after all, we know that some killers are not mentally ill but just sociopathic). Guns are not the sole cause (after all, we know that many guns are nowhere near as deadly as AR-15 derived semi-automatics). However, the confluence of the two is most definitely a problem.

True, so for the fraction of the population bent this way, all must surrender their rights?

Given we are talking about a fraction of one right, it's not all that bad. You seem to have no problem removing a substantial number of rights from people who may pose a threat through commital.

I notice you all love the high figure. You mention suicides and accidents. You fail to mention self-defense.

True enough. I think it's still about 10,000 homicides a year, and more suicides. I don't 'love' the figures at all, by the way. They represent a truly appalling waste of human life.

How many vehicular deaths are attributable to self-defense?

Very few. Very few are intentional at all. Of course there are differences between the two, but at least there's an effort to reduce vehicular deaths, and one that is working. For gun deaths, you rely on complacency.

How many situations are averted because of guns? For example, a man pulls a knife on me, I pull a gun, he runs away. How many?[/quote]If he's close enough, he will can you before you get to finish pulling it. Your gun is useless. [url=http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/knife-defense.html]Krav Maga

If you want to change the law, move here.[/quote]

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I did say, "If you read . . . " thus indicating a world beyond these boards . . .

Because you don't read these boards? How is 'if you read' indicating 'beyond these boards' anyway?

"If" is, as you well know, conditional. I generally presume most people here read beyond Redscape.

Besides, there have been similar discussions elsewhere too. The very fact that we have had them here means that if you had read them, you'd know. But there have been discussions about other aspects in the wider public debate.

I have specifically cited Feinstein's proposal--all gun control, nothing to do with mental health and NOTHING that would have prevented Newtown.

One example is the proposal to add full liability to owners of guns for any damage caused by them. That doesn't force anyone to buy insurance (but they'd be wise to do so), or not have a gun (but they'd be unwise to not be more cautious). Looks completely constitutional and legal, and is a way of using a market solution: pricing in an externality.

Again, for those bent on homicide or crime, what good is such a law?

Semi-autos will not be outlawed. Period.

So? There could still be effective regulation that wasn't a total ban and yet made it much harder for someone to buy them for domestic (as in 'home' rather than 'intranational') use.

Again, how does this do anything to prevent crime? It would inhibit law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. Maybe that's the main idea behind gun control?

What specific law would have stopped the Newtown shooting? Write it out and let's test it.

WTF? "If you'd read" you may get the idea that I'm not talking about one specific law. There are various measures.

Fine. Lay them all out. Give me a complete dossier full of laws that would have prevented it.

Given we are talking about a fraction of one right, it's not all that bad. You seem to have no problem removing a substantial number of rights from people who may pose a threat through commital.

Not at all, but I think in a few of the cases that have been mentioned, the shooting could have been stopped by more aggressive intervention.

True enough. I think it's still about 10,000 homicides a year, and more suicides. I don't 'love' the figures at all, by the way. They represent a truly appalling waste of human life.

Indeed. No argument there.

How many of them are gang-related? In other words, if you removed what is effectively organized crime, what would be left?

For gun deaths, you rely on complacency.

No, I'm just saying that nothing proposed so far will work.

How many situations are averted because of guns? For example, a man pulls a knife on me, I pull a gun, he runs away. How many?

If he's close enough, he will can you before you get to finish pulling it. Your gun is useless.

I think I have a bit more training and experience here than you. I know what will and will not work. I've drawn a gun with my life on the line, have you? I've had to subdue people holding knives, have you?

I see you couldn't resist the adhominem attack on Danivon...nice
Thanks for the study from Penn State, Danivon. Very interesting
The authors note the opposition to federal funding of studies on firearm violence. I wonder why there would be opposition? Presumably because of a fear of the results of such studies
I see that you have no real answer to the data that shows having a gun is more dangerous than not having one (the data on defensive uses is so sketchy as to be useless--it seems easier and better to try and prove gun owners are less prone to being the victims of a crime, but that data does not appear to exist)
In your response to my answers to Mr Lowry's questions you made a few points I want to address:

(1) you claim that there would have been no impact if the shooter only had 10 round magazines. First, there were teachers not just kids who could have intervened. Secondly, this guy was apparently shooting each kid three times in rapid succession--want to bet he would not have done that if he had a 10 round magazine instead of a 30 round magazine? Also kids would have had a better chance of escaping if he had 10 round magazines.

(2) Mr Lowry said gun free school zones not gun free zones. So your arguments on that point with regard to non-school shootings is completely in apposite

(3) the gun range question is silly because human beings shoot people for reasons. People don't even interact with each other at gun ranges, so there is very little chance of any conflict leading to the use of guns.

freeman2 wrote:I see you couldn't resist the adhominem attack on Danivon...nice

No, no I didn't do that. I simply said I've been there. Actually, he went ad hominem with the GM Tom crack--and it was two ad hominems in one.

Thanks for the study from Penn State, Danivon. Very interesting
The authors note the opposition to federal funding of studies on firearm violence. I wonder why there would be opposition? Presumably because of a fear of the results of such studies

Because the Federal government spends enough as it is? There are plenty of anti-gun lobbies.

Because the Second Amendment is in the Constitution?

I see that you have no real answer to the data that shows having a gun is more dangerous than not having one (the data on defensive uses is so sketchy as to be useless--it seems easier and better to try and prove gun owners are less prone to being the victims of a crime, but that data does not appear to exist)

The problem with any such study is that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. One conducts this sort of study because one is interested in the issue. You can't convince me there is an unbiased study on this. If I cite one from the NRA, will you believe it?

In your response to my answers to Mr Lowry's questions you made a few points I want to address:

(1) you claim that there would have been no impact if the shooter only had 10 round magazines. First, there were teachers not just kids who could have intervened. Secondly, this guy was apparently shooting each kid three times in rapid succession--want to bet he would not have done that if he had a 10 round magazine instead of a 30 round magazine? Also kids would have had a better chance of escaping if he had 10 round magazines.

This is all speculation based on your imagination. You have absolutely no way of substantiating any of this.

(2) Mr Lowry said gun free school zones not gun free zones. So your arguments on that point with regard to non-school shootings is completely in apposite

Oh, yeah, you got me there pal! Gun free school zones work SO much better . . . until some bad guy shows up with a gun.

It's actually the same thing, you're just out of answers.

(3) the gun range question is silly because human beings shoot people for reasons.

Really?

What reason did the Newtown shooter have? Aurora? Rochester?

People don't even interact with each other at gun ranges, so there is very little chance of any conflict leading to the use of guns.

Those kids never did anything to the shooter. Your reasoning is in the ether.

How was it 'ad hominem'? I was pointing out that you were making the same fallacious point as someone else.

and noting what Feinstein's proposals are does not disprove the point that other people have made other suggestions. If you read more than just that, I guess you'd get that.

Any response to the Penn State study? Any suggestions of your own on how to prevent such incidents?

danivon wrote: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

Minor point: it's Univ. of Penn., not Penn State.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

*Gun murders are down.
*Aggravated Assault with gun is down.
*Robbery with a gun is down.

*Gun ownership is up.

It's not so simple as some would like it to be. For example (same article):

In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship between those factors — areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general. But studies haven’t been able to show a causal relationship — that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence. It’s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal relationship.

Now, from the UPenn study (p. 6):

Firearm violence is a complex health issue, which cannot be understood or addressed in
isolation from a broader community context.

Interestingly, that has been my point. It's not as easy as "take away assault guns and we'll all be safer."

From p. 7:

The five states with the
highest firearm death rates are Louisiana, Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi and Arizona. The states
with the lowest rates include Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and Connecticut.
For most states, firearm suicide rates exceed those of firearm homicide. Rates have been age
adjusted to the year 2000 population. Age-adjusted rates allow comparisons that are independent
of differing population age distributions between states.

Connecticut . . .

New York . . . the only reason the Rochester shooting wasn't a mass murder is because the suspect only attempted to murder the firemen he wounded but failed to accomplish it.

Strict gun laws don't work.

Does banning drugs stop them from being sold and used?

Does banning convicted drunk drivers from driving prevent them from driving?

Will an assault weapons ban reduce suicides?

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.

And, owning a car makes it more likely you will be in an accident.

Drinking alcohol makes it more likely you will be an alcoholic.

Life can be dangerous.

Does banning convicted drunk drivers from driving prevent them from driving?

But that's not a fair comparison, drunk drivers have easy access to cars, they can find one or steal one from so many places. Guns are ...ooops, yeah, that's a real good comparison after all.

On the other hand, maybe it does do some good to let honest, hardworking people defend themselves (and others):

Clackamas:

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

More: Gunman, two dead in Clackamas mall shooting

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

Off-duty cop in San Antonio:

On Sunday, December 16, 2012, off-duty sheriff's deputy, Lisa Castellano, shot and wounded a gunman after he opened fire in a restaurant and movie theater in San Antonio, Texas. According to a report by the San Antonio Express News, Jesus Manuel Garcia shot and injured two people at the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 Theater.

The shooting began at the China Garden restaurant, where Garica was employed, and carried over into the theater. Garcia was apparently upset after his girlfriend had broken up with him that night.

Bexar County sheriff’s deputy Lisa Castellano was working at the movie theater as a security guard. Castellano chased Garcia into the men’s restroom, shooting him several times, and confiscating his gun.