keithgabryelski: way south:
We are not talking about homicides in general, we are talking about rampage killings.

/Unless you want people to post crime stats from places like Puerto Rico and Jamaica that prove your claim to be untrue.

i'd like to keep this to rampage killings.

but the stats on # of guns in a country with respect to # of homicides is well in the favor of "more guns = more homicides".
You can find outliers (and I am not sure if either of those countries are outliers) but the correlation is pretty high.

They are just a sampling of hellholes this planet has to offer.
It doesn't take a massive number of weapons to cause an incredible amount of harm. The issue is who has the weapons and what are they used for.
One drug gang can kill well over a thousand people in a year, as in the case of Mexico. They don't need crates of ammunition or weaponry to accomplish that.

What drives violence are things like social or wealth inequality, policies like those behind the drug wars, corruption in government and cultural issues. The symptom is gun violence, but the cure is not gun control. That is just a rule for people who care to obey it (and people in a violent nation are not in a mood to obey laws).

America has a high level of gun ownership but relatively low levels of violence.
If you want to target rampage killers, you have to disassociate firearm ownership from murder and figure out why we've got a number of head cases that are inclined to go off in unusual ways.

If we don't do that, we're going to fail at solving the problem and risk evolving it into something worse.
Humans aren't the kind to be stopped from an objective just because you've removed one kind of tool.

/just as Israel found out when it tried to disarm the Palestinians.
/in their case, they got rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
/the US has had it's own run in with mad bombers, so we can't claim people don't have the skill.

HeadLever: ilambiquated: This is an excellent reason to ban lead in munitions

California already has.

Lead is a problem in certain circumstances (waterfowl and scavengers, mostly). However, for most applications, it is not a big problem as your generalized statement alludes to.

Big enough for the EU to ban lead bullets.

iq_in_binary: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iq_in_binary: FARKING NFA

Would this cover the Bushmaster used in Newtown?

And I doubt many people here know what "NFA" is.

Yes. As well as pistols. About the only things that wouldn't be touched is pump action shotguns (not semi-auto), revolvers (not semi-auto), bolt action rifles and break open shotguns, as well as current semi-autos that are of such weak caliber as to be practically impossible to "easily" kill someone with. Stuff like .22LR rifles like 10/22s used for plinking at cans.

Sounds worth considering, anyway.

I suspect you may get more flak from NRA members than us gun-grabbers.

I have more respect for those who want to ban all semi auto weapons than I do for those who want to ban "assault weapons". I don't agree with a ban on semi autos, but it could conceivably make some sort of difference, where AWBs have not. We still have an "AWB" (in quotes because, as something something bianry posted up there a ways, an actual assault weapon is select fire), and the result is this:

'Bullet Button' Used To Get Around California Gun Laws

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) - California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. But one wouldn't know that going to the firing range these days. AR-15s and AK-47s are the must-have guns of choice. How can that be?

Every time California tightens up the assault weapons ban, the gun industry finds a way around it. The latest example involves a tiny device.

John Largaespada loves his AR-15 and goes to the range every week to fire it. And he's got plenty of company. "There is usually like a 30 minute to an hour wait for rifle lanes," he said. That's because the most popular guns at the range these days are semi-automatic rifles. In a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, how is it these military-style guns are legal?

Brian Normandy is an instructor at Jackson Arms. "As long as we don't have a detachable magazine in it, it's actually a legal firearm," Normandy said.

Other states allow people to use their finger to pop out the magazine and quickly reload. It's called a detachable magazine, and in California, its use in combination with other features such as a telescoping stock or pistol grip is illegal.

The intent is to slow down the process of reloading the weapon. But many target shooters don't like the reloading hassle. "For me to use this on the range, I would have to open up the receiver and top load it," said Normandy.

To get around this, gun manufacturers are selling firearms to Californians with what is called a "bullet button."

The user uses the tip of a bullet to release the empty magazine and pop in a new one. The button doesn't work with one's finger, so the magazine is considered "fixed."

About the only benefit of California's AWB, were someone to target a school now, is that he would have to swap magazines much more often. Unless he was to go out of state, and get some large capacity ones somewhere else first. Actually, who am I kidding - he could buy them on the black market that undoubtedly exists for such here in the golden state.

Any legislation that might actually lessen the chance of something like this happening again will have to be carefully crafted, and will have to acknowledge existing federal and state laws. Outrage doesn't make prior legislation disappear. Millions and millions of people in this country are responsible gun owners (I'm one of them) who have never abused that right.

Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...

Gave you one upthread. Magazine limitations, recurring licensing, mandatory recurring health checks, mandatory home safety measures, mandatory re-qualification and ongoing training, all licensed firearms must be produced for inspection on a recurring basis. Close gun show loophole.

What would firearm owners receive in return?

Fark It: Still waiting for an example of compromise from the gun control side...

It's hard to offer a compromise when the other side holds all the cards.

Let's send Bowtie Milquetoast into the nearest Johnny Reb Trailer Park and see how he does.

Let's send a rifle-totin' Real Murican into the lobby of Bowtie Milquetoast's highrise luxury condo and see how he dies. "Ah'm here tuh pruhtect mah rights."

Amen, right, Bowtie Milquetoast emerging from your limo? Amen? Reach out and shake the hand of fellow patriot Johnny Sixpack. Welcome him and his constitutional rights and his rifle. Invite him up for a Manhatttan.

Bowtie? Hello?

Repo Man: Millions and millions of people in this country are responsible gun owners (I'm one of them) who have never abused that right.

Intent is always concealed and could change in a heartbeat.

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I have no wish to go door-to-door. Just ban the sale of the weapons, clips/magazines, and ammo, and have a buyback program. It'll take care of itself.

So you are saying that you advocate prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership?

HeadLever: correlation is not causation

That's what the Republicans were saying in the runup to the election. Hey these statistics guys are just crunching numbers, I know they're wrong because I understand the causes of these things.

ilambiquated: Big enough for the EU to ban lead bullets.

Did they? Can I see a source on that?

/generally curious

rohar: Paul Baumer: rohar: llachlan: Dimensio: llachlan: And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people.

Is that the reason that a chartered program of the federal government of the United States of America, created by Congress, sells a semi-automatic rifle model to civilians as part of the "Civilian Marksmanship Program"? Is that the reason that rifles are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks?

And why do you practice marksmanship? To improve your ability to kill things. Look, I didn't say ban them, I said it's time to talk about what the ultimate purpose of the weapon is, how we train people to use them, and what kind of background checks we do. It's ridiculous to say that because more people are beat to death we shouldn't take a serious look at why certain weapons appear to be the gun of choice in mass or spree killings.

For me, yup. I practice so I can kill coyotes and mountain lions that get near my livestock. You'd rather I lose a walking mooing steak? Over my dead body!

Any controls that affect how frequently those weapons are used (mag size, availability, ammo access and so on) are also likely to have positive effects on gun-related deaths.

You can show me, any time in American history where similar laws were enacted (there's quite a few points here) and any variance in gun related violent crime occurred? If not, why would they in the future?

How 'bout we make that "world history"? Because bans do work.

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

I have no idea what this means - there are near total bans, or bans with extremely few exceptions on guns in many if not most countries. Are you saying all of these bans were imposed as a result of violent overthrow? Because that's as we say, bullshiate. Unless there was a violent overthrow in Singapore I missed.

Pokey.Clyde: ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

Well I guess we better do nothing at all, then.

DamnYankees: Sock Ruh Tease: dickfreckle: Believe it or not, George Will is still among the saner of the right's pundits, despite him often publishing turds.

Seriously, folks - when guys like George Will and Pat Buchanan are your intellectual titans, maybe it's time for a little reflection on exactly where everything went horribly wrong. Probably that moment you all decided that pandering to retards was your best shot at success.

The difference between George Will and other right-wing pundits is that George Will's pieces are like long, thick, coiling turds. They come out exactly the way they're supposed to. His fellow pundits shoot out diarrhea and greenish-blue pebbles and the readers eat that up.

That's...that's beautiful.

So. If conservative bloggers were painters of poop, Will would be Kincaid and everybody else would be Pollock?

ilambiquated: Hey these statistics guys are just crunching numbers,

Statisticians also know that . correlation is not causation. Most of their job is trying to discern correlation and causation via regressions. Don't see any of that there.

I think one of the problems iq_in_binary with your proposed extension of NFA to a larger subset of firearms as a solution is whether or not it is the quantity and quality of guns affected that has rendered it effective. What I mean is that the NFA is applied to a rather small quantity of firearms with certain characteristics so that the sample size makes it easier to point to the fact that they are not utilized in crimes. If the NFA applied to more weapons, then certainly we would see the rates in crime use jump up due to the fact that a law covering only a handful of weapons (relatively speaking) is being extended to a larger percentage of firearms in circulation. Would the NFA maintain it's effectiveness, or simply show that very expensive and hard to acquire weapons are rarely if ever used in crimes compared to more common and cheaper weapons? I appreciate the proposal, but I don't know if it would work.

What I suspect is this would serve as yet another hoop for responsible gun owners to jump through, whom we generally don't have to worry about, while the criminal element will simply ignore the regulation and use weapons it doesn't apply to (preregulation or excluded weapons), or violate another law by illegally acquiring the weapon from a legitimate owner.  That's not to say there aren't proposals out there that may work eventually, but given the quantity of weapons out there, any potential solution will take a long time to have an impact.

keithgabryelski: The issues with silencers are interesting (i've heard similar complaints from friends that are pro gun) -- i don't understand why people want them (so they don't have to wear earplugs?) and it isn't obvious to me there is a compelling reason to let people hide the fact a gun is going off.

The military almost never uses silencers (except possibly in the "black" world). There is a very practical reason--in combat, a gun's report shouldn't be an issue, and it slows down the bullet, reducing its accuracy and effectiveness. It also can cause problems with the gun itself. As "cool" as it would be to try a few silenced weapons, the hazard that it poses to the general population is too great and it provides no benefit to warfare. Their only purpose is to allow you to kill from a short range without someone else nearby thinking that a gun was necessarily fired. They are nothing but a tool to allow someone to get away with murder.
For home defense, or any other use, I'll use my 12-gauge. Mossberg makes a fine weapon right here in the USA and with the right ammunition, you can protect yourself and pose absolutely zero risk to the neighbors. I use #6 lead shot with game loads. It might take multiple shots to kill an intruder, but it won't go through two walls, either.

I've been reading both sides of this argument for two days now, and I can't get past one thing...
Is there a chance in hell any of these proposed new regulations would ever get through the House? If not, it's really a moot discussion. By the time the next elections roll around, given the short attention span this nation seems to have, I don't even see it as a campaign issue by then.

Is there a reason why a single-shot hunting rifle, a revolver and/or a shotgun isn't enough to satisfy a person's hunting/self-defense needs?

Fark It: As a heathen atheist progressive gun owner who voted for Obama, get fuct, you intellectually dishonest liar.

For the class, please point out where I lied.

iq_in_binary: llachlan: iq_in_binary: Kome:



Boom, now the problem guns that everybody is worried about are now NFA controlled, the most successful Gun Control legislation in the world. Good luck finding examples of NFA arms being used in crimes, I won't hold my breath while you go look. Oh, and by removing the '86 Ban and letting us buy suppressors, you'll even gut us gun folk to vote for it!

The notion that we shoul ...

Yet, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles in the US and you seem to be able to track all of those.

Ever tried to bury a car?

No, but I've buried a tank. Your point?

Paul Baumer: rohar: Paul Baumer: rohar: llachlan: Dimensio: llachlan: And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people.

Is that the reason that a chartered program of the federal government of the United States of America, created by Congress, sells a semi-automatic rifle model to civilians as part of the "Civilian Marksmanship Program"? Is that the reason that rifles are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks?

And why do you practice marksmanship? To improve your ability to kill things. Look, I didn't say ban them, I said it's time to talk about what the ultimate purpose of the weapon is, how we train people to use them, and what kind of background checks we do. It's ridiculous to say that because more people are beat to death we shouldn't take a serious look at why certain weapons appear to be the gun of choice in mass or spree killings.

For me, yup. I practice so I can kill coyotes and mountain lions that get near my livestock. You'd rather I lose a walking mooing steak? Over my dead body!

Any controls that affect how frequently those weapons are used (mag size, availability, ammo access and so on) are also likely to have positive effects on gun-related deaths.

You can show me, any time in American history where similar laws were enacted (there's quite a few points here) and any variance in gun related violent crime occurred? If not, why would they in the future?

How 'bout we make that "world history"? Because bans do work.

Tell you what, find me one that didn't involve the overthrow of the existing government and we'll talk.

I have no idea what this means - there are near total bans, or bans with extremely few exceptions on guns in many if not most countries. Are you saying all of these bans were imposed as a result of violent overthrow? Because that's as we say, bullshiate. Unless there was a violent overthrow in Singapore I missed.

So you found one! Good for you.

The current gun legislation in Singapore was passed in 2003. The murders per 100,000 population since then:

2009: 0.57
2008: 0.4
2007: 0.4
2006: 0.398
2005: 0.49
2004: 0.509
2003: 0.57
2002: 0.57

Look at that, the rate is the same before and after. So the law worked by achieving virtually no change?

Oh, and you'll notice that if you completely remove all gun related homicides from the U.S. murder rates, our murder rates are still double theirs. We kill more people with blunt objects than they kill overall.

This is not a function of gun policy, this is a function of a completely different society.

buzzcut73: I've been reading both sides of this argument for two days now, and I can't get past one thing...
Is there a chance in hell any of these proposed new regulations would ever get through the House? If not, it's really a moot discussion. By the time the next elections roll around, given the short attention span this nation seems to have, I don't even see it as a campaign issue by then.

No, there is no chance that any regulations will get enacted unless it is the most token an ineffective proposal. There will be bills proposed for political purposes, but they will never pass.

Teufelaffe: Repo Man: 'Bullet Button' Used To Get Around California Gun Laws

Countdown to someone 3D-printing a snap-on "button" that works like a bullet point for releasing the clip in 3...2...1...

Mag magnets are already being sold, but their legality is very questionable. Mag magnets. Some are saying it changes the rifle into an illegal "assault weapon". You wouldn't catch me with one. But I don't have enough interest to buy a semi auto rifle in the first place.

buzzcut73: I've been reading both sides of this argument for two days now, and I can't get past one thing...
Is there a chance in hell any of these proposed new regulations would ever get through the House? If not, it's really a moot discussion. By the time the next elections roll around, given the short attention span this nation seems to have, I don't even see it as a campaign issue by then.

You're probably right, nothing will change as far as the law goes, at least for now. But when the next election cycle comes up voters will know who supported the proposed legislation and who didn't. If these incidents become more common over time, then politicians who vote against sensible gun regulation are going to start losing as it will become a bigger issue. So introducing gun control legislation now, even though it probably won't go anywhere, might help in upcoming elections.

moviemeister76: I actually agree that looking at other countries for suggestions tends to lead to bad suggestions because we are unique in the world in this situation. We are the gun and ammo manufacturing company of the world. People keep bringing up countries like Japan and Australia without acknowledging that Japan never had a private gun ownership culture, and Australia (and Japan) mostly imported their weapons for private consumption. It's much easier to reduce the number of guns if you don't make them by the buttload in your own country.

We mine tons of uranium but don't have a nuclear weapon ownership culture.

TalenLee: We mine tons of uranium but don't have a nuclear weapon ownership culture.

Maybe we should, then Richard Branson could nuke us from orbit and solve a few problems.

TalenLee: moviemeister76: I actually agree that looking at other countries for suggestions tends to lead to bad suggestions because we are unique in the world in this situation. We are the gun and ammo manufacturing company of the world. People keep bringing up countries like Japan and Australia without acknowledging that Japan never had a private gun ownership culture, and Australia (and Japan) mostly imported their weapons for private consumption. It's much easier to reduce the number of guns if you don't make them by the buttload in your own country.

We mine tons of uranium but don't have a nuclear weapon ownership culture.

Not really a fair comparison as mined Uranium requires extensive expensive and restrictive processing to become weapon grade and production of a weapon takes significant expertise and resources. Manufacturing firearms is very simple and even a person at home with some minor equipment could create a firearm that could work.

moviemeister76: However, I still disagree with the way you presented your information. In the vast majority of gun incidents in the UK, particularly handgun incidents, the gun is never even fired. I absolutely believe Americans would be fine with that tradeoff. Plus, you failed to acknowledge that though the numbers in 2010 were much higher than 1989, they are actually on the decline. The numbers hit a peak about a decade ago and have been on the decline since.

Agreed. But the majority of gun related crime didn't involve firing the weapon before the gun control law either so that's not a variable at play. What gun legislation was passed about a decade ago that caused the decline?

Pincy: buzzcut73: I've been reading both sides of this argument for two days now, and I can't get past one thing...
Is there a chance in hell any of these proposed new regulations would ever get through the House? If not, it's really a moot discussion. By the time the next elections roll around, given the short attention span this nation seems to have, I don't even see it as a campaign issue by then.

You're probably right, nothing will change as far as the law goes, at least for now. But when the next election cycle comes up voters will know who supported the proposed legislation and who didn't. If these incidents become more common over time, then politicians who vote against sensible gun regulation are going to start losing as it will become a bigger issue. So introducing gun control legislation now, even though it probably won't go anywhere, might help in upcoming elections.

Problem being that gun control legislation is unpopular with gun owners, many of which are wealthy older white males.
Obama got into office by remaining neutral on the issue and convincing many gun owners that he wouldn't target them. To go back on that would make his party look like they were simply lieing the whole time.

/not to mention that accusing close to seventy mullion gun owners of being baby killers will probably affect your poll numbers.
/the democrats want to milk this situation for temporary points, but they don't want it to become an election issue.

Liberals have murdered far more children with their ridiculous abortions than guns ever have. Keep your sickening abortion laws, and we'll keep our guns. See you on Judgment Day.

davidphogan: llachlan: Yet, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles in the US and you seem to be able to track all of those.

You really think every vehicle in the US is registered to its current owner or even has an active registration?

No, but what I am saying is there is a system in place that tracks, registers, and regulates and equivalent number of items, so why is saying that we have 250 million guns and that is too many to think about tracking. I'm saying if you can regulate and track cars as well as drivers, you can regulate and track guns and owners.

Citing the large number in existence is not an argument against regulation.

Friction8r: Liberals have murdered far more children with their ridiculous abortions than guns ever have. Keep your sickening abortion laws, and we'll keep our guns murderng 6-year-olds in school rooms. See you on Judgment Day.

FTFY

Friction8r: Liberals have murdered far more children with their ridiculous abortions than guns ever have. Keep your sickening abortion laws, and we'll keep our guns. See you on Judgment Day.

Never bring a fetus to a gun fight.

Dimensio: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I have no wish to go door-to-door. Just ban the sale of the weapons, clips/magazines, and ammo, and have a buyback program. It'll take care of itself.

So you are saying that you advocate prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership?

No, just weapons with clips and magazines. Weapons where the ammo was held in the body of the gun would be legal, as would revolvers.

knowless: I just want to point out that any reasonably intelligent person can figure out how to use a cnc mill/lathe and operate a brake press.. Guns are extremely easy to manufacture...

and now we can print them...

dustman81: Dimensio: dustman81: Primum: Please STFU about mental health for a minute.

James Holmes was from an upper middle class family, and also could get health care through his Uni.

Adam Lanza's dad is a VP at GE. Plenty of $ and access to health care.

The problem is, simply, too many guns, too easy to get. Lanza killed 20 children with hundreds of rounds. Some were hit 8, 11 times. Why did Nancy Lanza have an AR-15, 30-round magazines, thousands of bullets?

A great start is re-enacting the AWB.

What good would the AWB would have done considering an AR-15 wasn't used?

What model rifle was used? I thought the Bushmaster rifle to have been found to have been an AR-15 pattern rifle.

The rifle was found in the car. It wasn't used in the shooting.

wrong. the rifle was used in the killings. the shotgun was found in the car.