Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Other nations' restrictive gun laws cut down on shooting deaths

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:20 AM
Original message
Other nations' restrictive gun laws cut down on shooting deaths
http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/article_fbdcca11-0e03...

The politicians of Arizona decided that Jared Lee Loughner was a decent law-abiding citizen. As such, they determined that he deserved to be able to legally purchase virtually any type of firearm he desired and to legally carry that firearm in a wide variety of public and private spaces.

So Loughner legally bought a gun designed to kill many people extremely rapidly and he carried the gun legally. He was carrying his gun early Jan. 8 when he was stopped by police.

It was only after he started shooting at innocent people that he stopped being a decent law-abiding citizen.

In all other high-income democracies, it would have been very difficult for Loughner legally to have obtained his weapon. Some of these countries have very few private guns (e.g., Japan, United Kingdom), while others have fairly many (e.g., Canada, Australia, Israel, Switzerland, Finland), but have more restrictive gun laws than the United States.

<more>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Lazy spam. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. information
yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. More lazy spam. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. spam
it's what's for lunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. How are the newer, more restrictive gun laws working in South Africa?
Edited on Wed Feb-23-11 11:46 AM by Common Sense Party
Is it now a peaceful utopia?

On edit: Yes, I see that firearm deaths are down dramatically. It's not an oasis, yet...but maybe that's because they haven't seized all those evil guns from people who already legally own them.

And their firearm death rate is much, much higher than in the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. They also cut down on freedoms.
I am not going to let the actions of criminals be used as an excuse restrict my right to keep and bear arms.

I do not care what the effect is on shooting deaths. You are not going to punish me for the criminal actions of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Excellent post, I wish I had said that
I'm going to stea...er borrow, that for my future use. :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thanks.
I have long said that it was and is a mistake to allow the gun control crowd to frame the debate on firearms in terms of crime.

There will always be crimes committed with firearms. Thus there will always be a hue and cry to restrict firearm ownership in the name of criminals.

We should not rise to that bait.

We should not allow the actions of criminals to be an excuse to restrict the rights of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. No they don't
yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Prove it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Those are all free countries where there is little fear of gun violence
I win
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. Did you
figure that out all by yourself?

If there are fewer guns, there will be less GUN violence.

Show causality between the rate of firearms ownership and violent crime. When you figure that one out we all win.

Logic fail.

Common courtesy fail.

Bumper sticker fail.

Typing fail.

Language fail.

Fail. Fail. Fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Yup they do.
I currently have the freedom to own firearms.

You are advocating restrictions on that freedom. Ergo, in regards to firearm freedoms at least, they are less free.

But I don't really care how free I am compared to someone else. They are free to seek out the governance that suits them.

The bottom line is that I will not allow people like you to use the actions of criminals as an excuse to restrict my rights.

Is my side winning that fight? Is my side currently on the offensive while yours is on the defensive?

Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
43. Any law cuts down on freedom.
That is what laws do. They are restrictions on what you can do. The restriction may be a good one, or a stupid one, but it is still a restriction upon the citizen's freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
9. Loughner was waving red flags and everybody ignored them ...
For example:


Ariz. campus was on alert for Jared Loughner
Updated 02/15/2011 10:58:50 PM

TUCSON The week before authorities say Jared Loughner fired on a crowd at a political event near here, police at Pima Community College were on alert, concerned he would return to the campus.

n a series of e-mails Dec. 28, college police said they planned to distribute Loughner's picture to staff members, instruct night officers to be on watch for the former student and order additional checks of campus.

Loughner had been forced out of the college three months earlier after exhibiting bizarre behavior in class and posting a YouTube video that was shot on campus.

***snip***

In addition to the e-mails, Pima Community College has released several incident reports describing Loughner's behavior in class in the year before the shooting. College records show that from February to September 2010, Loughner had multiple run-ins with college officials that left students, teachers and staff members unnerved and had police officers questioning his mental stability. The college suspended Loughner Sept. 29 after he had posted a YouTube video in which he said that he was at war with the college and that students were being tortured.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-15-college-...




Loughner could have been committed under Arizona law
Updated 1/13/2011 12:14 PM

Tucson mass shooting suspect Jared Loughner's recent history of instability including five disruptions at his community college and bizarre rants on YouTube videos probably would have been sufficient to commit him to a psychiatric facility, even against his will, experts said.

Arizona makes it easier than most states to commit mentally ill people to psychiatric care, even against their will. But that doesn't mean that everyone gets the help they need.

***snip***

Under Arizona law, anyone can call the county or regional health authorities with concerns about a person's mental health, and authorities are required to send out mobile units to assess the person's condition, said Brian Stettin, policy director at the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va., which advocates for involuntary commitment for mental illness.

The person who files a request for commitment must list the names of two witnesses who can attest to the subject's behavior, although they don't have to sign the document themselves, Potts said.
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-01-13-ariz...


It's obvious that Loughner had severe mental issues and also that people in a position to help failed to respond. I would submit that it wasn't the gun laws in Arizona but the staff of his college that failed to act responsibly and helped to cause the tragic shooting.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. And his parents.
Don't forget his parents. I would argue primary responsibility rested with them, since he was their dependent. (Over 21, but utterly dependent upon them for money and shelter)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-11 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
77. Failure of Society to make mental healt services available to
anyone who needs them without the prospect of going broke paying for it...I haven't heard a single politician suggest we should overhaul our mental health and addiction services infrastructure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. And? What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. UK has the strongest gun control in Europe and the highest violent crime rate
Other countries with strong gun control are Russia, Mexico, Nigeria and Jamaica all of which are very violent

I have a thread somewhere where I used the 2007 small arms survey and found that low gun ownership rate by civians correlated to a 5 times higher average murder rate when comparing nations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. How's the U.K.'s shooting death rate compare to ours?

It's pretty simple. More people get shot in countries with more guns. The gun lobby argues that doesn't matter because people in England get mugged and people in Africa have guns anyway, but that's pretty much obfuscation.

What's the problem with discussing the issue honestly? Why does the gun lobby invest so much energy in disingenous arguments? Why do we have this irrational position that more people carrying more guns in more places at more times is just fine, and anyone that happens to get shot is just some kind random phenomena, like weather, that we all simply must accept?

Fewer guns means fewer shooting deaths, period. We have a lot of shooting deaths, and a lot of guns. We also have a Constitutional right for people to own "arms."

We can balance these things, but we get nowhere with ridiculous statistical voodoo pretending that there is no relationship between gun violence in America and gun ownership in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. "Red sports car accidents down after red sports car ban!" - in other news..
"Overall accident rate unchanged after ban."

Quick question, what is the overall violent crime rate in the UK in comparison to the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Deliberately fallacious. Brits getting mugged don't equal Americans getting shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Did the UK murder rate go down after the ban? (regardless of implement..) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Gun deaths dropped steadily & continue to do so. Murder rates were low before & are lower now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Orly?
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. 10 years ago? Please be serious.
Edited on Wed Feb-23-11 06:07 PM by DirkGently

Edit: We're all familiar with the liturgy of NRA statistical gymnastics. None of which change the fact that more guns = more gun deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Except that's demonstrably false.. "more guns = more gun deaths"
US Consumers have added 125,000,000 new guns since 1998, and the number of gun deaths have gone down.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nic...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. Internationally, it's a straight line. You can't insist on perfect, instant synchronicity.

This is exactly the kind of illogic the gun lobby pushes. Countries with the most guns have the most gun deaths. It's not a 1:1, mathematically perfect formula, but it's hardly a random coincidence.

There's no way around this, so we get these stock logical dodges, like, "violent crime in the U.K." Very nice, except, a) the U.K. appears to have a very low threshold for what it books as a "violent crime," and b) pretty much no one is getting shot. And no, as gun homicides go down, "knifings" do not keep up.

It's nonsense. An honest argument would be like the poster above, who doesn't care how many people are shot, so long as we keep all our guns. Maybe hard to support in terms of civic responsibility, but that's the truth of the extreme end of the pro-gun position.

We have a problem in this country with too many people being shot. It's not unrelated to the fact we have the most guns per capita in the world. It's unlikely a ban would solve the problem, but the idea that's there no connection is ludicrous. And the worst of the gun lobby arguments, which is that the solution is for even more guns, carried by more people, in more places, is beyond ludicrous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Does it really matter what weapon people are murdered with?
That's what I don't understand. Guns are just a tool. If you restrict them, people intent on doing harm will simply use other weapons.

If you aren't actually lowering the overall murder rate by reducing the number of guns available in a given society, what's the point (besides pissing lawful gun owners off, who show it at the polls)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #36
37.  1) Our problem is people getting shot. 2) If all weapons are the same, no one needs a gun
Edited on Thu Feb-24-11 01:46 AM by DirkGently

Edit: But they're not all the same, are they? Guns are the American way to kill people, and they kill better, faster, and easier.

There's a few elements at play here. Just as people note that the Brits have never had a big problem with people getting shot, we always have. Our culture loves guns. Worships them. In the worst case, fetishizes them. We have more guns, and more gun freedoms, than anyone else. And more people getting shot. There's no way to slice that where's there's no connection between the two.

A ban? No. But the opposite argument -- that we need more guns BECAUSE more people are getting shot -- is pretty close to insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. I'd argue that guns are more useful in defense than they are in offense.
I mean, if you are being attacked or robbed, regardless of the assailant's weapon, its a lot easier to defend yourself with a gun (even if just brandishing it is all it takes to make your attacker back down). And the collective threat of civilian force against abusive government intrusion makes the government think twice about really passing abusive laws. There's a reason Switzerland wasn't invaded by the Nazis during WWII, for instance.

If you were really concerned about the proliferation of guns, you'd quit advocating for more gun controls. Nothing makes people want to buy more guns faster and in greater quantity than the threat of government restrictions on the right to keep and bear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #37
48. 1) Wrong and 2) Wrong
The American non-gun homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rate of most OECD member states. Our problem is people getting murdered; the means is largely irrelevant. Murderers in the U.S. opt for guns because they can, but there's no guarantee that they wouldn't murder absent firearms. Or have them smuggled in; there isn't a country in the world where a criminal can't acquire a firearm if he wants one. Even in China, organized crime can get their hands on firearms, generally directly from the back door of the factory, courtesy of a corrupt Norinco employee.

No, all weapons aren't the same, but the differences lie to a large extent in the nature of the application.

If you intend to assault, rob and/or murder an unarmed victim, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference what kind of weapon you use. Bludgeon, blade or firearm, the weapon grants you an advantage. We've had quite a few stories from East Asia over the past few years (for those willing to pay attention to them) of mass murders where the assailant used a knife, and the victims were unarmed.

If you intend to defend yourself from someone intent on assaulting, robbing and/or murdering you, a firearm gives you a significant advantage over the assailant if he's using "personal force," a bludgeon or blade, and puts you on a par if he's using a firearm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Except UK homicide rates peaked *after* the post-Dunblane restrictions
According to the statistics listed on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inten... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inten... ), the highest ever recorded homicide rates in the United Kingdom occurred in 2001-2004, well after the imposition of the post-Dunblane handgun ban. As a result, you can't credit the restrictions imposed in the wake of Hungerford and Dunblane with reducing violent crime in general and homicide in particular. Sure, they may be in decline now, but that's from a historic peak that occurred after the imposition of the latest restrictions.

Another couple of stats: from 1997 to 2007 (the ten years after the imposition of post-Dunblane restrictions), firearm crimes in the United Kingdom doubled (which is admittedly a bit hazy as the Home Office counts crimes committed with air guns and replicas as "firearm crimes," but it says something about how effective your gun control measures are perceived to be when people aren't willing to take the risk that the gun being pointed at them might turn out to not be a replica).
But more significantly, from 2000 to 2008, the number of nonfatal shootings in the UK almost tripled.

Firearm restrictions in the UK have been the equivalent of a janitor spraying a fire extinguisher at a smoldering cigarette butt in a trash can, somehow thinking it'll put out the blaze in the filing cabinet six feet away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Still talking around the point. Brits weren't big shooters to begin with, and gun deaths dropped.
Edited on Thu Feb-24-11 01:37 AM by DirkGently
Edit: 1) Homicides and shootings are two different things and 2) There's no basis to assume a restriction would work instantaneously.


There's no getting around the main point, which is that in places with fewer guns, fewer people are shot. Practically no one gets shot in the U.K. Hardly a surprise, but you'd think it was with all the zig-zagging pro-gun arguments you hear. The gerrymandering of statistics is truly bizarre. The big point always so carefully avoided is that more guns generally means more shootings.

Culture plays a big role, but these arguments that more and more and more guns in the U.S. with fewer and fewer restrictions has no relationship to our rather embarrassing problem of a lot of people getting shot has become silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Is being shot really that much worse than being stabbed, suffocated, poisoned, burnt, etc.?
I mean, you're dead either way. Does it really matter how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. You really think it equals out? Knife spree killers are way behind on points.

I think you're arguing honestly, but I don't think that's an honest argument. An American kid's not going to bring a knife to school and mow down 20 classmates. You're not going to get knifed by an angry driver you cut off.

We're a violent country compared to other industrialized nations. But we shoot people. Our kids shoot people. We are swimming in a soup of guns that goes way beyond hunting, or sportsmanship, or self-defense. Do you really think Columbine and VT and road rage and just basic, day-to-day American mayhem would be exactly the same with knives and sticks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Maybe not knives, but arson is still a very effective way to kill many people at once.
As is food poisoning.

The point is, you need to address why people would want to resort to killing others in the first place. The tool they happen to use is really irrelevant.

Assuming we could magically get rid of all the guns that are already out there, people would still be dying in roughly the same number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #41
51. I'd agree violent culture is the root problem, but the "tool" is not irrelevant at all.
Edited on Thu Feb-24-11 11:38 AM by DirkGently
And I'm sorry, but it's simply nonsense to contend that Americans would find a way to stab or bludgeon each other as effectively as they shoot each other. A knife or a stick just can't keep up with a gun, which we already know, which is why guns exist in the first place. They kill better, faster, and more reliably, and allow one person to do more damge, more quickly, to more people, with less thought.

If that wasn't the case, there'd be no resistance to gun restrictions in the first place. People don't want guns out of some aethetic choice. They want them because they kill better, and because everyone else has one, which means someone without one is at an enormous disadvantage in a violent encounter. So the pro-gun argument becomes this tail-chasing arrangement, where the slaughter of a dozen people with a gun is used to support a demand for more guns, which makes more guns available, which ensures more people will be shot, which supposedly supports the argument for even more guns. In the office. At the park. On federal property. No one is safe without a gun, because everyone has a gun, so the argument goes. And when the shooting starts, it's not the guns' fault, of course.

Edit:
We're becoming a country of people eyeing other with our fingers on the trigger, ready to deal death with the flick of a finger, and somehow, despite the notion that good people can carry guns all the time, with no problem, things go wrong and people get shot. Not stabbled, not poked with a stick. Shot. In larger numbers than in places where there are fewer guns.

It's not a coincidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. BTW...
A male in a vehicle was driving erratically northbound on the Trans Canada Highway and Timberland Road on Feb. 19. The male tried to hit another vehicle and was brandishing a knife out of the window at the other driver. An individual traveling in the same direction witnessed the dispute. RCMP attempted to locate the vehicle but were unsuccessful. A license plate has been obtained.


Knife flashed at driver near Ladysmith


SAN ANTONIO Most road rage incidents usually end in veiled hand gestures, but one incident on the citys northwest side turned violent on Wednesday evening.

Police say two drivers were engaged in road rage that started on Ingram Road and continued for a few blocks.

At the intersection of Micron and Culebra, the driver of a sedan ran his vehicle into the back of the pick-up truck.

Both drivers got out of their vehicles and started wrestling in the middle of the busy street.

The truck driver had a knife and the sedan driver had a steel baton.

During the altercation, Police say the sedan driver was stabbed in the shoulder.

The driver with the stab wound was taken to University Hospital with non-life threatening injuries.


Road rage leaves one man injured


CORPUS CHRISTI A 63-year-old mother and her son were walking their dog about 9:30 a.m. Wednesday in the 15000 block of Windward Drive when they were threatened with a knife by a driver the son motioned to slow down, police said.

The 44-year-old man was driving a silver 1996 Ford Bronco recklessly and nearly hit the family members, according to a news release.

After the 40-year-old son motioned to slow down, the driver stopped, got out of the vehicle brandishing a knife and threatened to kill them and the dog. After fleeing, police found the man near Bob Hall Pier. The knife was on the front seat next to an open beer, therelease stated.Morris Edwin Burnett was in Nueces County Jail on Thursday facing a felony charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, with bail set at $40,000, jail officials said.



Corpus Christi police: Reckless driver threatens mother, son with knife


Need I go on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. If knives are truly the same as guns, we don't need the guns then.

You can't have it both ways. Again, this is a ridiculous line of argument from the gun lobby.

And your anecdotes don't even help. Someone waved a knife and ran away? The gun version of that story ends how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. You said: "You're not going to get knifed by an angry driver you cut off."
I was merely pointing out that that is a false assumption, as we see such attacks even now, with so many guns still out there.

Guns aren't the same as knives in that it is a lot easier to use a gun in defense than it is a knife. Offensive uses have more in common (you can do a lot of damage with either weapon, especially against unarmed victims).



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. It's not a false assumption. Locking up or running away or a can of Mace won't save you from a gun.
Edited on Thu Feb-24-11 11:44 AM by DirkGently
Again, there is a small point, but vastly overblown. If guns and other weapons are truly the same, let's ban guns now. The Second Amendment says nothing about firearms. "Here's your 'knife' permit, have a nice day."

We have a violence problem, but we have separate problem with people getting shot. That is a unique problem directly related to America's fascination with guns and their prevalence here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. True, but then there's that pesky Second Amendment.
I think it was pretty clear from the Founding Fathers' writings that when they said "well-regulated militia" they were speaking of all able-bodied civilians being regulated (equipped) with the same level of armaments as a regular soldier. Which in today's case would mean: sidearm and assault-rifle, at the bare minimum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Sure. If you're in the National Guard. Pesky strict construction cuts both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. There was no national guard, when amendment 2 was penned.
There was no national guard, when amendment 2 was penned.

Beyond that, the bill of rights is not a "the people can" document, its a "the gov shall not" document:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

The bill of rights protects the rights of we the people, through restrictions on government exercise of power.

That being the case, the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Due to the nature of the document itself, the only restriction in amendment 2, is one that restricts government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. There also weren't huge populations or weapons that kill dozens in seconds. Can't have it both ways.

The pro-gun view of strict construction is conveniently selective. Assume "firearms" where the document says "arms." Assume the militia clause is a meaningless anachronism to be discarded. Keep the bits about "keep and bear."

And no Constitutional right is as absolute as the gun lobby suggests. ,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. As if that matters where divining intent purpose and meaning are concerned.
"There also weren't huge populations or weapons that kill dozens in seconds."

Privately owned cannons couldn't kill dozens in seconds? Uh...ok... :eyes:


"The pro-gun view of strict construction is conveniently selective. Assume "firearms" where the document says "arms.""

No. But then this IS the guns (firearms) forum, not the knives or nunchucks forums, isn't it?

"Assume the militia clause is a meaningless anachronism to be discarded."

Nope. I demonstrated what it means in the previous post. You're simply saying that not ascribing to it the meaning YOU believe is valid, is discarding it.

I suppose from your point of view, that seems true.

"And no Constitutional right is as absolute as the gun lobby suggests."

I haven't claimed that its absolute, and I'd LOVE to see you cite to evidence, anything of substance that supports that ridiculous claim about the "gun lobby".


Will you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-11 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #58
76. The NRA has actually been supportive of most of the gun restrictions we have to date.
They helped draft the 1968 GCA and endorsed the Brady Bill in '93.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #35
45. Fewer were shot in the UK _before_ gun control.
In the 19th and early 20th century, New York had a murder rate five times that of London- even when both countries had little, if any, gun control.

http://www.amazon.com/Murder-York-City-Eric-Monkkonen/d...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #45
57. Shot, or murdered? Still no getting around fewer guns and fewer shootings.
Edited on Thu Feb-24-11 01:01 PM by DirkGently
Europe's not as in love with shooting people as America is, nor as in love with guns. The big fallacy is that we can love guns, embrace them, stack piles of them on every corner, fetishize them, and commend them to every able-bodied citizen as the responsible way to uphold law and order ... and then shrug when the bullets fly.

Europeans don't obsess over firearms the way we do. They don't have this core of people insisting that we all arm ourselves and prepare to shoot our way out of trouble. They CAN restrict guns more, because the population is not convinced that they are somehow naked and incomplete without a pistol on their collective hips.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Both.
Both shootings and homicides were higher in most of the US as compared to the UK before gun control. Hell, our non-gun homicide rate is higher than the UK.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. No doubt we're more violent generally. And someone just pointed out that we KILL, rather than

assault. That's probably part and parcel of gun culture as well. Angry Americans don't beat people up, slice them, or bludgeon them. They shoot, and they aim for the center mass. All or nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-11 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #61
79. That someone would have been me
And I notice you conveniently ignored my following sentence, which was:
If so, I think that may explain to some extent the American love of guns, but not vice-versa, given that the American non-gun homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rate of most other OECD member states.

Your claim that "angry Americans don't beat people up, slice them, or bludgeon them" is false. Fully one third of American homicides are committed by means other than firearms, and those non-gun homicides alone account for more homicides (in terms of rate per 100,000) than the overall homicide rates of most European countries (at least, non-former Soviet bloc ones).

Moreover, your use of the term "angry Americans" seems to imply that you not only buy into the notion of the "virgin killer"--someone committing a homicide in a fit of sudden and uncontrollable rage--but that you also believe such individuals constitute a sizable percentage of murderers. I strongly suggest you read "The Myth of the Virgin Killer" by Kates & Polsby http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virg...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #35
47. By "talking around the point" you mean I refuse to mistake correlation for causation
You're right in one aspect, which is that the British have never had a big propensity to shoot each other. But that goes before back before they had any gun control. Which makes it rather difficult to credit restrictive gun laws with the low level of gun violence.

Edit: 1) Homicides and shootings are two different things and 2) There's no basis to assume a restriction would work instantaneously.

What you're conveniently overlooking is that the UK has seen increases in gun crime, including shootings both fatal and non-fatal, after the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Acts of 1997 (by which I mean the completion of confiscation of firearms that up to that point had been held legally). To argue that it can take a while for a measure to show positive effect is plausible; to argue that a measure is effective because it was followed by a decrease in gun crime when, between the measure being implemented and the decrease in gun crime, there was an increase in gun crime and the aggregate result is that gun crime, even after the decrease, is at higher levels than it was prior to the measure being introduced... well, that just stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

Just to reinforce this point, let me quote a passage from this article in the Torygraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/64...
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "It is misleading to compare figures for 2007/08 with those from 2002 and before, due to changes in recording practices.

"There has been an 11 per cent fall in gun crime since 2005 and provisional figures for firearm offences recorded by the police show they account for 0.2 per cent of all recorded crime."

The lady makes a fair point, but does implicitly acknowledge that from 2002 to 2005, levels of gun crime were at best static, and at worst increasing. Is five to eight years enough to expect a gun control measure to show some effect? If not, then what basis is there to assume that any subsequent decreases in gun crime were the effect of the measure, as opposed to other, coincidental factors?

The big point always so carefully avoided is that more guns generally means more shootings.

I'm increasingly inclined to think that you claim your interlocutors are practicing evasion when what they are in fact doing is refusing to unquestioningly accept your premises, in particular the ones you don't bother to state explicitly (see Audiatur et altera pars, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.htm... ).

Yes, more guns does generally mean more shootings. It does not, however, necessarily mean more violence. At some point in the late 1980s (and at other times as well, for all I know), Switzerland had the highest percentage of homicides committed using firearms in Europe. At the same time, it had one of the lowest homicide rates--possibly the lowest--in Europe. In other words, the availability of firearms influenced the method of homicide, but it did not demonstrably affect the frequency. We see a similar effect in American suicide statistics: firearms are the predominant means of suicide in the U.S., but American suicide rates are unremarkable compared to other developed countries (especially non-Catholic ones, a point I will touch on again later).

Nor does the number of legally possessed firearms necessarily correlate to gun violence. To cite one example, Brazil has lots of guns, and lots of gun crime. However, by the best available estimates, over half the guns in the country (9 million out of 17 million) are illegally possessed, and regional/local levels of gun crime correlate negatively with levels of legal gun ownership. As another example, Jamaica has extremely stringent gun laws (making it possible to sentence a minor to life imprisonment merely for possessing spent cartridge cases, and requiring an annual registration fee of $6,000 to keep a licensed firearm), but there lots of illegal guns and the homicide rate has been the highest in the world for several years of the past decade.

(Aside: Jamaica, frankly, has lot to fucking answer for. Fostering criminal gangs as the enforcers of rival political parties, and then exporting them both to North America and the UK. Much of the more violent tendencies among black drug gang members in both the US and UK can be traced to the Jamaican "posses" that came onto the scene in the 1970s and 1980s.)

To return to a point I touched on earlier, suicide rates in South American countries like Brazil appear unaffected by the number of guns in circulation, which is explicable to at least some extent by the fact Catholicism holds suicide to be a grave sin. You can get absolution for murdering people, no sweat, but suicide...

Culture plays a big role, but these arguments that more and more and more guns in the U.S. with fewer and fewer restrictions has no relationship to our rather embarrassing problem of a lot of people getting shot has become silly.

Well, there you've gone beyond confusing correlation for causation and into claiming correlation where none exists. Over the past twenty years in the United States, levels of gun ownership have risen, and regulations have been loosened, but violent crime rates, including homicide, have dropped by half.

Speaking as an immigrant, I have to say that American society doesn't seem to be remarkably violent, but it does seem to be remarkably homicidal. There seems to be something in the collective subconscious (to borrow Jung's term) that holds that if it's worth inflicting violence on somebody, it's worth killing him (or her). If so, I think that may explain to some extent the American love of guns, but not vice-versa, given that the American non-gun homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rate of most other OECD member states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #47
56. A lot of talking around the same point. More guns, more shootings. Silly to insist it would be 1:1.
Edited on Thu Feb-24-11 12:55 PM by DirkGently
In a country as flooded with firearms as America, it's again silly to insist on a 1:1 correlation. The fact is we have a lot of guns and a lot of shootings. That big picture never changes, and it's valid across all countries. Arguing that we had a few more guns one year and a few less shootings the next deliberately misses the forest for the trees, as does the similar pro-gun fallacy that if one area increases restrictions, and crime goes up or down, that means something.

Nothing works that way, and the correlation / causation fallacy is used for pro-gun arguments more than the other way 'round. Look, guns went up and crime went down. Or went down and then went up. Either way, guns win! It's calculated intellectual dishonesty.

None of it affects the core fact that we have a problem with people getting shot, and that problem relates directly to the number of firearms. All the pro-gun arguments are designed to distract from this basic fact.

Legal / illegal guns is a similar intellectual contortion. Where do all the illegal guns come from? Why don't they attract more attention than they do? Why is it so easy to buy them legally or illegally, regardless of your status. How is it that Mexico ends up with 60,000 American long guns to use in its drug wars? Their gun laws don't work? WE are a big reason why.

Pro-gun forces contend that we simply need to enforce our existing laws better, but that's a similar dodge. There's simply no way to keep up with the sheer volume of firearms. They're practically laying in the streets. If you want to reduce illegal arms, you can't come from the position that legal arms can't be registered, tracked, or regulated in any meaningful way.

We've come to a place where the pro-gun argument is that everyone will be armed, all the time, and a lot of people will be shot, but that's simply the price we all have to pay. A few mass shootings. A few dead kids. A few more store clerks and cops and ex-spouses killed in the second or two it takes to decide to shoot a gun.

We've become not an emblem of firearm freedoms, but a caricature of it. It's become a fundamentalist religion. Irrational, immutable, and immune to discussion.











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken_Fish Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. What do you propose we do. Should all firearms be prohibited
like we did with alcohol? How much are you going to pay owners for the 260million firearms in circulation? How are you going to pay for this?

Do you honestly think there is political support for anymore gun restrictions here?

Do you want to see a republican run government?

Do you want to fix the root cause issues that actually contribute to violent crime?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. I'm pointing out the fact that fewer guns = fewer shootings. We should keep that in mind.

The rest of what you said are straw arguments I didn't make, but I'll bite:

1. A ban? No. Won't work here with attitudes the way they are. We need to modify our views of guns and agree on reasonable restrictions so that we don't have so many, so readily available.

2. Support for more restrictions? Yes. Contrary to the gun lobby's slippery slope arguments, every restriction isn't an eyelash away from a ban. Let's start with an electronic registration, and letting the ATF do its job busting dirty gun dealers. The NRA won't even "permit" that anymore.

3. Republicans? Republicans thrive in the sea of guns

4. Of course. Our culture of violence is the root cause, and part of that is our obsession with guns, and part of that is the notion that guns are a sacred, blessed hallmark of freedom and democracy, that cannot be limited, lest King George come back and oppress us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken_Fish Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Do you have a study backing that "fact" showing causation?

1) How do we need to change our views , legal owners that is?

2) It the the ATF a few hours to trace the Glock 19 involved in the giffords shooting. Because they DO in fact have access to the info on the (ATF Yellow form) that is filled out in all dealer based sales.

3) Republicans ignore the social problems caused by guns. Because they dont care. We should pick up voters who currently vote counter interest because of a stupid outdated gun position. We dont do jim crow anymore, gun control will go the same way.

4) Gun violence is made up of neat bundles of deaths. Suicide and homicide by mentally ill people. We destroyed our national system of treating the mentally ill. Sure it was not good, but there is probably a better solution than dumping people on the street and in prison systems.

b. Drug violence (mexico, DC, S Chicago, pretty much any urban area), caused by Drug Money. People arent out killing for fun, they are acting for economic reasons.
Remove that incentive. It impacts minorities and impoverished communities more anyway.

c. Random crime, not preventable. Still carried out with knives, bats, and other body creating methods in places like Japan.

5) Culture will clean up, no one will be writing music about buying their crack at walgreens..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #56
65. Uh no.
"How is it that Mexico ends up with 60,000 American long guns to use in its drug wars?"

First, as you've been repeatedly been told, firearms ownership is at record highs, without a corresponding rise in gun deaths to go along with it.

So the myth that "more guns = more deaths" is BUSTED. Completely, totally, and utterly BUSTED.


Second, , I'd love for you to cite the source of that 60 thousand.

Third, that 60 thousand number in proper context - that of guns coming from american gun stores - is almost certainly wrong.


Pentagon Fingered as a Source of Narco-Firepower in Mexico

Posted by Bill Conroy - February 12, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Another series of leaked State Department cables made public this week by WikiLeaks lend credence to investigative reports on gun trafficking and the drug war published by Narco News as far back as 2009.

The big battles in the drug war in Mexico are not being fought with Saturday night specials, hobby rifles and hunting shotguns, Narco News reported in March 2009, against the grain, at a time when the mainstream media was pushing a narrative that assigned the blame for the rising tide of weapons flowing into Mexico to U.S. gun stores and gun shows.

Rather, we reported at the time, the drug trafficking organizations are now in possession of high-powered munitions in vast quantities that cant be explained by the gun-show loophole.

Those weapons, found in stashes seized by Mexican law enforcers and military over the past several years, include U.S.-military issued rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers and explosives.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2...

River of Guns Winds Through Some Interesting Spots
Friday, February 18, 2011
The idea that we'd ever find WikiLeaks information relevant to the protection of United States citizens' gun rights wasn't anywhere on our radar when the NSSF's Larry Keane tipped us off to some disturbing information gleaned from leaked State Department documents.

According to State Department cables, the Mexican drug cartels are getting their weaponry from an international operation, with the cartels getting military weapons through various government channels. Some of those weapons did, in fact, come from the United States, but they weren't the result of the "gun show loophole" straw-man purchases or any of the other individual criminal acts anti-gun groups would have you believe.

Large quantities of those US weapons -everything from rifles to machine guns, grenade launchers, explosives and ammunition, came from purchases by the government of Mexico from the United States. As the underpaid, undermanned and undermined soldiers of the Mexican army skipped out on the military to put their training to work for the cartels, they took their issued-arms with them.

No specific numbers on how many of those guns "recovered in Mexico and traced back to the United States" were, in fact, military purchases, but the State Department cables indicate a portion of the fewer than 12 percent of the traceable weapons actually came from the United States in gun shop/individual type purchases. Remember, that's not 12 percent of the tens of thousands of weapons recovered - it's only 12 percent of the weapons recovered that were traceable. It's nowhere near the 12 percent figure that has been misquoted and used as evidence of the United State's "horrific" problem of illegal gun sales.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/224028


And then theres the 2500 guns walked in a single case alone, by ATF - unless one chooses to say ATF whistleblowers are not credible.


It isn't quite as you make it out to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. Same fallacy. In a gun-filled country, year over up & downs are meaningless.
That is logical voodoo from the gun lobby, and nothing more. In a country saturated with firearms, why on Earth when anyone expect for a moment that an X% change in firearms would lead -- instantly, no less-- to an X% change in shootings?

Still doesn't change the fact that more guns overall = more shootings overall. Which is hardly a shock.

As for the other:

What is different now, authorities say, is the number of high-powered rifles heading south - AR-15s, AK-47s, armor-piercing .50-caliber weapons - and the savagery of the violence.

Federal authorities say more than 60,000 U.S. guns of all types have been recovered in Mexico in the past four years, helping fuel the violence that has contributed to 30,000 deaths. Mexican President Felipe Calderon came to Washington in May and urged Congress and President Obama to stop the flow of guns south.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Why wouldn't that be the case, when the NRA has successfully fought to brand the ATF as (and I quote) "jack-booted thugs!!!" to prevent electronic registration, and to otherwise hamstring and smother law enforcement's ability to even investigate gun dealers?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Yes, it is.
"Still doesn't change the fact that more guns overall = more shootings overall."

Thats the falacy. More guns overall, HAVEN'T led to more shootings.

"Why wouldn't that be the case, when the NRA has successfully fought to brand the ATF as (and I quote) "jack-booted thugs!!!"

Thats going to happen, when you shoot women holding babys, barbecue people alive after they defend themselves against you, and stomp kittens t0o death, as well as sending people to federal prison for a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle in retribution.

"to prevent electronic registration"

Its not needed.

"and to otherwise hamstring and smother law enforcement's ability to even investigate gun dealers?"

Thats a bullshit claim. Law enforcement is NOT hamstrung, including ATF.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Ahh wapo..
Here, let me help you out there..

http://www.notangsushi.com/?p=58
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #56
78. All that hand-waving is certainly creating a pleasant breeze
For someone who likes to accuse others of having to dodge and contort to sustain an argument, you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself. There seems to be no evidence that you don't feel justified in hand-waving away when it doesn't suit your argument, while happily ignoring the fact that the excuses to justify that behavior also work against you.
<...> the similar pro-gun fallacy that if one area increases restrictions, and crime goes up or down, that means something.

If it's fallacious to expect that the imposition of restrictions should yield some kind of measurable effect, then where does that leave the claim made in the OP, namely that the lower numbers of shooting deaths in (selected) other countries are the result of more restrictive gun laws? You're peeing on your own feet.

And why is it unreasonable to expect gun control measures to produce a measurable effect? That is, after all, how they're marketed. Time and time again, we're assured that if we adopt this restriction or that restriction, it will result in a reduction in violent crime--note: not just gun crime, but violent crime overall--just as we're told that loosening gun laws will result in blood flowing in the streets/on the hiking trails/on the campuses. If there is no measurable effect, why would it be unreasonable to conclude, at least provisionally, that the gun control measure didn't work?

Legal / illegal guns is a similar intellectual contortion. Where do all the illegal guns come from?

If you subscribe to the notion that restricting the supply of legal weapons is going to prevent the acquisition of illegal weapons, you need to look outside North America. In China, it's illegal to own anything more powerful than a .177-cal air rifle, and even that requires a permit; nevertheless, a combination of corruption and sloppy inventory control means organized criminals can buy guns straight from crooked employees at arms manufacturing plants. Organized crime in south-eastern Europe (Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria) get their guns in similar fashion, and then sell them on to their associates in western Europe.

The important thing to understand is that the "diversion" (to borrow the ATF's term) of firearms into criminal hands is primarily a demand-driven phenomenon. This is obscured in the United States because there's a large private market from which guns can be, and are, diverted, but criminals in other countries--even comparative amateurs--can acquire firearms if they want them, though the supply chain might be rather longer.

We've come to a place where the pro-gun argument is that everyone will be armed, all the time, and a lot of people will be shot, but that's simply the price we all have to pay. A few mass shootings. A few dead kids. A few more store clerks and cops and ex-spouses killed in the second or two it takes to decide to shoot a gun.

That paragraph illustrates the fundamental problem with your argument. You start off with a premise that's hard to argue with--"more guns generally means more shootings"--but then you pull a bait-and-switch and implicitly replace "shootings" with "homicides." Say, didn't you say earlier that shootings and homicides were two different things? Why, yes you did, right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... Again, that distinction evaporates when it suits your own argument. And contrary to your claim that it's "silly to insist <the ratio of increase of firearms to increase in shootings> would be 1:1" (which I never claimed, incidentally) that seems to be precisely the (unstated) assumption you're basing your argument on. And for good measure, you throw in the "arm everyone" canard.

A few more store clerks and cops and ex-spouses killed in the second or two it takes to decide to shoot a gun.

Your assumption--that those kind of murders are undertaken on the spur of the moment and made possible by the perpetrator "just happening" to have a firearm on him--is not supported by the evidence. In particular, the notion that intimate partner homicides are generally "crimes of passion" is a myth, a lie concocted by the killers themselves (and their defense attorneys)for the purpose of wangling a lighter sentence. Over 50% of intimate partner homicides are known to have occurred after the killer has stalked the (former) partner ((source: Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear); moreover, it should be noted that this doesn't mean none of the remainder did, but just that it couldn't be established that they had. In short, intimate partner homicides are not spur-of-the-moment occurrences; they are almost invariably the culmination of an often quite lengthy and escalating process.

It should be superfluous to point out that undertaking an armed robbery is not a spur-of-the-moment thing either, nor is the perpetrator's decision to bring a firearm to commit one. The decision to do so has been taken beforehand, with conscious acceptance of the possibility of inflicting death. That is precisely the reason why the law treats any death that occurs in the course of an armed robbery as first-degree (i.e. premeditated) murder, any protestations of the defendant that he didn't intend to kill anyone notwithstanding.

And then there's killing a cop. You have to have been living under a rock since adolescence to not know that that's aggravated first-degree murder; anyone with such defective impulse control as to decide on the spur of the moment to shoot a cop isn't going to be someone who would have remained law-abiding if only it weren't for the presence of a firearm.

To sum up: the killings you describe are not the result of decisions taken on the spur of the moment by people with no prior history of violent behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
44. So it is OK with you if a mugger knifes me?
So all other violence is OK with you as long as it isn't gun violence? I carry my guns to defend myself against violent crime. I don't want some mugger slicing on me or beating me up so I am prepared to shoot him if need be to protect myself. Why are you so against self-defense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
46. But, do restrictions on guns result in a decline in the over-all murder rate...
or there simply a Law of Substitution effect, resulting in no net improvements?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. Other nations with restricted gun ownership
North Korea, Rwanda, Darfur, China, Cambodia, Lybia, California, New York City............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
20. Switzerland has more restrictive gun laws than the US? Do tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
22. what they meant to say was "designed to protect"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Those drive-by stabbings are the worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken_Fish Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
27. Except in Australia, where all the bans went in..
but the suicide and crime rates stayed just the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #27
59. Gun deaths in Australia plummeted.


http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
On top of that, and despite the new gun laws not being designed to reduce gun suicide, domestic shootings, and the much less common 'stranger danger' individual gun homicides, firearm fatalities in the three largest categories - total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides - all at least doubled their previous rates of decline following the revised firearm legislation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken_Fish Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. But the murder rate and suicide rate stayed the same
same number of bodies. Right?

Data backing my claim. This data is important as it points out that trading rights away does NOTING to help root cause..

http://www.abcdiamond.com/australia/murder-crime-in-aus...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. They eliminated mass shootings entirely. The homicide rate dipped. Armed robbery dropped 14%

Misleading statistics again. Homicides in Australia are low, so percentages don't mean much -- you're talking about 306 murders in 1990 vs. 293 in 2006? That's a drop, anyway (1% -ish) but the numbers are too tiny to mean anything -- one crime either way would change the result.

On the other hand, practically zero mass shootings and a drop armed robberies is meaningful even in a small sample. Gun crime dropped.

This is the same cherry picking problem we see over and over again. Fewer guns mean less gun crime, and that result is consistent. But gun proponents insist on a huge, instant drop in overall crime rates, or the gun reduction is meaningless, they say.

I'd agree gun restrictions raise the incidence of attacks with other weapons, but it doesn't even out. And in America the whole argument fails to address the fact that these other places simply don't embrace either guns OR murder the way the U.S. does.



http://www.abs.gov.au/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken_Fish Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I gave national homicide numbers and rates
how those bodies got made is irrelevant. They are still dead. The fact the numbers DID NOT CHANGE is the point. All that money and effort to accomplish nothing. Same number of bidies in the freezer.

It is a 10 year data set.

There is no more argument about this in America. The pro groups have no data to back them, only emotions generated by events. Every data and study over time shows no causation between gun ownership and crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. There is a relationship between guns and guns-per-capita, and gun violence.

And you can't pull statistics from a country with 300 total homicides per year to argue that every gun homicide avoided becomes a knife homicide. That is ridiculous on its face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken_Fish Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #69
74. Their rate is unchanged from before and after the ban. Kinda like the AWB numbers
that show assaults with what the idiots classified as "assault weapons" trending down before, during, and AFTER the ban.

The only thing that changed was their access to firearms. They gave it up for no reason.

Hey guess what the rate of solved homicides in Japan is.... wait for it.. 96%

See they classify murders they can not solve as abandoned bodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #66
82. Australia









And our homicide rate has experience a sharp drop without any reduction in guns-per-capita or restrictions on the types of operating system the gun uses.




Australia also does a much better job of taking care of income inequality than we do.





I think this map does a better job of describing violence in society than gun laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-11 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
75. Almost every nation has more restrictive gun laws than does the U.S. ...
... so how are the gun laws working in:

Colombia
South Africa
Jamaica
Venezuela
Russia
Mexico
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Belarus
Ukraine
Papua New Guinea
Kyrgyzstan
Thailand
Moldova
Zimbabwe
Seychelles
Zambia
Costa Rica
Poland
Georgia
Uruguay
Bulgaria

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alkant Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-11 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
80. the Great Equalizer of Chances
Knightly nobleness has arisen among the armed people.
America became the powerful country by means of the Great Equalizer of Chances.
There where there is no free sale of the weapon, there is an unpunished insult of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-11 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
81. Duh.
And if we, as a nation, cut down on cars, we'd have fewer car-related deaths, all things being equal.

Doesn't mean we'd have fewer transportation-related deaths, just few car-related deaths.



I'll post this again:




The blue line is the UK's total homicide rate. People can rightly trumpet "Britain's firearms-related homicide rate is at the lowest ever!"

And they would be right.

They would be ignoring the fact that the total homicide rate is up 40% from when I was born. DESPITE banning and confiscating "assault weapons" in 1989 and handguns in 1997.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC