The US 2nd Amendment.....

[HughC]

Just as a quick drive-by-post, there was an underworld gang war here in Melbourne from 1995 to 2010 with a good number of the related murders occurring between 1999 and 2002.

Just glancing at the Wikipedia page it looks like the gangland related deaths may have skewed the data in the above chart and so it'd be interesting to examine a similar chart from 1993 to 2013 to see how the count evolved post the "underworld war".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbou...gland_killings

Actually the table shows a decrease in homicides ( that's the COD line)....and Recorded Crime refers to an initial assessment as being a homicide not crime in general. The difference is a representation between COD and RC and not related to homicides. Using the table without explanatory notes is misleading but in this case I think unintentional. Bottom line...the rate of homicides per 100,000 decreased.

[HughC]

Meanwhile, the US has had mass shooting after mass shooting with no significant gun control measures in sight. My reading is that the US collectively values the protection (perceived or real) that the 2nd amendment gives them against the tyranny of big government, home invaders, etc. as being more important than the individual tragedies that result every day in the US from guns.

Speaking for myself, that is definitely true. This country was founded on a the willingness to die for liberty, and that spirit is alive here still. We've come to a strange place in the world where people are still dying in wars and terrorist attacks across the globe, and now we think we're evolved enough that something is worth doing, or not doing, only because it saves a single life. One wonders how the beaches on D-Day could have been taken if this logic had prevailed in 1944. Please note that in the US, the police are not charged with the responsibility of protecting you. That is your responsibility. In crass terms, it is not the police's job to prevent your murder, rather to bring your murderer to justice. If you are a parent, you are responsible for protecting your children. I felt that responsibility and spent more money than I had when I was young in order to keep my family in safer neighborhoods. Of course not all tragedies can be foreseen and prevented, despite our best efforts. In New England, the trees in high winds are potentially lethal, occasionally picking off hapless individuals with a heavy falling branch. Should we cut down all the trees near roadways? It would definitely save lives, but New England wouldn't be the same.

The thing that bothers me most about gun control is that the proposals don't seem tailored to prevent any of the observed attacks. I'm sure glad the NTSB doesn't treat airline disasters the way our politicians and gun control activists react to mass shootings. Air travel would not be as safe as it is today. Likewise, I'm glad the FDA doesn't just let new drugs on the market without statistical proof that they are safe and effective. The harmful ones that slip through (e.g. fen-phen) despite our best efforts are bad enough. If we were to take the NTSB's approach to mass shootings, I doubt we'd be talking about assault weapons bans.

Sandy Hook wouldn't have been prevented if Adam Lanza hadn't had access to a so-called assault weapon in particular. The most you could say is that some of the victims might have survived, but it was such a soft target, reloading wouldn't have been prevented. This was an example of criminally negligent firearms storage, but attacking that problem seems to have been too pedestrian for our gun control activists. The Charleston shooting was made possible by a screw-up by the government (shooter should not have passed background check), not failure to have a background check. San Bernardino was a terrorist attack, complete with felony illegal purchase of the firearms involved. One of the shooters was a foreigner who was allegedly set up in a sham marriage for the purpose! Orlando was a foreign-inspired domestic terrorist attack with a body count that was surely only magnified by the ease of reloading. It still would have been a mass shooting even with Australian-style gun control, even assuming Mateen's status as a licensed security guard for a company with government contracts wouldn't have placed him in a privileged class able to buy his preferred weapons, anyway. The Virginia Tech shooting might have been prevented by guidelines and procedures related to mental illness.

So, when I hear people like Matt Damon wanting to have a "sensible discussion" about Australian-style gun control, I say how about let's really be sensible and analyze each failure and attack it individually, if possible, the NTSB way. Let's not assume the answer is already out there in some facile plan to make the tools of mayhem supposedly "unobtainable". Bear in mind that doing that is orders of magnitude more difficult here than in Australia. In light of Paris and Mumbai, laws clearly do not protect from terrorist attack, and the last two mass shootings have been terrorist attacks. Using them as a catalyst for domestic gun control seems to me, illegitimate. If anything, such attacks highlight the need for civil readiness, which includes more concealed carrying and fewer "cheap" gun free zones, the ones without adequate armed guards to be responsible for the safety of the people in the zone in an organized attack.

There's little value in using the Australian laws in context to the US, the number of homicides and general gun culture make it pointless except to show something can be done if enough want it to be. While a mass shooting brought about our gun control laws it needs to be in context that one mass shooting made up nearly 10% of the annual homicides, mass shootings in the US are statistically a small fraction. By and large mass shootings seem very difficult to stop let alone even predict. To a degree I think the focus needs to be on the areas that produce the most gun deaths ( and I include suicides, it also seems to be a factor in a lot of mass shootings) and have the best chance of achieving a result. I see two near insurmountable issues, first is individual rights and second is gun availability. I suspect improved mental health awareness and a process that reduces gun access to people with mental problems considered as potentially dangerous would yield results. How one addresses the issue of homicides in poorer socio-economic areas riddled with gang/criminal activities/drugs is, at present, probably impossible. The one thing a "buy back" does do is remove unwanted guns and removing these, which are more likely to be poorly stored, is probably a good thing. As to semi autos the only non hunting need mentioned is home invasions and I have no idea how essential that makes them, in that sense if access was reduced would it make a massive difference to either public safety or personal safety? These are the questions that should be part of the debate. Still I think the mass shooting focus moves the general debate away from the main areas that produce the most deaths.

Regards
Hugh

[HughC]

Crime rates in the U.S. show a similar trend due to crime and drug activity, peaking in the late 80's to mid 90's (IIRC) and then declining.

Interesting.....

Given that Australia phased out leaded petrol/gasoline a solid 10 years later than the US, and our drug/crime spikes are also around 10 years apart, I wonder if a possible 'z' variable is the lead blood levels in our respective populations?

Note that NZ didn't mandate unleaded petrol until 1996.

It's a theory that fits the figures ( both increase and decrease) but has some questions hanging over it. Probably a combination of causes.

[mhosea]

The one thing a "buy back" does do is remove unwanted guns and removing these, which are more likely to be poorly stored, is probably a good thing.

Voluntary buy-backs do occur here. People come by firearms through inheritance a lot of times, and Massachusetts requires a license in order to own one. It's enough of an ordeal to get a license that people often don't bother to try, and they might not succeed if they did try, depending on their personal history. There's a grace period during which they can arrange to sell the gun or transfer it to someone else who is legally able to receive it, but if you've inherited guns, dealing with that is probably not on the top of your list. So the buy backs do pretty well here, even though they only give out gift certificates and such. Of course it pains the local shooters on principle, as the guns are destroyed. Nobody is going to shed many tears over a Charter Arms snubby, but what keeps them awake at night is the notion that, say, a Colt Python might be sent to oblivion.

[duckmcf]

Nobody is going to shed many tears over a Charter Arms snubby, but what keeps them awake at night is the notion that, say, a Colt Python might be sent to oblivion.

I'm not too familiar with vintage guns, but I'm assuming that a "Charter Arms snubby" is like a Bic Biro, while a "Colt Python" is like an Oversize Wahl Eversharp Doric with an adjustable No. 10 nib?

.....and there it is folks, the first fountain pen reference in at least 15 pages of this thread......

[mhosea]

As to semi autos the only non hunting need mentioned is home invasions and I have no idea how essential that makes them, in that sense if access was reduced would it make a massive difference to either public safety or personal safety? These are the questions that should be part of the debate. Still I think the mass shooting focus moves the general debate away from the main areas that produce the most deaths.

I missed the question mark the first time around. I'm afraid the only thing limiting access to semi-automatics would accomplish (besides throwing fuel on a political fire that is already worrisome at this point) is reducing the number of fatalities in mass shootings by some percentage per incident, with no impact on the number of incidents other than through converting some would-be shootings to arson or bomb attacks, instead. The focus on rifles is pretty much limited to mass shootings, and fear of mass shootings, since rifles are not statistically prevalent in other sorts of crime in the US. Handguns are dominant.

Suicides don't get enough attention, I think. Lives could be saved by some form of intervention that is properly targeted, as mental state leading to suicide is sometimes transient and/or treatable. The fear would be abuse by ex's and other less-than-sincere people.

[pengeezer]

The one thing a "buy back" does do is remove unwanted guns and removing these, which are more likely to be poorly stored, is probably a good thing.

Voluntary buy-backs do occur here. People come by firearms through inheritance a lot of times, and Massachusetts requires a license in order to own one. It's enough of an ordeal to get a license that people often don't bother to try, and they might not succeed if they did try, depending on their personal history. There's a grace period during which they can arrange to sell the gun or transfer it to someone else who is legally able to receive it, but if you've inherited guns, dealing with that is probably not on the top of your list. So the buy backs do pretty well here, even though they only give out gift certificates and such. Of course it pains the local shooters on principle, as the guns are destroyed. Nobody is going to shed many tears over a Charter Arms snubby, but what keeps them awake at night is the notion that, say, a Colt Python might be sent to oblivion.

I'm going to weigh in on this part of the debate. Gun buybacks are fine if one wants to legitimately get rid of their gun(and some do),but for those
who see no problem in using a gun in an act of crime,they aren't going to toss in a good weapon if they have
one that doesn't have enough power or is a rusty piece of junk. Toss in the bad weapon for a FREE gift card.



John

[mhosea]

I'm going to weigh in on this part of the debate. Gun buybacks are fine if one wants to legitimately get rid of their gun(and some do),but for those
who see no problem in using a gun in an act of crime,they aren't going to toss in a good weapon if they have
one that doesn't have enough power or is a rusty piece of junk. Toss in the bad weapon for a FREE gift card.

Sure, though it typically has to be operable to get anything for it. The thing I was agreeing with Hugh about was the point about guns being poorly secured in the homes of people who don't really want them. You wouldn't think a .22 rifle would get used in crimes very much, but little thugs steal them from grandma when they need a gun.

[duckmcf]

Hi Gang,
The last time I got stopped by the police here in Australia, the exchange kind of went kind of like this.

I was driving on the Pacific highway and flashed past a highway patrol car at around 125km/h. He swung around; lights and sirens, so I pulled over and stopped the car. I got out of the car and walked towards the police car that had stopped behind me while reaching around to my back pocket for my driver’s license. I met the policeman between the two cars and we went through the universal pantomime as I passed him my license.

“You were going too fast”,
“I was only doing 100”
“r-i-g-h-t”
“I clocked you at 120. Wait here while I right up the ticket”

While I he was writing me up I was checking out his car. It was one of the then new V8 pursuit specials; very toey. After he gave me the ticket we then briefly chatted about the car and then he said to take it easy as it’s getting dark and “Skippy’s (kangaroos) out and about”.

So, how do you this would’ve gone down in any US town you care to name?

I’m guessing that I would had a gun pointed at me as I was getting out of the car and 4 or 5 slugs in my chest as I reached around for my wallet.

My point is, do you think that the state of US gun laws, open/concealed carry etc, makes your cops feel more or less safe as they do their job?

If the cops feel less safe, do you think that you’re more or less safe when you get stopped for a traffic offence?

Anyway, I know that your country is awash with guns and even if the majority of you wanted them gone (which you don’t) it wouldn’t be realistically be possible, but even the most ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment would have to admit that things in your wonderful country are starting to get out of hand.

Cheers,
Noel

[mhosea]

So, how do you this would’ve gone down in any US town you care to name?

There's a protocol to it, and part of it is that you stay in the car. Keep your hands where the officer can see them, and follow the officer's instructions. Police officers are trained to respond to scenarios like you getting out of the car in a routine traffic stop. Getting out of the car is going to make them run their "person is getting out of their car" play, which puts the officer on high alert and has him directing you to please get back into your vehicle. Hopefully you comply. If you keep coming when you've been directed to get back into your vehicle, then things could happen.

I don't think guns in the hands of licensed concealed-carry holders make cops nervous. Statistically this is a safer group than cops themselves, and in most states, they've had background checks done, fingerprints on file, etc. No, the reason for their caution has to do with the sort of criminals they run across. This is not a chicken and egg problem. Guns don't make violent criminals out of good people. Violent criminals carry guns illegally. If you live in an area that seldom sees violent crimes, then you might have a more relaxed experience, but there's a lot of movement of people in the US, so cops can't assume that they're dealing with a local.

The case of Philando Castile is one that I'm watching closely. Nobody's heard the officer's side yet, but based on what we know now, it looks like this stop might have been constitutionally iffy, and Castile's record is fairly clean, with just motor vehicle issues (though an awful lot of them). Unless there is some bombshell, it doesn't look good for the officer. Again, I allow for the possibility that new facts could emerge that dramatically change the interpretation of the incident, but barring that, it seems that they pulled Castile over because of an over vague resemblance to a robbery suspect from the night before, and their intent was to go on a fishing expedition. Because they didn't start off thinking of it as a routine stop (no mention of a broken taillight on the police scanner recording that I heard), they were on edge, or at least the officer who shot Castile was. Nobody knows yet what the officer thought he saw, but it doesn't seem likely that what he thought he saw was actually happening.

[HughC]

As to semi autos the only non hunting need mentioned is home invasions and I have no idea how essential that makes them, in that sense if access was reduced would it make a massive difference to either public safety or personal safety? These are the questions that should be part of the debate. Still I think the mass shooting focus moves the general debate away from the main areas that produce the most deaths.

I missed the question mark the first time around. I'm afraid the only thing limiting access to semi-automatics would accomplish (besides throwing fuel on a political fire that is already worrisome at this point) is reducing the number of fatalities in mass shootings by some percentage per incident, with no impact on the number of incidents other than through converting some would-be shootings to arson or bomb attacks, instead. The focus on rifles is pretty much limited to mass shootings, and fear of mass shootings, since rifles are not statistically prevalent in other sorts of crime in the US. Handguns are dominant.

Suicides don't get enough attention, I think. Lives could be saved by some form of intervention that is properly targeted, as mental state leading to suicide is sometimes transient and/or treatable. The fear would be abuse by ex's and other less-than-sincere people.

To a degree this reflects my thoughts. On the other hand over several years of debating this around the "traps" I've yet to be convinced that a semi auto rifle is essential in any given situation from a sheer practical perspective . Home invasion : Who's going to have one just "lying " around ready to use ? The inherit risks makes this an illogical choice over , say, a handgun and the risk of bullets exiting through windows and doors increases risks to others. Apart from hunting I can see no need for semi auto rifles in the general community that couldn't be replaced with a more appropriate weapon. Despite all the huff and puff from the pro gun lobby I'm of the opinion limiting access to these would affect few people from a practical view point.

The biggest issue I see is the use of false information by both sides of the argument or using information and falsely presenting it ( as has been seen in this thread). The stats I managed to find lead me to the conclusion that the % of household with a firearm is decreasing which seems to conflict with what both sides wish us to belief and from that it seems the people who have and love guns just keep buying more...and more. The steady declining homicide rate indicates the US is becoming safer, exactly why isn't known but I discount "more guns, less crime" as a major reason. Again the stats seem to indicate that the majority of homicides occur in the poorer socio economic areas of major cities while middle America is pretty safe. All this leads me the conclusion that the gun issue isn't as serious as many try to portray it for the vast majority. If this is indeed what's occurring then the notion that increasing the number of people walking around with a gun is beneficial would appear to be wrong.

Ps: sorry for the long delay in reply.

[mhosea]

I've yet to be convinced that a semi auto rifle is essential in any given situation from a sheer practical perspective .

I agree with you on this. My objection to banning them is a matter of principle, not practicality. If the police can legally use them, they should be legal for the public to own. I don't expect we would agree on that litmus test (and Lord knows the legislature in Massachusetts doesn't agree with it). You might say the police are more likely to need that kind of firepower, and you'd be right as far as probability goes, but whoever they are fighting against on an ordinary sort of bad day might as easily be somebody I need to fight against on a super-bad day after a Katrina-size or larger natural disaster.

At any rate, semi-automatic pistols are a different matter. Double-action revolvers have their selling points, but the revolver double-action trigger requires a lot of practice to master. Your average shooter who hasn't practiced enough is probably going to miss their point of aim by 12-24 inches at a distance of 15 feet. Not only that, but small, light ones that are sold as carry weapons are extremely difficult to shoot accurately, not to mention quite unpleasant to shoot as well. IMHO, the modern striker-fired polymer guns in 9mm (e.g. Glock 19, 26, 43, Wesson M&P Shield or Compact, Ruger LC9s, etc.) are the most practical carry guns, all things considered. They just happen to be semi-automatic.

The stats I managed to find lead me to the conclusion that the % of household with a firearm is decreasing which seems to conflict with what both sides wish us to belief and from that it seems the people who have and love guns just keep buying more...and more.

To be sure some folks approach guns in a manner not so different from the way pen people approach fountain pens, so obviously those folks can soak up quite a few guns. Having said that, I wouldn't trust poll data on gun ownership. In the end I just don't know which way the percentage of households with guns is trending.

[edteach]

One does not need an AR or AK to do a mass killing. We in the west have a Muslim problem not a gun problem. France is an example of this. All one needs is the will and a box truck or some gas bombs or what ever it is that can be lethal. We can not react by limiting our rights to every act of terror. What we can do is to tell the world we will revoke any religion or so called religions standing as a religion if they advocate violence. Does not matter what religion it is if your sect says that its ok to kill homos then as in the case of the Muslim sect in Orlando that said it was a good thing to kill then you are no longer a religion and an enemy of the state and you are disbanded and the gov seizes your assets. People we have to get tough. The Muslims are using our laws of freedom against us and people like Skankles clinton are letting them just to get votes from more limp dick liberals and those tofu lickers who hate America first. What we do not do in America is to take away the rights of people who did nothing because of the abuses of those who would destroy our way of life.

[HughC]

One does not need an AR or AK to do a mass killing. We in the west have a Muslim problem not a gun problem. France is an example of this. All one needs is the will and a box truck or some gas bombs or what ever it is that can be lethal. We can not react by limiting our rights to every act of terror. What we can do is to tell the world we will revoke any religion or so called religions standing as a religion if they advocate violence. Does not matter what religion it is if your sect says that its ok to kill homos then as in the case of the Muslim sect in Orlando that said it was a good thing to kill then you are no longer a religion and an enemy of the state and you are disbanded and the gov seizes your assets. People we have to get tough. The Muslims are using our laws of freedom against us and people like Skankles clinton are letting them just to get votes from more limp dick liberals and those tofu lickers who hate America first. What we do not do in America is to take away the rights of people who did nothing because of the abuses of those who would destroy our way of life.

What Americans do is kill more Americans than anyone else does....yet another overlooked fact in the BS world of misinformation that you wallow in.

[dneal]

The biggest issue I see is the use of false information by both sides of the argument or using information and falsely presenting it ( as has been seen in this thread). The stats I managed to find lead me to the conclusion that the % of household with a firearm is decreasing which seems to conflict with what both sides wish us to belief and from that it seems the people who have and love guns just keep buying more...and more. The steady declining homicide rate indicates the US is becoming safer, exactly why isn't known but I discount "more guns, less crime" as a major reason. Again the stats seem to indicate that the majority of homicides occur in the poorer socio economic areas of major cities while middle America is pretty safe. All this leads me the conclusion that the gun issue isn't as serious as many try to portray it for the vast majority. If this is indeed what's occurring then the notion that increasing the number of people walking around with a gun is beneficial would appear to be wrong.

Have you read "More Guns, Less Crime" yet?

[edteach]

One does not need an AR or AK to do a mass killing. We in the west have a Muslim problem not a gun problem. France is an example of this. All one needs is the will and a box truck or some gas bombs or what ever it is that can be lethal. We can not react by limiting our rights to every act of terror. What we can do is to tell the world we will revoke any religion or so called religions standing as a religion if they advocate violence. Does not matter what religion it is if your sect says that its ok to kill homos then as in the case of the Muslim sect in Orlando that said it was a good thing to kill then you are no longer a religion and an enemy of the state and you are disbanded and the gov seizes your assets. People we have to get tough. The Muslims are using our laws of freedom against us and people like Skankles clinton are letting them just to get votes from more limp dick liberals and those tofu lickers who hate America first. What we do not do in America is to take away the rights of people who did nothing because of the abuses of those who would destroy our way of life.

What Americans do is kill more Americans than anyone else does....yet another overlooked fact in the BS world of misinformation that you wallow in.

More people are killed with hammers in the USA than with guns. According to the FBI, there were a total of 625 murders committed with rifles and shotguns in 2012. That breaks down to 322 murders that were rifle related and 303 that were shotgun related.

The total number of deaths committed with fists, hammers, and other blunt objects was 1,196. That breaks down to 518 murders related to hammers and blunt objects and 678 related to fists. Yet we don't ban hammers. How many were killed by one Muslim in France and a box truck? Stupid people want to ban every thing instead of holding the radical ideas of Islam and black lies matter to blame. but tofu licking asshat limp dick libtards never learn.

[HughC]

To be sure some folks approach guns in a manner not so different from the way pen people approach fountain pens, so obviously those folks can soak up quite a few guns. Having said that, I wouldn't trust poll data on gun ownership. In the end I just don't know which way the percentage of households with guns is trending.

Yes, the data is far from ideal. Of the 3 found samples size went from 1,500 to 50,000 and in context of population size at best an indicator. The smallest found the % steady over a period of years (iirc) and the larger showed a decrease, I take the largest as having the best chance of a semblance of accuracy. Lack of substantially accurate data does make this more guessing than certainty.

Massive natural disasters can cause serious issues. Yet if large enough they also limit ones access to your arsenal and food supply, a cellar full of "goodies" of little use with Katrina. Any event that is so large it disrupts relief efforts for a well resourced country like the US probably means the Govt. has been affected to such a degree to mean orderly control no longer exists, in a "dog eat dog" world many die and with the food supply chain disrupted it wouldn't be good. No doubt with the reliance on food from distant sources in a lot of places in the world it's only a matter of time...

[HughC]

One does not need an AR or AK to do a mass killing. We in the west have a Muslim problem not a gun problem. France is an example of this. All one needs is the will and a box truck or some gas bombs or what ever it is that can be lethal. We can not react by limiting our rights to every act of terror. What we can do is to tell the world we will revoke any religion or so called religions standing as a religion if they advocate violence. Does not matter what religion it is if your sect says that its ok to kill homos then as in the case of the Muslim sect in Orlando that said it was a good thing to kill then you are no longer a religion and an enemy of the state and you are disbanded and the gov seizes your assets. People we have to get tough. The Muslims are using our laws of freedom against us and people like Skankles clinton are letting them just to get votes from more limp dick liberals and those tofu lickers who hate America first. What we do not do in America is to take away the rights of people who did nothing because of the abuses of those who would destroy our way of life.

What Americans do is kill more Americans than anyone else does....yet another overlooked fact in the BS world of misinformation that you wallow in.

More people are killed with hammers in the USA than with guns. According to the FBI, there were a total of 625 murders committed with rifles and shotguns in 2012. That breaks down to 322 murders that were rifle related and 303 that were shotgun related.

The total number of deaths committed with fists, hammers, and other blunt objects was 1,196. That breaks down to 518 murders related to hammers and blunt objects and 678 related to fists. Yet we don't ban hammers. How many were killed by one Muslim in France and a box truck? Stupid people want to ban every thing instead of holding the radical ideas of Islam and black lies matter to blame. but tofu licking asshat limp dick libtards never learn.

There are roughly 12,000 gun homicides in the US every year.....

[HughC]

The biggest issue I see is the use of false information by both sides of the argument or using information and falsely presenting it ( as has been seen in this thread). The stats I managed to find lead me to the conclusion that the % of household with a firearm is decreasing which seems to conflict with what both sides wish us to belief and from that it seems the people who have and love guns just keep buying more...and more. The steady declining homicide rate indicates the US is becoming safer, exactly why isn't known but I discount "more guns, less crime" as a major reason. Again the stats seem to indicate that the majority of homicides occur in the poorer socio economic areas of major cities while middle America is pretty safe. All this leads me the conclusion that the gun issue isn't as serious as many try to portray it for the vast majority. If this is indeed what's occurring then the notion that increasing the number of people walking around with a gun is beneficial would appear to be wrong.

Have you read "More Guns, Less Crime" yet?

Have you read the article you quoted from yet ?

[HughC]

"More guns, less crime" does not fit the period from 1965 on....it's an incomplete theory.