Gun Control

[cycleguy55]

Some interesting charts, for those who care about such things:
Visualizing gun deaths - Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

Here's one to get you started:

Homicide rates in the U.S. and peer countries by weapon type, 2013



Maybe it's not actually about gun control, maybe it's really about culture - which is an even scarier idea.

[Tim7139]

Always nice to get advice from our friends in 3rd world countries without the benefit of those bothersome items like, you know, the constitution.
Besides, should'nt you be giving the planet your undivided attention, lest we succumb to that unavoidable .5 deg C ?

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by Tim7139

Always nice to get advice from our friends in 3rd world countries without the benefit of those bothersome items like, you know, the constitution.

You're quite welcome, from another 1st world country - with our own constitution. But, hey, thanks for playing.

[Tenrocca]

That's awesome Kanuck,

Your annoyed with someone, so you BUY A GUN. Brilliant logic.

One question for you, Your in another country about as far from me as you can get, do you really think I care about how many guns YOU have?

[kanuck]

Yes I find buying guns very therapeutic gun stores are my safe space when I am annoyed or offended. that plus helping the local economy, S&W are just up the street and Ruger is less than 50 miles up in Newhampshire so I am doing my part. What my goal and end game is it's to make it that much less appealing for you to ever visit here again. I figure every little bit helps. Please Go Away

PS: I have an aunt who someone threw paint or die on her fur coat in NY City so she walked into the closest fur store and bought two more of them she said take that Bi.tch

[cycleguy55]

Because nothing says Happy Holidays better than factory fresh firearms. Yikes.

Black Friday gun sales set record, FBI says - National | Globalnews.ca

[cycleguy55]

When people think about deaths from guns, the focus is generally on homicides. But the problem of gun suicide is inescapable: More than 60 percent of people in the U.S.A. who die from guns die by suicide.

Will those determined to commit suicide do so via other means if guns aren't readily accessible? Usually. "...while some people feeling suicidal impulses will choose another method if a gun is not at hand, public health researchers cite two reasons guns are particularly dangerous: 1) Guns are more lethal than most other methods people try, so someone who attempts suicide another way is more likely to survive; 2) Studies suggest that suicide attempts often occur shortly after people decide to kill themselves, so people with deadly means at hand when the impulse strikes are more likely to use them than those who have to wait or plan."

That means that strategies that make suicide more inconvenient or difficult can save lives. Guns, when they are in the home, can make self-harm both easy and deadly.

The self-defense argument for gun ownership is less meaningful in the face of factual information which clearly shows self-harm is more likely than self-defense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/up...ides.html?_r=0

[Large Arbor]

Cycleguy,

You surely don't believe those Middle Eastern numbers do you?

The bottom line is gones don't kill people, they just make it easier. However, if its not a gun, it could be worse, a bomb. fire via arson, poison, ects. and the myriad of other ways. If you all are really concerned about life in the US, then move your arguments to heart disease which is the #1 killer. Contribute to cancer research or something productive. Stop drinking the liberal cool aid and wake up.

Phil

[cycleguy55]

It's easy to see why some things never change...

According to OpenSecrets, a site that tracks money in politics, the NRA spent $984,152 on campaign contributions during the 2014 election cycle. It also spent more than $3 million on lobbying in both 2013 and 2014. The NRA also spent $28,212,718 on outside political contributions during this period, which includes ads paid for directly by the NRA. That makes it the tenth biggest spender when it comes to such political spending.

San Bernadino Shooting: NRA's Influence on Congress Gains Attention - Fortune

[Large Arbor]

The issue has never been guns, its about the wacked out people that use them in a destructive way. There are so many screwed up liberal policies that exacerbate this including, not protecting borders, not eradicating ISIS, importing more immigrants from countries that espouse extremist views without a better screening system, falures to carry out the death penalty in an expeditious way, not deporting foreign criminals, failure to have a meaningful mental health treatment plan for the mentally ill, and the continual pointing to the weapon as the cause instead of the user. Its like saying a drunk driver should not be held responsible for an accident he causes, but rather, we should blame the auto manufacturers for the vehicle not having enough airbags.

Phil

[Gun Doc]

Pretty sure pipe bombs are banned in California and EVERY other state for that matter, but the two perps yesterday had plenty of them!

[DanEC]

Some interesting facts on misconceptions of violence in other countries from FOX.

___________________

On Tuesday, President Obama stunned Americans and French alike with his false claims about gun violence in America. "I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries,” claimed Obama. It is a claim that he has continually repeated over the years.

Talk about being self-absorbed.

The French have witnessed three mass public shootings this year. January saw two attacks, one on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and another on a Paris supermarket.

In the November attacks, 129 people were killed and 352 were injured. In just 2015, France suffered more casualties – killings and injuries – from mass public shootings than the U.S. has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424). This number includes the San Bernandino massacre on Wednesday.


In just 2015, France suffered more casualties – killings and injuries – from mass public shootings than the U.S. has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424). This number includes the San Bernandino massacre on Wednesday.

Obama also overlooks Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik used a gun to kill 67 people and wound 110 others. Still others were killed by bombs that Breivik detonated. Of the four worst K-12 school shootings, three have occurred in Europe. Germany had two of these — one in 2002 at Erfut and another in 2009 at Winnenden, with a total death toll of 34.

Obama isn’t correct even if he meant the frequency of fatalities or attacks. Many European countries actually have higher rates of death from public shootings that resulted in four or more murders. It’s simply a matter of adjusting for America’s much larger population.

Let’s look at mass public shootings from 2009 to the middle of June this year. To compare fairly with American shootings, I excluded attacks that might be better classified as struggles over sovereignty. For instance, I did not count the 22 people killed in the Macedonian town of Kumanovo last month.

Norway had the highest annual death rate, with 2 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Macedonia had a rate of 0.38, Serbia 0.28, Slovakia 0.20, Finland 0.14, Belgium 0.14, and the Czech Republic 0.13. The US comes in No. 8 with 0.095 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Austria and Switzerland are close behind.

In terms of the frequency of attacks, the United States ranks ninth, with 0.09 attacks per million people. Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and the Czech Republic all had higher rates.

There are two other studies on these questions that have gotten a fair amount of attention.

One, by State University of New York-Oswego public justice professor Jaclyn Schildkraut and Texas State University researcher H. Jaymi Elsass, who look at shootings across countries, has left out a large number of shootings in other countries.

Yet, despite the extensive news coverage their study has received, they miss a lot of cases. For example, in France, they miss three mass public shootings:

— Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.

— Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.

— Toulouse, France, March 19, 2012, Mohammed Merah killed four people (the killer also killed people in Montauban, France).

Other cases are missed in such countries as Austria, Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Italy, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland and Slovakia.

It takes a lot of time and effort to find all the cases, but if you get all the attacks in the U.S. and miss those in other countries, it makes the U.S. look a lot worse.

Another by Lankford reportedly goes back to 1966, but while he shares his study with reporters, he requires that they don’t share it with researchers in the area and, despite the wide publicity given his findings, he has repeatedly turned down requests by myself to see his research.

The president’s statement was also limited in another sense. He was referring only to shootings in his statement, but bombs are frequently used elsewhere in the world.

The Boston Marathon bombing was a rare exception these days in the United States. But countries such as Russia have frequently suffered bombings. Indeed, since 2009, the nation has seen 1.31 deaths per million from bombings that caused four or more fatalities.

Between 2007 and 2011, there was an average of 6,282 terrorist attacks per year outside of Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S. On average, more than 27,000 people were killed, injured or kidnapped each year.

Obama keeps using these attacks to advocate requiring background checks on private transfers of guns. Such a requirement, however, already exists in France and almost all of Europe.

The background checks failed. So, too, did France and Belgium’s complete bans on the weapons used in those attacks. The terrorists who attacked those countries still got the weapons that they wanted.

Of the people stopped by background checks, nearly all are people who should have been allowed to buy guns. These delays may be mere inconveniences for most people, but they can endanger the lives of people who are being stalked and need immediate protection.

There is another common factor between mass public shootings. Virtually all of the attacks in America and Europe are taking place where general citizens can’t carry guns for protection. At some point, it has to become apparent to gun control advocates that gun-free zones only protect the killers.

Can Obama actually believe his claim that these attacks “just doesn’t happen in other countries”? More likely, Obama is willing to go to any extreme as he pushes for European-type gun control. The last thing he wants to admit is that countries with such strict gun-control laws can have so many deadly attacks.



John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of eight books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench" Bascom Hill Publishing Group (September 17, 2013). Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.

[RTC45]

More people die of obesity every day, than guns, maybe they should have controls on knives, forks and spoons.

[bjretired]

I think it is much more complicated than saying lets ban guns. First we need to get rid of the corrupt politicians that will say and do anything to stay on the public dole. Second take a bit of advice from the Aussie....(not gun control)....No Shari law and if you don't like it get the hell out.

In fact I think I'll go and buy another gun.....

[Buzz]

Even though this is a hot-button topic, civil and sensible discussion should still be able to occur without resorting to the ridiculous small-minded personal attacks and the "you versus us" stupidity when faced with a differing point of view. If you're offended by the discussion, just stay the hell out of it - free country, right?

Just for some background - I live in a country where it's quite difficult to to get a firearm license. Guns are not banned, but citizens need to demonstrate a need for protection over and above simply wanting one for self defence. Two types of permits are available: first is an estate license which allows land/estate owners and farmers, etc. to own non-concealable rifles and shotguns to be used on the property. The second is a concealed carry permit that allows mainly business owners, security workers and others who make a case for being at higher than average risk of robbery or attack to own and carry (always concealed) a handgun. Applications must be accompanied by medical (mainly eyesight and history of mental illness) certification, two character witnesses and two family endorsements. The police processes them for background checks and then you are interviewed before a final decision is made. Once you obtain approval, you must take and pass certification training and testing.

I am a strong believer in every person having the right and the ability to defend themselves, their families and their properties. I own guns, grew up with guns in the household and I was was taught to use them properly from an early age.
I do not believe that every person should be automatically entitled to own a gun, though, simply because not every person is automatically capable and inclined to use one responsibly and safely. The same applies to automobile licenses - get the necessary training and pass the test, and you're good to go.

To me, turning any old person loose with any number of firearms they want buy is like allowing anybody the right to jump into a car and hit the streets without testing and licensing; some people will manage ok, but others will cause unnecessary carnage. Freedom is one thing but as a society grows and changes it must have order and a set of laws based on evolving wisdom and logic.

I personally like guns (along with cars, boats, etc.), and I generally subscribe to and live by (non-denominational) christian-based western values, but I also believe in sensible laws and controls. I speak for myself and I'm totally open minded to other points of view, even to changing my position in the face of incontrovertible argument. I fail to see the real world sense in holding infallibly sacred and clinging to every letter and detail of a constitutional document that was written by men a long time ago based upon a very different set of influences, values and social realities. Keep the intent, philosophy and spirit - yes - but giving it and those who penned it some sort of holy, regardless untouchability and everlasting relevance for all eternity to me is difficult to comprehend.

Edit to add: I agree that laws are only followed by the law-abiding, and criminals will do what they want regardless, but there must be a sensible set of laws and appropriate penalties for breaking them. Saying there should be no gun control laws because criminals won't obey them anyway is like saying no point in having drunk driving laws because drunks will drive drunk anyway.

[DanEC]

I think too much time is wasted arguing over whether we should be able, as a citizen, to own a gun or guns - it's inherent in our Constitution. It's not going to change although liberals will try to gnaw away at the edges. It's a part of what makes this America. It's not going away. A gun is just a tool - as someone noted above, man has been killing man from day one - our tools have just gotten better and multiplied. Now we have knives, explosives, swords, bats, cars, forks, spears, bow & arrows, poisons, etc, etc. What we have entirely too much of - are druggies, crooks, street thugs, mentally ill, mentally unstable, gang bangers, and so forth. Arkansas has a higher % of it's population locked up than ever before and they are still out on the streets everywhere. And a lot of these drags on society are born out of 50 years of liberal, socialized programs by our Country that encourage laziness, "free stuff", no self worth, no positive self image, no desire to be a productive, no desire to improve themselves, no desire to be a responsible citizen - they just want someone else to support them and to be able to take from others what wasn't given to them. And in the meantime they crank out parentless children who often are born in a drugged state, suffer abuse and violence in their household and generally just grow up to be more of the same. The Great Society thinkers (an oxymoron) have brought us lenient drug beliefs, mainstreaming mentally ill and a general lack of self-responsibility but they don't see it. Until we do something about this process we will always have a violent society and these types will use what ever is available to them as a tool - a gun or whatever. They have created an underclass of individuals who prey on society as a whole and they don't want to face up to it. They are also the same bunch of whining liberals who have no rational thought process or understanding of cause and effect who have brought us this socialized disaster, and that do all the whining about guns in the hands of the law abiding and productive other half of the population.

I'm done

[Detroit Bill]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Even though this is a hot-button topic, civil and sensible discussion should still be able to occur without resorting to the ridiculous small-minded personal attacks and the "you versus us" stupidity when faced with a differing point of view. If you're offended by the discussion, just stay the hell out of it - free country, right?

Just for some background - I live in a country where it's quite difficult to to get a firearm license. Guns are not banned, but citizens need to demonstrate a need for protection over and above simply wanting one for self defence. Two types of permits are available: first is an estate license which allows land/estate owners and farmers, etc. to own non-concealable rifles and shotguns to be used on the property. The second is a concealed carry permit that allows mainly business owners, security workers and others who make a case for being at higher than average risk of robbery or attack to own and carry (always concealed) a handgun. Applications must be accompanied by medical (mainly eyesight and history of mental illness) certification, two character witnesses and two family endorsements. The police processes them for background checks and then you are interviewed before a final decision is made. Once you obtain approval, you must take and pass certification training and testing.

I am a strong believer in every person having the right and the ability to defend themselves, their families and their properties. I own guns, grew up with guns in the household and I was was taught to use them properly from an early age.
I do not believe that every person should be automatically entitled to own a gun, though, simply because not every person is automatically capable and inclined to use one responsibly and safely. The same applies to automobile licenses - get the necessary training and pass the test, and you're good to go.

To me, turning any old person loose with any number of firearms they want buy is like allowing anybody the right to jump into a car and hit the streets without testing and licensing; some people will manage ok, but others will cause unnecessary carnage. Freedom is one thing but as a society grows and changes it must have order and a set of laws based on evolving wisdom and logic.

I personally like guns (along with cars, boats, etc.), and I generally subscribe to and live by (non-denominational) christian-based western values, but I also believe in sensible laws and controls. I speak for myself and I'm totally open minded to other points of view, even to changing my position in the face of incontrovertible argument. I fail to see the real world sense in holding infallibly sacred and clinging to every letter and detail of a constitutional document that was written by men a long time ago based upon a very different set of influences, values and social realities. Keep the intent, philosophy and spirit - yes - but giving it and those who penned it some sort of holy, regardless untouchability and everlasting relevance for all eternity to me is difficult to comprehend.

Edit to add: I agree that laws are only followed by the law-abiding, and criminals will do what they want regardless, but there must be a sensible set of laws and appropriate penalties for breaking them. Saying there should be no gun control laws because criminals won't obey them anyway is like saying no point in having drunk driving laws because drunks will drive drunk anyway.

There are laws for crimes committed with guns. Your analogy can be interpreted that drinking should be outlawed because of people who drive drunk.

Criminals will get guns no matter what. There is no stopping that. You want to control guns for the rest of the population which is not going to change mass shootings, especially terrorist shootings.

Lets say there was gun control and the two terrorists applied and went through the process. Would the outcome have changed? A person intent on causing harm will. Would it have been better if they made a bomb or a chemical weapon? Those two were going to do something.

Do you recall Timothy James McVeigh. Not a shot was fired.

[Buzz]

All good points, Dan. Guns don't make the criminal - social and other factors do, but it just seems like its too easy for some demented idiot bent on leaving a mark on society to buy an arsenal of guns to help him do just that. Yes, knives, rocks and bats can kill too, but how many of these scumbags would have the guts to attack a group of people with one of those, and how many would they be able to kill before the people they attack turn on them and hand them their a$$?

My issue in this context is not so much with the thieves and robbers - they want money and are not solely out to kill people. I'm talking more about the type of person who wants to kill as many innocent people as possible before being taken out himself. This is a growing trend and with the rise in numbers of losers attracted to the ideas of "lone wolf jihadism" and blaze of glory last stands, western societies are going to become more and more restricted by fear and terror unless something is done.

America is America and it always will be and I can't see the day ever coming when a government power will be inclined or be able to oppress the people to the point that revolution will become a necessary option. Far more likely is the possibility that acts of terror will become the major threat to public safety and liberty.

Given the choice, I have to admit I like having a gun and the training and ability to defend my self and family - I wouldn't want to be under attack in a public place without it. Do I need an arsenal of several rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo protect myself - no I don't.

As I said before, I love guns the same way I love cars, and I would like to own the best and the baddest that there is just for the fun and enjoyment of ownership, but If I have to weigh that desire against the negatives of everyone including the crackpots and killers having easy access to that type of weaponry, I can safely say I have to choose on the side of sensible restrictions.

[Ron61]

Well said Buzz. As usual you made good and logical points. I see the woman had pledged allegiance it ISIS. Also the assault guns are not legal to buy or sell in California, but you can get them from any doper or black market group. I don't have a stash of guns but have had a CCP for many years and have always had at least a couple of guns. I have worked with various LEOs at times in the past and just wish that people from other countries would stop trying to decide what we should or should not be allowed to do and I also wish out crooked politicians would stay out of other countries business.

Ron

[Gun Doc]

Buzz said; "I can safely say I have to choose on the side of sensible restrictions." Just what are "sensible restrictions?" We have laws, plenty of them, but someone who is determined to get a gun and do harm with it will.

For example, in California to purchase a gun, the following laws apply:
First you must:

Pass a universal background check, no matter where you buy your gun. Wait at least 10 days to receive that gun (the idea here is to give law enforcement enough time to conduct the background check). Get your handgun microstamped, which means the make, model and serial number of the gun is transferred to each cartridge case every time the gun is fired (the idea is to allow police at a crime scene to trace a gun back to its owner). Take and pass a written safety test.

Things you can’t do:
Own most assault weapons or buy and sell large-capacity ammunition magazines or .50 caliber rifles. Buy your gun through a private sale, like online or via a friend, without first going through a licensed dealer (and thus getting a background check). Buy more than one handgun a month.

Of course the two AR15s used by this couple, although purchased legally, were NOT purchased by either of the shooters. So, were these not “sensible restrictions?” Some may say these are far too restrictive, others would settle for no less that a total ban on any firearm.

How does an act of terrorism turn into a debate on gun control? I wonder if the people of France had these same discussions after their recent attacks. How about India after 10 terrorists kill 166 in Mumbai during a 60 hour siege? Brussels, where a gunman, a French national with ties to ISIS murdered four people (with a gun) at the Jewish Museum? Pakistan where Taliban gunmen killed 148 (mostly school children) by shooting them in the head? Tunisia, where a lone gunman storms a beach resort and kills 37…

The horrific killings in San Bernardino had NOTHING to do with gun control, or gun laws. It has EVERYTHING to do with the war we are engaged in now. Unless and until we wake up and accept the fact that there are people out there who intend us harm and wish to destroy everything we stand for, I am certain there will be more attacks. Now, more than ever the second amendment is relevant to protect our “unalienable rights” of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most importantly our right as free people to defend ourselves.