***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

 

[Koya]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

This is probably the DUMBEST comparison, ever.

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

I have already been a fairly strong supporter of gun ownership rights, so long as they came with significant checks on respsonibility of ownership. I have to say, those who believe in the pry my gun from my dead hand approach are losing me.

THIS IS NOT WORKING. The strong libertarian leanings in me had always said the right to bear arms is unalienable, but out of respect of others;' rights (to safety, to LIFE, ya know) that ownership needs to be strongly regulated (like... CARS).

At this point, it's getting closer to throw out the baby with the bath water, because the water is going to rise to a point of killing the baby and flooding the house as well, anyway.

Starting to see this as ANOTHER very SELFISH approach for those who seem blindly devoted to protecting the rights of gun ownership OVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Freedom does not allow you to have a right that not only infringes upon my rights to life and security, but one that has been demonstrated to be used (at least in the current construct) shown over and over again to be DEADLY.

Long story short: My preferred approach is responsible ownership so we don't have to have draconian measures. However, this has become such an acute problem, intertwined with the same right side of the aisle that halts education, healthcare / mental health services and services in distressed communities to exaccerbate the issue.

Until and unless the right comes to their damn senses, and stops being obtuse, obstructionist and purely selfish and who seems to agree on all the 'solutions' which results in more gun violence and death, further eroding all of our rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness - until that time, I am going to be for any and all gun control measures because the rights of the many to not be threatened by the selfish want for rights for a few has gone far beyond the pale.

WHAT? This is complete horse-####.

If you and those who generally agree with your sentiment don't understand even that, we are in a far worse position than I even recognized.

Okay, (again I don't own a gun and don't plan on it) but since so many of you believe registering guns will help solve the problem, give me the stat that shows the number of shootings that are committed by registered gun owners.

Sometimes you cant just be beholden to "stats" - although if you are, I can bring up the ones that show how callous our nation must be, considering we have tens of thousands of gun related deaths and other natures have like, a dozen or two.

And again, this coming from someone who strongly believes in ALL freedoms, including the right to bear arms. But your right to own a gun stops at my right to not be in danger from said ownership.

As to examples, and this is the one that I have generally looked to although obviously there is no true analogous situation, is Israel. You have in some ways the "Dream" of many gun owners there. EVERYone is carrying. Loaded guns. Multiple guns in EVERY house.

Yet you don't have 5 years olds blowing off their dad's head, nor do you have guns floating around with no accountability in a manner that they get into the wrong hands constantly - be those criminal hands, or those with mental instabilities etc.

You have STRICT regulation and STRICT training and education. It's a very well educated gun ownership population with the results therein.

If we followed something a bit more like that (understanding we don't live in a state of heighted alert all the times nor a standing army of citizenry), I'd once again be more amenable to the views I held even recently.

But, to not do something and something fairly drastic at this point, is just plain stupid, if not cruel, selfish and irresponsible.

 

[Koya]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

I don't think it's anywhere close to 2%. I think it's far far less. I was giving the anti-gun crowd the benefit of the doubt with every single statistic (like a person who shoots someone only shoots one person.)

What about the "Pro-Gun" crowd who now realizes that the problem has grown to such an uncontrollable issue, we must take action, must take it now.

And because the right has this stance of no change, ever, not adjustment ever, no regulation, ever... I sadly have to move to the other draconian side because the right's course of action, which they have steered for decades and basically gotten their way, is proving to have disastrous results.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Perhaps. But what I was simply doing was refuting the claim that we have to do SOMETHING because the problem is worsening. It's not.

 

[MaxThreshold]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

I don't think it's anywhere close to 2%. I think it's far far less. I was giving the anti-gun crowd the benefit of the doubt with every single statistic (like a person who shoots someone only shoots one person.)

What about the "Pro-Gun" crowd who now realizes that the problem has grown to such an uncontrollable issue, we must take action, must take it now.

And because the right has this stance of no change, ever, not adjustment ever, no regulation, ever... I sadly have to move to the other draconian side because the right's course of action, which they have steered for decades and basically gotten their way, is proving to have disastrous results.

Tell me again...how do you "control" a nut job determined to kill people?

 

[Leviathan]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Gun ownership has skyrocketed since the Brady bill was passed, yet gun violence, horrible as it is, has been reduced significantly. Why is that?

 

[Koya]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

I don't think it's anywhere close to 2%. I think it's far far less. I was giving the anti-gun crowd the benefit of the doubt with every single statistic (like a person who shoots someone only shoots one person.)

What about the "Pro-Gun" crowd who now realizes that the problem has grown to such an uncontrollable issue, we must take action, must take it now.

And because the right has this stance of no change, ever, not adjustment ever, no regulation, ever... I sadly have to move to the other draconian side because the right's course of action, which they have steered for decades and basically gotten their way, is proving to have disastrous results.

Tell me again...how do you "control" a nut job determined to kill people?

Can we for once have a reasonable discussion here without people just buying into the party line?

How about a complete reevaluation of our failed mental health system? Especially within lower economic classes and within distressed communities?

How about a complete re-evaluation of our industrial prison complex, which at best ignores health issues and lets them fester, if not directly impacting the situation by becoming a breeding ground for incarceration of younger individuals who then fall into mental health issues.

How about we don't send our young women and men to wars without adequately supporting them when they return, espcially in terms of mental health and wellness?

If you in any way want to preserve / promote greater gun ownership rights, I'd suggest you also focus on those issues. Because the pro gun lobby is backing our nation into a corner where the only corrective action that can work are draconian laws that literally confiscate guns at huge risk for those who don't. Personally, I see that as a long term diaster as a well armed electorate if the best means by which to ensure the electorate remains as such.

But right now, how can I concern myself with those longer term goals and my personal ideologies of freedom when every single day someone is getting shot and killed like we saw today and in all the mass and public killings.

That doesnt even speak to the real issues - the other tens of thousands of gun deaths that are just by-lines in the news.

 

[Koya]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Perhaps. But what I was simply doing was refuting the claim that we have to do SOMETHING because the problem is worsening. It's not.

Not sure they have this stat, but In think the context is important.

In prior years, what was the nature of the gun violence and are we talking actual deaths just to be clear? Was it criminal action, criminal on criminal / gang type? Because I think what is SO alarming about today, that I really just don't remembering happening when I was younger, are people, usually those with some mental instability, get a gun and go shooting up an office of innocents, a movie theater, a mall.

Is there a rise or change in gun violence against "innocent" or call it everyday people vs. those who were in some way involved in nefarious activity.

Thanks.

 

[bostonfred]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Perhaps. But what I was simply doing was refuting the claim that we have to do SOMETHING because the problem is worsening. It's not.

1993 was the high water mark year for gun violence in the u.s. Laws were passed to reduce gun crime and were apparently successful. Technology has also played a role - it's much harder to rob a liquor store in the age of high definition security cameras. Some cities have done a good job cutting down gun related violence. New York has strict gun laws that seem to have helped. Saying we are no longer at the high water mark doesn't mean that the rate hasn't gone up in the last couple years. It's difficult to find non partisan numbers related to gun violence, though. Some sites make claims like 32000 deaths per year. Others talk about tiny numbers of deaths per capita. This allows them to present more favorable numbers, and weed out things like population growth.

Your link - a liberal npr link to your credit - doesn't show that gun violence is down since, say, 2008. It just says since 1993. So you're drawing some conclusive that may not be true. It's possible for gun deaths to be down since 1993 and still be "up" overall.

 

[bostonfred]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Gun ownership has skyrocketed since the Brady bill was passed, yet gun violence, horrible as it is, has been reduced significantly. Why is that?

Successful gun control legislation, improved policing and technology, among other things.

 

[timschochet]

The laws on this will not change until people who are pro-gun control are willing to emphasize it as one of the issues most important to them. So far, this has not happened. But the pro-gun rights people DO regard it as their main issue. Therefore even though they are in the minority, they have been able to block any reasonable proposal.

 

[Leviathan]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Gun ownership has skyrocketed since the Brady bill was passed, yet gun violence, horrible as it is, has been reduced significantly. Why is that?

Successful gun control legislation, improved policing and technology, among other things.

Interesting juxtaposition. Apparently "more guns isn't the answer" is a false narrative, yes?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Looks like overall, gun homicides have roughly plateaued since '98.

http://www.investors.com/image/ISSfull_130510_345.png.cms

 

[Courtjester]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

This is probably the DUMBEST comparison, ever.

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

I have already been a fairly strong supporter of gun ownership rights, so long as they came with significant checks on respsonibility of ownership. I have to say, those who believe in the pry my gun from my dead hand approach are losing me.

THIS IS NOT WORKING. The strong libertarian leanings in me had always said the right to bear arms is unalienable, but out of respect of others;' rights (to safety, to LIFE, ya know) that ownership needs to be strongly regulated (like... CARS).

At this point, it's getting closer to throw out the baby with the bath water, because the water is going to rise to a point of killing the baby and flooding the house as well, anyway.

Starting to see this as ANOTHER very SELFISH approach for those who seem blindly devoted to protecting the rights of gun ownership OVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Freedom does not allow you to have a right that not only infringes upon my rights to life and security, but one that has been demonstrated to be used (at least in the current construct) shown over and over again to be DEADLY.

Long story short: My preferred approach is responsible ownership so we don't have to have draconian measures. However, this has become such an acute problem, intertwined with the same right side of the aisle that halts education, healthcare / mental health services and services in distressed communities to exaccerbate the issue.

Until and unless the right comes to their damn senses, and stops being obtuse, obstructionist and purely selfish and who seems to agree on all the 'solutions' which results in more gun violence and death, further eroding all of our rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness - until that time, I am going to be for any and all gun control measures because the rights of the many to not be threatened by the selfish want for rights for a few has gone far beyond the pale.

WHAT? This is complete horse-####.

If you and those who generally agree with your sentiment don't understand even that, we are in a far worse position than I even recognized.

Okay, (again I don't own a gun and don't plan on it) but since so many of you believe registering guns will help solve the problem, give me the stat that shows the number of shootings that are committed by registered gun owners.

Sometimes you cant just be beholden to "stats" - although if you are, I can bring up the ones that show how callous our nation must be, considering we have tens of thousands of gun related deaths and other natures have like, a dozen or two.

And again, this coming from someone who strongly believes in ALL freedoms, including the right to bear arms. But your right to own a gun stops at my right to not be in danger from said ownership.

As to examples, and this is the one that I have generally looked to although obviously there is no true analogous situation, is Israel. You have in some ways the "Dream" of many gun owners there. EVERYone is carrying. Loaded guns. Multiple guns in EVERY house.

Yet you don't have 5 years olds blowing off their dad's head, nor do you have guns floating around with no accountability in a manner that they get into the wrong hands constantly - be those criminal hands, or those with mental instabilities etc.

You have STRICT regulation and STRICT training and education. It's a very well educated gun ownership population with the results therein.

If we followed something a bit more like that (understanding we don't live in a state of heighted alert all the times nor a standing army of citizenry), I'd once again be more amenable to the views I held even recently.

But, to not do something and something fairly drastic at this point, is just plain stupid, if not cruel, selfish and irresponsible.

Okay, then give me the statistic that shows how many people were killed by registered gun owner--you can't say "X will help this problem--when you can't even identify the problem"

Put hyperbole aside...put sensationalism aside. We hear gun control...gun control and the left has this rallying cry this will solve something. Tell me X number of homicides committed by registered gun owners and had we only had registration in place, Y number would have been saved. And note I say "homicides" because that where the anti-gun crowd likes to try and make their hay.

If you can show this number, then I think a lot more people would join in this fight. However if you can't show a solution fixes something, then you are just one of the people that likes to pick a fight with a company to put warning signs on coffee to tell people it is hot and then says "Mission Accomplished" when they do.

Again, I don't own a gun, I don't hunt. As clumsy as I am, I know I would be one of those guys that kills myself taking it out of the box.

 

[Bucky86]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

 

[Leviathan]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

Please...the Bill of Rights was seriously compromised after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act. The "Left" and the "Right" were in agreement at the time. Now it's a political issue that is being exploited by by both "sides".Give me a break! I am for sensible gun control measures. I am not in favor for laws that further restrict our rights.

Finding the middle ground is the challenge.

 

[Bucky86]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

Please...the Bill of Rights was seriously compromised after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act. The "Left" and the "Right" were in agreement at the time. Now it's a political issue that is being exploited by by both "sides".Give me a break! I am for sensible gun control measures. I am not in favor for laws that further restrict our rights.

Finding the middle ground is the challenge.

It appears there is no middle ground on the anti-gun control side. You start talking about permits and mental health checks and they start screaming 2nd amendment rights. It's just a vicious cycle that will never end.

 

[Leviathan]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

Please...the Bill of Rights was seriously compromised after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act. The "Left" and the "Right" were in agreement at the time. Now it's a political issue that is being exploited by by both "sides".Give me a break! I am for sensible gun control measures. I am not in favor for laws that further restrict our rights.

Finding the middle ground is the challenge.

It appears there is no middle ground on the anti-gun control side. You start talking about permits and mental health checks and they start screaming 2nd amendment rights. It's just a vicious cycle that will never end.

Perhaps. I believe that there is a middle ground. Unfortunately, the issue has been uncorrectly defined, in my opinion, by the people with an agenda. The 2nd Amendment is the "law of the land", according to the Supreme Court. That bell will never be unrung. The challenge is how we move forward.

 

[Courtjester]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

Please...the Bill of Rights was seriously compromised after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act. The "Left" and the "Right" were in agreement at the time. Now it's a political issue that is being exploited by by both "sides".Give me a break! I am for sensible gun control measures. I am not in favor for laws that further restrict our rights.

Finding the middle ground is the challenge.

It appears there is no middle ground on the anti-gun control side. You start talking about permits and mental health checks and they start screaming 2nd amendment rights. It's just a vicious cycle that will never end.

Then answer my question that I poised to Koya. This is such a huge problem, then define it. Tell us what it is without talking about dead kids and sensationalism. Give us numbers regarding the number of registered gun owners who commit homicides and what a background check would change.

I'll tell you my guess without doing any research, what you are going to find is that the majority of gun homicides are committed by criminals who do not register their guns and have obtained them illegally, This number is totally glossed over by the media because they know the vast majority of these are inner city poor or gang members and we don't want to use them as examples because there is no traction to be had. They use them in the bottom line of deaths, but individually they won't mean a hill of beans because they will not be affected by ANY gun law.

This number will be followed by lawful gun owners who passed background checks (which is what this guy today is looking like at least at first glance), who snapped and did something horrible.

So all these suggestions about background checks are basically just so people can feel good they placed a speed bump on that little road or put a warning sign on a tree that if you fell you could get hurt. It is disingenuous and not helpful.

.

 

[netnalp]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

Please...the Bill of Rights was seriously compromised after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act. The "Left" and the "Right" were in agreement at the time. Now it's a political issue that is being exploited by by both "sides".Give me a break! I am for sensible gun control measures. I am not in favor for laws that further restrict our rights.

Finding the middle ground is the challenge.

It appears there is no middle ground on the anti-gun control side. You start talking about permits and mental health checks and they start screaming 2nd amendment rights. It's just a vicious cycle that will never end.

I agree. There should be an assessment required every 1-4 years or something.

 

[bagger]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

Please...the Bill of Rights was seriously compromised after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act. The "Left" and the "Right" were in agreement at the time. Now it's a political issue that is being exploited by by both "sides".Give me a break! I am for sensible gun control measures. I am not in favor for laws that further restrict our rights.

Finding the middle ground is the challenge.

It appears there is no middle ground on the anti-gun control side. You start talking about permits and mental health checks and they start screaming 2nd amendment rights. It's just a vicious cycle that will never end.

I agree. There should be an assessment required every 1-4 years or something.

yup.Annual registration every year of your guns plus a medical exam that clears you as mentally stable.

 

[timschochet]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

Please...the Bill of Rights was seriously compromised after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act. The "Left" and the "Right" were in agreement at the time. Now it's a political issue that is being exploited by by both "sides".Give me a break! I am for sensible gun control measures. I am not in favor for laws that further restrict our rights.

Finding the middle ground is the challenge.

It appears there is no middle ground on the anti-gun control side. You start talking about permits and mental health checks and they start screaming 2nd amendment rights. It's just a vicious cycle that will never end.

Then answer my question that I poised to Koya. This is such a huge problem, then define it. Tell us what it is without talking about dead kids and sensationalism. Give us numbers regarding the number of registered gun owners who commit homicides and what a background check would change.

I'll tell you my guess without doing any research, what you are going to find is that the majority of gun homicides are committed by criminals who do not register their guns and have obtained them illegally, This number is totally glossed over by the media because they know the vast majority of these are inner city poor or gang members and we don't want to use them as examples because there is no traction to be had. They use them in the bottom line of deaths, but individually they won't mean a hill of beans because they will not be affected by ANY gun law.

This number will be followed by lawful gun owners who passed background checks (which is what this guy today is looking like at least at first glance), who snapped and did something horrible.

So all these suggestions about background checks are basically just so people can feel good they placed a speed bump on that little road or put a warning sign on a tree that if you fell you could get hurt. It is disingenuous and not helpful.

.

The specific reason that universal background checks will affect illegal gun sales is that they will make private sellers more reluctant to just sell guns to whomever because now there will be a penalty involved. Currently, whenever there is an illegal private sale, only one person has to break the law: the buyer, by pretending that he is not a felon and is eligible to buy a gun. The seller doesn't know any better and doesn't need to. But if we force the seller to get a background check at the risk of penalty, then for an illegal private sale there will then need to be TWO people breaking the law: both buyer and seller. This should, at least theoretically, cut down on the number of illegal private sales.

This has been explained again and again. Yet you reject it and all other reasonable gun control measures, and seem to favor doing nothing. I can't speak for others here, but I am sick to death of doing nothing and reading about these stories again and again. I say let's try this and see what happens. If you have a good reason for not doing so beyond "it won't do any good" then please explain. Because that one's not satisfactory IMO.

 

[Koya]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

This is probably the DUMBEST comparison, ever.

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

I have already been a fairly strong supporter of gun ownership rights, so long as they came with significant checks on respsonibility of ownership. I have to say, those who believe in the pry my gun from my dead hand approach are losing me.

THIS IS NOT WORKING. The strong libertarian leanings in me had always said the right to bear arms is unalienable, but out of respect of others;' rights (to safety, to LIFE, ya know) that ownership needs to be strongly regulated (like... CARS).

At this point, it's getting closer to throw out the baby with the bath water, because the water is going to rise to a point of killing the baby and flooding the house as well, anyway.

Starting to see this as ANOTHER very SELFISH approach for those who seem blindly devoted to protecting the rights of gun ownership OVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Freedom does not allow you to have a right that not only infringes upon my rights to life and security, but one that has been demonstrated to be used (at least in the current construct) shown over and over again to be DEADLY.

Long story short: My preferred approach is responsible ownership so we don't have to have draconian measures. However, this has become such an acute problem, intertwined with the same right side of the aisle that halts education, healthcare / mental health services and services in distressed communities to exaccerbate the issue.

Until and unless the right comes to their damn senses, and stops being obtuse, obstructionist and purely selfish and who seems to agree on all the 'solutions' which results in more gun violence and death, further eroding all of our rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness - until that time, I am going to be for any and all gun control measures because the rights of the many to not be threatened by the selfish want for rights for a few has gone far beyond the pale.

WHAT? This is complete horse-####.

If you and those who generally agree with your sentiment don't understand even that, we are in a far worse position than I even recognized.

Okay, (again I don't own a gun and don't plan on it) but since so many of you believe registering guns will help solve the problem, give me the stat that shows the number of shootings that are committed by registered gun owners.

Sometimes you cant just be beholden to "stats" - although if you are, I can bring up the ones that show how callous our nation must be, considering we have tens of thousands of gun related deaths and other natures have like, a dozen or two.

And again, this coming from someone who strongly believes in ALL freedoms, including the right to bear arms. But your right to own a gun stops at my right to not be in danger from said ownership.

As to examples, and this is the one that I have generally looked to although obviously there is no true analogous situation, is Israel. You have in some ways the "Dream" of many gun owners there. EVERYone is carrying. Loaded guns. Multiple guns in EVERY house.

Yet you don't have 5 years olds blowing off their dad's head, nor do you have guns floating around with no accountability in a manner that they get into the wrong hands constantly - be those criminal hands, or those with mental instabilities etc.

You have STRICT regulation and STRICT training and education. It's a very well educated gun ownership population with the results therein.

If we followed something a bit more like that (understanding we don't live in a state of heighted alert all the times nor a standing army of citizenry), I'd once again be more amenable to the views I held even recently.

But, to not do something and something fairly drastic at this point, is just plain stupid, if not cruel, selfish and irresponsible.

Okay, then give me the statistic that shows how many people were killed by registered gun owner--you can't say "X will help this problem--when you can't even identify the problem"

Put hyperbole aside...put sensationalism aside. We hear gun control...gun control and the left has this rallying cry this will solve something. Tell me X number of homicides committed by registered gun owners and had we only had registration in place, Y number would have been saved. And note I say "homicides" because that where the anti-gun crowd likes to try and make their hay.

If you can show this number, then I think a lot more people would join in this fight. However if you can't show a solution fixes something, then you are just one of the people that likes to pick a fight with a company to put warning signs on coffee to tell people it is hot and then says "Mission Accomplished" when they do.

Again, I don't own a gun, I don't hunt. As clumsy as I am, I know I would be one of those guys that kills myself taking it out of the box.

Honestly, if someone needs to ask for specific statistics to know there is "a problem" here, I barely no what to say. I don't need a thermometer to know it's too hot when it's 103 in the blazing sun.

That doesn't mean that statistics and backup are needed overall, but it honestly scares me a bit that some people (many, even, and in lots of places, most) don't even recognize that we have a huge problem.

Again, I am far, far more gun ownership friendly than most around me on the ideological background... but we need to do things very, very differently.

 

[Courtjester]

Tim, where I think you and Koya are missing my point on this, is we have to identify where the problem lies, before we create this trillion dollar government program, only to find out, "Crap, people are still shooting one another at the same rate."

See if you follow me. So let's say we have 11,500 gun homicides. Of this we learn 10,000 of them are committed by gang bangers or other such criminals, then creating a national registration-- background checking program is worthless because these weapons were procured illegally and wouldn't have been impacted. Tim, there is where you need to lose this notion that these people are going into stores and getting the owner to wink and waive the background requirement, That's not where these guns are being bought. They are being obtained at street level from other street people (a lot obtained via theft) that are never going to comply with any government regulation.

If we identify this, then we know it is a law enforcement issue and can fashion an appropriate response. This could include more police and police patrols. Enhanced penalties for possession of unregistered firearms. Increased outreach programs to inner city youth about the dangers of firearms. Tightening of borders and other weak spots ie: increased scrutiny of shipping containers where large numbers of guns are received from abroad. Possible increased penalties for gun owners who do not secure their weapons appropriately so they aren't as easily taken in say a burglary.

Or:

Let's say we discover of the 11,500 homicides, the preponderance were committed by lawful gun owners who snapped. Well we can take from that the prevailing issue is a mental health one and we need to approach it with better access to behavior services under insurance plans (we all supposedly have insurance now). This could include opening of more clinics for easier access to mental health care. Encouragement of young people to enter this field to fill the need for professionals and yes, some form of psychological evaluation needed to obtain a firearm in the first place.

But again no trillion dollar background checking program created that would have zero impact on the problem. Policy created out of fear is not good policy. How many times do we have to go down that road in this country? I am not advocating doing nothing. I am advocating being smart and getting the facts so the solution addresses the problem.

I am not going to change anyone's mind I get it, Time to go post in the cat thread I guess....

 

[BowieMercs]

We have people with mental issues that are already unable to get help. You want to make it even more difficult for them to get help because they can't get time because they got to make sure the former marine who's already gone through tons of training and testing can get a gun to go duck hunting?


Also, lest we forget all the "the mentally ill aren't responsible for shootings" that comes out (mostly from the anti-gun crowd) every time a mentally ill person shoots people. Look through the various gun debate threads here in the FFA. You'll see it pop up all the time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow mental health professionals to be allowed to put their patients on a "no gun" list in which they can't buy any new guns and can have any current guns removed pending an appeal. But the anti-gun crowd seems to think this is unreasonable but just taking guns away from everyone is fine.

That sounds very reasonable. Of course then the doctors would need insurance to cover them for NOT putting someone on the list who then when out, got a gun and killed someone.

 

[BowieMercs]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

Please...the Bill of Rights was seriously compromised after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act. The "Left" and the "Right" were in agreement at the time. Now it's a political issue that is being exploited by by both "sides".Give me a break! I am for sensible gun control measures. I am not in favor for laws that further restrict our rights.

Finding the middle ground is the challenge.

It's called the Bill of Rights for a reason. It's not the Bill of Continuously Growing Restrictions to Give the Illusion of Solving Complex Problems Quickly.

 

[ATC1]

Tim, where I think you and Koya are missing my point on this, is we have to identify where the problem lies, before we create this trillion dollar government program, only to find out, "Crap, people are still shooting one another at the same rate."

See if you follow me. So let's say we have 11,500 gun homicides. Of this we learn 10,000 of them are committed by gang bangers or other such criminals, then creating a national registration-- background checking program is worthless because these weapons were procured illegally and wouldn't have been impacted. Tim, there is where you need to lose this notion that these people are going into stores and getting the owner to wink and waive the background requirement, That's not where these guns are being bought. They are being obtained at street level from other street people (a lot obtained via theft) that are never going to comply with any government regulation.

If we identify this, then we know it is a law enforcement issue and can fashion an appropriate response. This could include more police and police patrols. Enhanced penalties for possession of unregistered firearms. Increased outreach programs to inner city youth about the dangers of firearms. Tightening of borders and other weak spots ie: increased scrutiny of shipping containers where large numbers of guns are received from abroad. Possible increased penalties for gun owners who do not secure their weapons appropriately so they aren't as easily taken in say a burglary.

Or:

Let's say we discover of the 11,500 homicides, the preponderance were committed by lawful gun owners who snapped. Well we can take from that the prevailing issue is a mental health one and we need to approach it with better access to behavior services under insurance plans (we all supposedly have insurance now). This could include opening of more clinics for easier access to mental health care. Encouragement of young people to enter this field to fill the need for professionals and yes, some form of psychological evaluation needed to obtain a firearm in the first place.

But again no trillion dollar background checking program created that would have zero impact on the problem. Policy created out of fear is not good policy. How many times do we have to go down that road in this country? I am not advocating doing nothing. I am advocating being smart and getting the facts so the solution addresses the problem.

I am not going to change anyone's mind I get it, Time to go post in the cat thread I guess....

I think Tim is referring to Gun shows and some states where a person doesn't need anything but and ID to be sold a gun just so they can save $25 on a transfer fee. It makes it much easier for a criminal to obtain a gun. I think all transactions should have to go through a dealer.

It's a shame that this country will always be split down the middle on opposing issues to the point nothing will be done. I'm really interested how things change on the state level where some states are actually loosening up on gun control. Since Sandy Hook there has been a push by some states to lift gun free zones in schools. Colorado, Wyoming, Misouri, North Dakota, Utah. I really hope the gun owners in these states show the nation that in the hands of responsible people less restrictions can actually deter crime. The problem is that it is in areas that are not considered major threats of gun violence to begin with. What will probably happen is someone will be in the bathroom and accidently shoot themselves and while it is a problem, the Left side will scream, "See it doesn't work."

 

[Rayderr]

We have people with mental issues that are already unable to get help. You want to make it even more difficult for them to get help because they can't get time because they got to make sure the former marine who's already gone through tons of training and testing can get a gun to go duck hunting?


Also, lest we forget all the "the mentally ill aren't responsible for shootings" that comes out (mostly from the anti-gun crowd) every time a mentally ill person shoots people. Look through the various gun debate threads here in the FFA. You'll see it pop up all the time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow mental health professionals to be allowed to put their patients on a "no gun" list in which they can't buy any new guns and can have any current guns removed pending an appeal. But the anti-gun crowd seems to think this is unreasonable but just taking guns away from everyone is fine.

That sounds very reasonable. Of course then the doctors would need insurance to cover them for NOT putting someone on the list who then when out, got a gun and killed someone.

I think it would be hard to put the doctor at fault as the person may have been perfectly sane while seeing him or her, or maybe the person doing the shooting did it for reasons other than mental illness, etc. Now if the shooter had been seeing the doctor because he/she has severe anger issues, homicidal fantasies, and paranoid delusions, the doctor might be in trouble.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I just wish the government would treat this like they treated us after 9/11. They had no problem enacting a #### ton of laws to "protect" us, but when 1,000's more are killed from firearms they just

You want to see heavy handed government action that tramples on people's rights in order to be seen as doing something?

 

[Mookie]

A discussion about gun control is nothing but hand-wringing and excuse making. The gun nuts have won. Shoot away.

 

[James Daulton]

A discussion about gun control is nothing but hand-wringing and excuse making. The gun nuts have won. Shoot away.

That genie is never being put back into the bottle. We just have to learn to live with this type of thing and hope it doesn't get more frequent.

Nothing can be done.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Perhaps. But what I was simply doing was refuting the claim that we have to do SOMETHING because the problem is worsening. It's not.

Not sure they have this stat, but In think the context is important.

In prior years, what was the nature of the gun violence and are we talking actual deaths just to be clear? Was it criminal action, criminal on criminal / gang type? Because I think what is SO alarming about today, that I really just don't remembering happening when I was younger, are people, usually those with some mental instability, get a gun and go shooting up an office of innocents, a movie theater, a mall.

Is there a rise or change in gun violence against "innocent" or call it everyday people vs. those who were in some way involved in nefarious activity.

Thanks.

The real problem here is that if you get in a very serious discussion about the real context of gun violence, you are likely to be sloppily branded as a racist.

 

[matuski]

Sloppy racists are the worst.

 

[netnalp]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Perhaps. But what I was simply doing was refuting the claim that we have to do SOMETHING because the problem is worsening. It's not.

Not sure they have this stat, but In think the context is important.

In prior years, what was the nature of the gun violence and are we talking actual deaths just to be clear? Was it criminal action, criminal on criminal / gang type? Because I think what is SO alarming about today, that I really just don't remembering happening when I was younger, are people, usually those with some mental instability, get a gun and go shooting up an office of innocents, a movie theater, a mall.

Is there a rise or change in gun violence against "innocent" or call it everyday people vs. those who were in some way involved in nefarious activity.

Thanks.

It did happen. It's just that there weren't 24 news networks. Also as we don't pay attention to this stuff when younger. But it was happening. Ever hear the term "going postal"? Means going crazy and shooting up a place. Came into lexicon after a few incidents of workplace shootings at post offices.

"Going postal, in American English slang, means becoming extremely and uncontrollably angry, often to the point of violence, and usually in a workplace environment.

The expression derives from a series of incidents from 1986 onward in which United States Postal Service (USPS) workers shot and killed managers, fellow workers, and members of the police or general public in acts of mass murder. Between 1986 and 1997, more than 40 people were gunned down by current or former employees in at least 20 incidents of workplace rage."

Then there's the shootings of Reagan, John Lennon, Rebecca Schaeffer are some. There's certainly more. But I was a kid then so I don't recall them.

 

[Rayderr]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

1993 was the year the Brady bill passed. 1994 was the federal assault weapons ban. You seem to be arguing that gun control laws work

Perhaps. But what I was simply doing was refuting the claim that we have to do SOMETHING because the problem is worsening. It's not.

Not sure they have this stat, but In think the context is important.

In prior years, what was the nature of the gun violence and are we talking actual deaths just to be clear? Was it criminal action, criminal on criminal / gang type? Because I think what is SO alarming about today, that I really just don't remembering happening when I was younger, are people, usually those with some mental instability, get a gun and go shooting up an office of innocents, a movie theater, a mall.

Is there a rise or change in gun violence against "innocent" or call it everyday people vs. those who were in some way involved in nefarious activity.

Thanks.

It did happen. It's just that there weren't 24 news networks. Also as we don't pay attention to this stuff when younger. But it was happening. Ever hear the term "going postal"? Means going crazy and shooting up a place. Came into lexicon after a few incidents of workplace shootings at post offices.

"Going postal, in American English slang, means becoming extremely and uncontrollably angry, often to the point of violence, and usually in a workplace environment.

The expression derives from a series of incidents from 1986 onward in which United States Postal Service (USPS) workers shot and killed managers, fellow workers, and members of the police or general public in acts of mass murder. Between 1986 and 1997, more than 40 people were gunned down by current or former employees in at least 20 incidents of workplace rage."

Then there's the shootings of Reagan, John Lennon, Rebecca Schaeffer are some. There's certainly more. But I was a kid then so I don't recall them.

the following are numbers 3-6 on deadliest mass shootings.

23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 35-year-old George Hennard crashes his pickup truck through the wall of a Lubys Cafeteria. After exiting the truck, Hennard shoots and kills 23 people. He then commits suicide.

21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California, 41-year-old James Huberty, armed with a long-barreled Uzi, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun shoots and kills 21 adults and children at a local McDonalds. A police sharpshooter kills Huberty one hour after the rampage begins.

18 killed - August 1, 1966 - In Austin, Texas, Charles Joseph Whitman, a former U.S. Marine, kills 16 and wounds at least 30 while shooting from a University of Texas tower. Police officers Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy shoot and kill Whitman in the tower. Whitman had also killed his mother and wife earlier in the day.

14 killed - August 20, 1986 - Edmond, Oklahoma, part-time mail carrier, Patrick Henry Sherrill, armed with three handguns kills 14 postal workers in 10 minutes and then takes his own life with a bullet to the head.

So 2 in the 80s, 1 in the 60's (you know, peace and love, man) and one at the beginning of the 90's.

Tied for #7 is this incident:

13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 28-year-old Howard Unruh, a veteran of World War II, shoots and kills 13 people as he walks down Camden's 32nd Street. His weapon of choice is a German-crafted Luger pistol. He is found insane and is committed to a state mental institution. He dies at the age of 88.

Mass shootings in the 40's?!?! WTF!?

 

[netnalp]

We have people with mental issues that are already unable to get help. You want to make it even more difficult for them to get help because they can't get time because they got to make sure the former marine who's already gone through tons of training and testing can get a gun to go duck hunting?


Also, lest we forget all the "the mentally ill aren't responsible for shootings" that comes out (mostly from the anti-gun crowd) every time a mentally ill person shoots people. Look through the various gun debate threads here in the FFA. You'll see it pop up all the time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow mental health professionals to be allowed to put their patients on a "no gun" list in which they can't buy any new guns and can have any current guns removed pending an appeal. But the anti-gun crowd seems to think this is unreasonable but just taking guns away from everyone is fine.

That sounds very reasonable. Of course then the doctors would need insurance to cover them for NOT putting someone on the list who then when out, got a gun and killed someone.

I think it would be hard to put the doctor at fault as the person may have been perfectly sane while seeing him or her, or maybe the person doing the shooting did it for reasons other than mental illness, etc. Now if the shooter had been seeing the doctor because he/she has severe anger issues, homicidal fantasies, and paranoid delusions, the doctor might be in trouble.

The argument against it is that people with mental illness will avoid getting the help they need. Which they already tend to do anyway.

I'd like there to be periodic evaluations because sanity isn't static. I'd also like to see the mindset of gun ownership go from being "a person's right" to being "a privilege", like how driving is referred to.

 

[James Daulton]

This is a pretty interesting article on the subject of mass shootings.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/health/u-s-most-mass-shootings/index.html

 

[netnalp]

Tim, where I think you and Koya are missing my point on this, is we have to identify where the problem lies, before we create this trillion dollar government program, only to find out, "Crap, people are still shooting one another at the same rate."

See if you follow me. So let's say we have 11,500 gun homicides. Of this we learn 10,000 of them are committed by gang bangers or other such criminals, then creating a national registration-- background checking program is worthless because these weapons were procured illegally and wouldn't have been impacted. Tim, there is where you need to lose this notion that these people are going into stores and getting the owner to wink and waive the background requirement, That's not where these guns are being bought. They are being obtained at street level from other street people (a lot obtained via theft) that are never going to comply with any government regulation.

If we identify this, then we know it is a law enforcement issue and can fashion an appropriate response. This could include more police and police patrols. Enhanced penalties for possession of unregistered firearms. Increased outreach programs to inner city youth about the dangers of firearms. Tightening of borders and other weak spots ie: increased scrutiny of shipping containers where large numbers of guns are received from abroad. Possible increased penalties for gun owners who do not secure their weapons appropriately so they aren't as easily taken in say a burglary.

Or:

Let's say we discover of the 11,500 homicides, the preponderance were committed by lawful gun owners who snapped. Well we can take from that the prevailing issue is a mental health one and we need to approach it with better access to behavior services under insurance plans (we all supposedly have insurance now). This could include opening of more clinics for easier access to mental health care. Encouragement of young people to enter this field to fill the need for professionals and yes, some form of psychological evaluation needed to obtain a firearm in the first place.

But again no trillion dollar background checking program created that would have zero impact on the problem. Policy created out of fear is not good policy. How many times do we have to go down that road in this country? I am not advocating doing nothing. I am advocating being smart and getting the facts so the solution addresses the problem.

I am not going to change anyone's mind I get it, Time to go post in the cat thread I guess....

I think Tim is referring to Gun shows and some states where a person doesn't need anything but and ID to be sold a gun just so they can save $25 on a transfer fee. It makes it much easier for a criminal to obtain a gun. I think all transactions should have to go through a dealer.

It's a shame that this country will always be split down the middle on opposing issues to the point nothing will be done. I'm really interested how things change on the state level where some states are actually loosening up on gun control. Since Sandy Hook there has been a push by some states to lift gun free zones in schools. Colorado, Wyoming, Misouri, North Dakota, Utah. I really hope the gun owners in these states show the nation that in the hands of responsible people less restrictions can actually deter crime. The problem is that it is in areas that are not considered major threats of gun violence to begin with. What will probably happen is someone will be in the bathroom and accidently shoot themselves and while it is a problem, the Left side will scream, "See it doesn't work."

With Colorado, any reduction in gun violence might be correlated to legalizing marijuana.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

We are not, in fact, in the midst of a mass shooting epidemic. What we have now is a greater awareness of public mass shootings due to the internet age and the increased proclivity of the media to sensationalize bad news.

Reason.com Story

Grant Duwe Interview

Congressional Research Service Study

Saying we aren't in the midst of an epidemic isn't the same as saying it is "no big deal". Obviously murder, and particularly mass murder, is always a big deal. But when people start talking about "epidemics" it provokes a hysterical reaction in some people. And sometimes that is exactly the point.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You can cite individual cases from the 50s or 80s or whatever all you want, and you can point to social media and 24 hour news as making the problem seem worse (and you'd be right IMO).

But neither of those things change the fact that statistically speaking the number of incidents and victims are both clearly rising in recent years. Any collection of data that includes 2012 and later- when we really saw a significant uptake- will confirm that. Here's an FBI report on active shooter incidents that goes through 2013 and shows, among other things, that the number of active shooter incidents rose from 6.4 per year in the first half of the data set to 16.4 per year in the second half (2008-2014). Here's a chart counting victims through 2012. Here's similar data except it goes back to the 1960s and runs through 2015 making the trend far more alarming. This last one- with the recent data- is what makes you realize that something has changed recently. And of course there's the current year count of more than one mass shooting per day.

And of course all of these are more striking when you consider the context of a dropping crime rate overall. The recent data over the last 5 or 7 years isn't just out of line with previous decades, it's also out of line with trends for other crimes.

 

[TobiasFunke]

We are not, in fact, in the midst of a mass shooting epidemic. What we have now is a greater awareness of public mass shootings due to the internet age and the increased proclivity of the media to sensationalize bad news.

Reason.com Story

Grant Duwe Interview

Congressional Research Service Study

Saying we aren't in the midst of an epidemic isn't the same as saying it is "no big deal". Obviously murder, and particularly mass murder, is always a big deal. But when people start talking about "epidemics" it provokes a hysterical reaction in some people. And sometimes that is exactly the point.

Only one of these three is data- driven, and even though the data stops in 2013 it still shows a significant uptick:

• one (1.1) incident per year during the 1970s (5.5 victims murdered, 2.0 wounded per incident),
  [*]nearly three (2.7) incidents per year during the 1980s (6.1 victims murdered, 5.3 wounded per incident),
  [*]four (4.0) incidents per year during the 1990s (5.6 victims murdered, 5.5 wounded per incident),
  [*]four (4.1) incidents per year during the 2000s (6.4 victims murdered, 4.0 wounded per incident), and
  [*]four (4.5) incidents per year from 2010 through 2013 (7.4 victims murdered, 6.3 wounded per incident).

That's a more than fourfold increase in frequency since the 1970s, with double the casualties per incident, resulting in an eightfold increase in casualties from the 1990s to the current decade. And as the data I cited above shows, that number will get MUCH worse when it includes 2014 and 2015.

Epidemic? Depends on your definition I guess. Definitely a much bigger problem than at any time in the past, though.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

You can cite individual cases from the 50s or 80s or whatever all you want, and you can point to social media and 24 hour news as making the problem seem worse (and you'd be right IMO).

But neither of those things change the fact that statistically speaking the number of incidents and victims are both clearly rising in recent years. Any collection of data that includes 2012 and later- when we really saw a significant uptake- will confirm that. Here's an FBI report on active shooter incidents that goes through 2013 and shows, among other things, that the number of active shooter incidents rose from 6.4 per year in the first half of the data set to 16.4 per year in the second half (2008-2014). Here's a chart counting victims through 2012. Here's similar data except it goes back to the 1960s and runs through 2015 making the trend far more alarming. This last one- with the recent data- is what makes you realize that something has changed recently. And of course there's the current year count of more than one mass shooting per day.

And of course all of these are more striking when you consider the context of a dropping crime rate overall. The recent data over the last 5 or 7 years isn't just out of line with previous decades, it's also out of line with trends for other crimes.

In order to do a reasonable analysis of what is really going on, I think it is necessary and important to agree to some specific definitions of what is trying to be tracked and measured.

The Congressional Research Service report does an admirable job of defining various classes of mass shootings and providing real data on each.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You can cite individual cases from the 50s or 80s or whatever all you want, and you can point to social media and 24 hour news as making the problem seem worse (and you'd be right IMO).

But neither of those things change the fact that statistically speaking the number of incidents and victims are both clearly rising in recent years. Any collection of data that includes 2012 and later- when we really saw a significant uptake- will confirm that. Here's an FBI report on active shooter incidents that goes through 2013 and shows, among other things, that the number of active shooter incidents rose from 6.4 per year in the first half of the data set to 16.4 per year in the second half (2008-2014). Here's a chart counting victims through 2012. Here's similar data except it goes back to the 1960s and runs through 2015 making the trend far more alarming. This last one- with the recent data- is what makes you realize that something has changed recently. And of course there's the current year count of more than one mass shooting per day.

And of course all of these are more striking when you consider the context of a dropping crime rate overall. The recent data over the last 5 or 7 years isn't just out of line with previous decades, it's also out of line with trends for other crimes.

In order to do a reasonable analysis of what is really going on, I think it is necessary and important to agree to some specific definitions of what is trying to be tracked and measured.

The Congressional Research Service report does an admirable job of defining various classes of mass shootings and providing real data on each.

Yeah it's a bit of a mess, which is why I went for the "data dump" approach.

I think if you read through enough of these reports you come away with the impression that these incidents are definitely more frequent and more deadly these days. I don't know if I'd call it an epidemic, and I do think that the 24/7 news and social media result in a loss of perspective and make the problem seem worse and more recent than it is. But I also think it's fairly clear that things are trending the wrong way and that it's a pretty strong trend.

 

[kface]

Impotence - so typical on this topic. Gun nuts spend all their time poking holes in everything that might work in an effort to ensure nothing works. Meanwhile mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives and friends lose people everyday. The collateral damage to the gun nuts perverse fascination with fire arms. These are people's lives not just caricatures on tv

One day it will be your (insert loved one here) and maybe, just maybe you will feel different.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

We are not, in fact, in the midst of a mass shooting epidemic. What we have now is a greater awareness of public mass shootings due to the internet age and the increased proclivity of the media to sensationalize bad news.

Reason.com Story

Grant Duwe Interview

Congressional Research Service Study

Saying we aren't in the midst of an epidemic isn't the same as saying it is "no big deal". Obviously murder, and particularly mass murder, is always a big deal. But when people start talking about "epidemics" it provokes a hysterical reaction in some people. And sometimes that is exactly the point.

Only one of these three is data- driven, and even though the data stops in 2013 it still shows a significant uptick:

• one (1.1) incident per year during the 1970s (5.5 victims murdered, 2.0 wounded per incident),
  [*]nearly three (2.7) incidents per year during the 1980s (6.1 victims murdered, 5.3 wounded per incident),
  [*]four (4.0) incidents per year during the 1990s (5.6 victims murdered, 5.5 wounded per incident),
  [*]four (4.1) incidents per year during the 2000s (6.4 victims murdered, 4.0 wounded per incident), and
  [*]four (4.5) incidents per year from 2010 through 2013 (7.4 victims murdered, 6.3 wounded per incident).

That's a more than fourfold increase in frequency since the 1970s, with double the casualties per incident, resulting in an eightfold increase in casualties from the 1990s to the current decade. And as the data I cited above shows, that number will get MUCH worse when it includes 2014 and 2015.

Epidemic? Depends on your definition I guess. Definitely a much bigger problem than at any time in the past, though.

The chart from the Economist is nice, except that it is unadjusted for population growth, making it biased towards an increasing slope.

The first mass public shooting I can remember was at the San Ysidro McDonalds in 1984. Based on looking at that chart from the Economist, it looks like the total number of mass shooting victims in 1984 was about 60. The US population is 35% larger today than it was in 1984. Based on that, a population growth adjusted total for 1984 would be about 81 victims. That is higher than equivalent numbers for 2010 and 2011 and relatively close to the population adjusted totals for 2013 and 2014.

There is no way around the fact that 2012 and 2015 look particularly bad. Whether they are emblematic of some larger trend is another matter.

 

[ATC1]

You can cite individual cases from the 50s or 80s or whatever all you want, and you can point to social media and 24 hour news as making the problem seem worse (and you'd be right IMO).

But neither of those things change the fact that statistically speaking the number of incidents and victims are both clearly rising in recent years. Any collection of data that includes 2012 and later- when we really saw a significant uptake- will confirm that. Here's an FBI report on active shooter incidents that goes through 2013 and shows, among other things, that the number of active shooter incidents rose from 6.4 per year in the first half of the data set to 16.4 per year in the second half (2008-2014). Here's a chart counting victims through 2012. Here's similar data except it goes back to the 1960s and runs through 2015 making the trend far more alarming. This last one- with the recent data- is what makes you realize that something has changed recently. And of course there's the current year count of more than one mass shooting per day.

And of course all of these are more striking when you consider the context of a dropping crime rate overall. The recent data over the last 5 or 7 years isn't just out of line with previous decades, it's also out of line with trends for other crimes.

Great read. FBI study.

The findings also reflect the damage that can occur in a matter of minutes. In 64 incidents where the duration of the incident could be ascertained, 44 (69.0%) of 64 incidents ended in 5 minutes or less, with 23 ending in 2 minutes or less. Even when law enforcement was present or able to respond within minutes, civilians often had to make life and death decisions, and, therefore, should be engaged in training and discussions on decisions they may face. As expected, therefore, many incidents ended before police arrived.18 Of the 160 incidents, at least 107 (66.9%) ended before police arrived and could engage the shooter, either because a citizen intervened, the shooter fled, or the shooter committed suicide or was killed by someone at the scene.

Resolutions

The majority of the 160 incidents (90 [56.3%]) ended on the shooter’s initiative— sometimes when the shooter committed suicide or stopped shooting, and other times when the shooter fled the scene.

There were at least 25 incidents where the shooter fled the scene before police arrived. In 4 additional incidents, at least 5 shooters fled the scene and were still at large at the time the study results were released. In other incidents, it was a combination of actions by citizens and/or law enforcement that ended the shootings.

In at least 65 (40.6%) of the 160 incidents, citizen engagement or the shooter committing suicide ended the shooting at the scene before law enforcement arrived. Of those:

■ In 37 incidents (23.1%), the shooter committed suicide at the scene before police arrived.

■ In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents,24 3 off-duty law enforcement officers were present and assisted.

■ Of note, 11 of the incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters were students).

■ In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

■ The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting.25

■ In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a responding officer to end the threat.26 Even when law enforcement arrived quickly, many times the shooter still chose to end his life. In 17 (10.6%) of the 160 incidents, the shooter committed suicide at the scene after law enforcement arrived but before officers could act. In 45 (28.1%) of the 160 incidents, law enforcement and the shooter exchanged gunfire. Of those 45 incidents, the shooter was killed at the scene in 21, killed at another location in 4, wounded in 9, committed suicide in 9, and surrendered in 2.

Would like to know:

1. What % of those were in gun free zones.

2. In the 5 incidents were armed citizens interviened, what was the victim totals in comparison to when the law enforcment intervined or when the shooter decided to take his own life?

3. In the 21 incidents were unarmed citizens interviened, did any of them own a gun, but was permited to carry?

We have citizens who are heros and if properly taught how to engage in a situation like this the incident rate may not decrease, or perhaps it will. But I think a quick response would decrease the number of victims in these shootings.

 

[netnalp]

The simplest and most feasible option for those concerned with gun violence is to purchase body armor. They make backpacks with bullet proof panels. Get one of those for each kid. There is a fashion designer that makes men's suits from bullet proof material. Plus there are brief cases and luggage that have bullet proof panels as well. You hold them up to give you some cover while you move to safety. Not all body armor looks like riot gear.

Though people should be allowed to wear riot gear without being fired if they feel that level of protection is needed to make them feel safe. Anti-gun people should walk around in it to make a statement.

However, it wouldn't surprise me, if the use of body armor and bullet proof protection became more common place amongst the average citizen that law would be made to limit who could use it.

 

[ATC1]

Impotence - so typical on this topic. Gun nuts spend all their time poking holes in everything that might work in an effort to ensure nothing works. Meanwhile mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives and friends lose people everyday. The collateral damage to the gun nuts perverse fascination with fire arms. These are people's lives not just caricatures on tv

One day it will be your (insert loved one here) and maybe, just maybe you will feel different.

Yes, murder is bad, guns kill things. guns = bad. Yes, the NRA should step up to the table first. It's a pipe dream and I think most of us can feel the same fustration you feel.

 

[Rayderr]

This is an interesting chart. It counts total murders, not just murders by guns, but after peaking in the 70's and 80's our murder rate is now down to 1950's levels. Pretty impressive considering gun ownership has supposedly been increasing all that time. Lot harder to say guns are the problem.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I was previously a pro-gun guy that has flipped almost completely the last decade or so. While I realize that what I'd like to see in terms of gun control will never happen in this country, it really confounds me the way in which some will fight to ensure that absolutely nothing at all is done. It boggles my mind that people think that having to pass an aptitude test to drive a car is common sense but having to do the same to own a gun is heresy.