# "Gun Cult in the US and How to Change It" split from Las Vegas Massacre



## Loachman (6 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I have previously shown numerous statistics that show that the instrument does matter. The terrorist attack in New York killed 8 with a truck. If he had a semi-automatic rifle he could have killed 26, like this idiot did, or 58 like the last one. Your argument absolutely does not hold up under any scrutiny.



If he had a 19-ton cargo truck he could have killed 86 people and injured 458 others, as happened in Nice on 14 July 2016.

If he had a rented truck and 7000 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, acetylene, nitromethane, diesel fuel, and explosives stolen from a quarry he could have killed 168 people and injured over 680 others - and caused over $650 million in property damage to over 300 buildings destroyed or damaged - as happened in Oklahoma City on 19 April 1955.

If he had an airline ticket and a boxcutter...

No gun? No problem.

Your argument absolutely does not hold up under any scrutiny.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2017)

You don't need a bump stock to make an AR, or other semi auto fire like that. You need a belt loop on the pants your wearing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2017)

It's old, but makes BG45 point. Take away the instrument and things will be all hunky dory.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/25/tokyo-knife-attack-stabbing-sagamihara


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (6 Nov 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> If he had a 19-ton cargo truck he could have killed 86 people and injured 458 others, as happened in Nice on 14 July 2016.
> 
> If he had a rented truck and 7000 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, acetylene, nitromethane, diesel fuel, and explosives stolen from a quarry he could have killed 168 people and injured over 680 others - and caused over $650 million in property damage to over 300 buildings destroyed or damaged - as happened in Oklahoma City on 19 April 1955.
> 
> ...



It does hold up and for the reasons noted. Easy access to semi-automatic rifles has repeatedly been shown to have exacerbated situations involving mass killings. That a 65 year old could take out the equivalent of 2 PPCLI in a few minutes should be cause for consideration. 

Yes, other weapons have been used, such as the truck in Nice. They are the exception, whereas the use of semi-automatic rifles in mass killings is vastly more common.


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2017)

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/25/tokyo-knife-attack-stabbing-sagamihara



We had a thread on Milnet.ca regarding that incident, in case anyone is interested.

It was a care home for disabled people. All were mentally disabled, and many had physical disabilities as well. They were attacked at night in their beds.

It was the worst mass assault in Japan since World War Two.

Trivia: Sagamihara is Toronto's sister city.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> It was a care home for disabled people. All were mentally disabled, and many had physical disabilities as well. They were stabbed at night in their beds.
> 
> It was the worst mass assault in Japan since World War Two.
> 
> Trivia: Sagamihara is Toronto's sister city.


So, you think the condition of the victims was the cause? Knives are favourite weapons in attacks where guns are hard to obtain. I don't have stats handy, but I'll bet more get killed, around the world, with knives than get shot with illegal guns.

Hospital, church, old age home, mall or school. It really makes no difference what kind of people were killed. Old, young, infirm or soldiers (Ft Hood). It is the person doing the harm that is at fault. That is why they pick these places. No gun zones full of people without protection.

BTW, ask any cop. Guys with knives are crazy dangerous, capable of cutting a lot of people up in a hurry, including armed police. http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh44oh9wTL1t11XJKD

The fact that they were old and infirm means nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (6 Nov 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, you think the condition of the victims was the cause? Knives are favourite weapons in attacks where guns are hard to obtain. I don't have stats handy, but I'll bet more get killed, around the world, with knives than get shot with illegal guns.
> 
> Hospital, church, old age home, mall or school. It really makes no difference what kind of people were killed. Old, young, infirm or soldiers (Ft Hood). It is the person doing the harm that is at fault. That is why they pick these places. No gun zones full of people without protection.
> 
> ...



More people are killed with guns than knives in the US. 

https://www.snopes.com/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2017)

Since the mass murder in Sagamihara, Japan (Reply #85 ) was brought up, this article discusses, 
"Why are mass murders so uncommon in Japan?"
https://qz.com/742140/why-are-mass-murders-so-uncommon-in-japan/


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> If he had a rented truck and 7000 pounds of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, acetylene, nitromethane, diesel fuel, and explosives stolen from a quarry he could have killed 168 people and injured over 680 others - and caused over $650 million in property damage to over 300 buildings destroyed or damaged - as happened in Oklahoma City on 19 April 1955.
> 
> If he had an airline ticket and a boxcutter...


Are you suggesting we should apply the aimilar controls to firearms as were applied to box cutters on aircraft, or to ammonium nitrate fertilizer in general?  Or would you settle for the licensing, registration, and insurance requirements that accompany automobiles?


----------



## Loachman (6 Nov 2017)

One can own as many vehicles as one wants and can afford with no licence, registration or insurance required. Those are only necessary if one wishes to drive on public roads. I'd be quite happy if my PAL permitted me to use a network of public ranges whenever I chose, and not as government permission to continue to own lawfully-acquired devices on my own property without being liable for lengthy prison sentences.

Regarding insurance, I can get $5,000,000 worth of insurance, which covers all legal firearms activities, for only $9.95 annually. Insurance companies are professional risk assessors, so that's a pretty good indication of the relative risk between firearm and vehicle use.

Nobody calls for vehicle bans or restrictions or confiscations following vehicular mass-murders, or limits to fuel tank size, or governors to reduce maximum speeds. Nobody calls for restrictions on alcohol purchases following drunk-driving deaths. The emphasis there is placed upon the human(s) at fault, not the machine or intoxicant. Nobody calls for the innocent to be treated as if they were all potential murderers or drunk drivers.

So, yes, in that regard, treat firearms like vehicles and I'd be ecstatic.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> More people are killed with guns than knives in the US.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/



You're right, and among those more Americans are murdered with hammers than all rifle types combined.


Question for you (or anyone else). Suppose tomorrow all semi-automatic rifles are destroyed in North America. For debate sake both lawful owners and criminals alike no longer possess semi-auto rifles, none will be made in North America and none will be shipped in.  

The next time there is a mass shooting with, say, a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun should we celebrate that maybe only 9 died instead of 19? Is that the driving force behind banning semi-auto rifles? To lower the number of deaths in mass shootings?  (no one seems concerned about 9000 Americans a year are killed with pistols instead of some 350 with a rifle.)

Is it the semi-automatics rate of fire why they should be banned? While I agree it's generally high, bolt actions can be fired pretty quick too.  Look at this fellow with a WW1 bolt action rifle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo
I believe you can buy kits to make their magazines detachable. My bolt action has a 10 round detachable magazine, 20" barrel and folding stock. Like an assault bolt action  ;D

What happens in my example where semi-automatics are now non-existent and someone shoots 9 or 10 or 12 people with a bolt action rifle? What if the shooter had 3 or 4 of those 10 round bolt action rifles? Do we just agree that stuff like that happens since we reached a balanced gun control position or do we now look at limiting bolt actions somehow?  

Similar videos with break open shotguns and revolvers. This video is a bit of an exaggeration by an expert for shooting then speed reloading with a revolver but with some practice I get someone could get pretty fast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FbUMqoyjDw


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Look at this fellow with a WW1 bolt action rifle.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo



Not bad. Sergeant York was an artist with an M1917 Enfield rifle. 
( Although Gary Cooper used an M1903 Springfield. )

But, check out what you can do with a Winchester Model 1892!  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrOPVo5GFY4

I love "chicks with guns". 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDyXbcu2RXg
Language warning.


----------



## Loachman (6 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> https://www.snopes.com/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/



Which tends to not work in favour of your argument.

Even though the article points out that a large number of firearms-related homicides are not attributed to any specific firearms type, the vast majority of firearms-related homicides are the result of gang activity in specific neighbourhoods in major cities and the preferred weapons of gang members are pistols, for concealability. Even if the number of rifle-involved homicides doubled or tripled, there would still be more deaths from stabbings.

And, were it somehow possible to remove all firearms from lawful private use, it is highly unlikely that the homicide rate would fall. Those bent on murder are perfectly able to substitute another weapon. As the criminal element would not be influenced by such a mass confiscation, homicide rates would rise if there was any change at all. One can see the indicators of that in Chicago and other large US cities - they tend to have the most onerous firearms restrictions in the US and the highest homicide rates. Remove those cities from the equation and the US homicide rate would look like ours, our gang problems being much, much smaller.

The US does _not_ have a firearm problem. It has a gang problem, and also a mental health problem - treatment and support being rather more difficult to find there.

And, again, even as the numbers of firearms of all types in private hands has soared, the US homicide rate has fallen dramatically.

That would _not_ be the case if guns _were_ the problem.

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low (See link for charts, including comparisons between US states and Canadian provinces and territories)



> FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low
> 
> Ask the average American if crime is falling in the United States, however, and you're unlikely to hear about how homicide is at a 50-year low.
> 
> ...



Yes, there has been a sharp increase in US homicide rates in the last couple of years, but look exactly where it is happening:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/fbi-crime-report-2016-homicide-rate/



> US homicide rate spiked nearly 8% in 2016, FBI report finds
> 
> Communities of different sizes, from rural regions to suburbs to large urban centers, reported an increase in the number of violent crimes. Cities with a population of more than 1 million, the largest population subset measured in the FBI's report, saw the greatest uptick in violent crime at 7.2%. *The number of murders in those large cities also soared, by the largest degree between population centers, increasing 20.3% from 2015 to 2016*.
> 
> ...



https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-3



> Murder rates in 50 American cities
> 
> To help resolve this debate, The Economist has gathered murder statistics for 2016 - fully eight months before they are released by the FBI - for 50 of America’s most violent cities. *These areas contain 15% of the country’s population and around 36% of its murder victims*. Our numbers show that homicides rose in 35 of them. Since urban trends tend to track national ones, this suggests that the overall murder rate is indeed rising at its fastest pace since the early 1970s. However, today’s violence still needs to be set in historical context. Across all 50 cities, the homicide rate was lower in 2016 than it was in 2007, and for the 26 years before that.
> 
> Crunching numbers on 280,000 murder records from 1980 to 2015 shows that among our 50 cities gun use has increased from 65% to 80% of all murders. But that number varies dramatically by city. Guns were responsible for 60% of murders in New York and 85% in Chicago between 2010 and 2015. Although both places have made progress in reducing non-gun-related homicides, Chicago’s gun murder rate is five times New York’s.



Restricting ownership of firearms by private citizens does not reduce violent crime in general or homicides specifically. Those jurisdictions with the most restrictive firearms laws generally have the highest violent crime and homicide rates. There is no national standard for the US. Aside from national laws, laws vary by state, county, and city. That is why detailed and careful comparisons are necessary.

As for the most likely cause of the recent "uptick":

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/13/ferguson-effect-real-researcher-richard-rosenfield-second-thoughts

Is the 'Ferguson effect' real? Researcher has second thoughts 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/15/ferguson-effect-homicide-rates-us-crime-study

'Ferguson Effect' is a plausible reason for spike in violent US crime, study says

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/11/ferguson-effect-study-72-us-cops-reluctant-make-stops/96446504/

'Ferguson effect': 72% of U.S. cops reluctant to make stops


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> 'Ferguson effect': 72% of U.S. cops reluctant to make stops



Probably dates back to circa 1973, 

after the riots in the 1960's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZhCJFkABLE

"Starting in 1973, affirmative action and consent decrees changed LAPD culture from aggressively pursuing criminals to laying back in police cars, taking careful and lengthy reports, while gangs ran wild in the streets and portions of L.A. were terrorized by thugs. 

When I was in the field in the 1960s, our 3,400 policemen (our Civil Service rank) arrested 100,000 more criminals than do today's  10,000 affirmative action wonders.  (Attorney GARY INGEMUNSON in "Warning Bells," Thin Blue Line, July 2005, p. 13---Also L.A. Times of 13 March 1996, pp. B-1 & 3):  A “distressed Mayor Richard Riordan...said it was vexing to learn that LAPD is now making 100,000 fewer arrests, issuing over 200,000 fewer citations, and conducting over 20,000 fewer field interviews per year.”

Give no slack and take no sh#t from anyone. Confront and command. Control the streets at all times. Always be aggressive. Stop crimes before they happen. Seek them out. Shake them down. Make that arrest. And never, never admit the department has done anything wrong."

To protect and to serve : the LAPD's century of war in the city of dreams


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Nov 2017)

When various levels of government effectively fail in preventing most bad guys from getting guns (esp. semi-auto with large magazines and now bump-stock) it is entirely logical for everyone else to consider arming themselves.  A very serious failure of US governance.  The Wild West returns?  Overall US culture, esp. Hollywood for decades, has a lot to answer for in terms of encouraging that sort of society and governance.

"Go ahead, make my day".  Eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML86JjEyKiA

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman (6 Nov 2017)

Just how would/should





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> various levels of government ... prevent ... most bad guys from getting guns


?


----------



## McG (7 Nov 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> One can own as many vehicles as one wants and can afford with no licence, registration or insurance required. Those are only necessary if one wishes to drive on public roads. I'd be quite happy if my PAL permitted me to use a network of public ranges whenever I chose, and not as government permission to continue to own lawfully-acquired devices on my own property without being liable for lengthy prison sentences.
> 
> ...
> 
> So, yes, in that regard, treat firearms like vehicles and I'd be ecstatic.


Keep in mind, to get your car off the lot the dealership will be looking for proof of insurance and licence, and they will also get registration to the point where the government knows you own the car.

But if you are happy with applying similar rules to firearms as to what does apply to cars, then you must also be willing to accept that there is room in the USA for greater gun control because there are many places in the USA without licensing, registration, and insurance requirements.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Nov 2017)

My perspective, as someone who has lived and owned/shot guns in both Canada and the US, is that I'd rather have Canada's gun laws and social issues than the gun laws and social issues of the US any day.  Canada has legal ways to acquire semi-automatic weapons, and yet we don't have a similar monthly toll of massacres or a daily toll of murders.  We would do well to ask why.  Ease of access (enshrined in the Constitution) combined with deep social problems (enshrined in racial issues) make for the high rate of gun violence in the US....


----------



## Loachman (7 Nov 2017)

The social problems - racial, gangs (often race-based), and lack of mental health - are key, but ease of access isn't, not by law-abiding citizens, at least, and they're the only ones affected by restrictive laws.

As I have said several times, the vast majority of homicides are gang-related, and occur in very specific neighbourhoods in large cities. Eliminate the gang problem, and the US homicide rate would look remarkably like ours. There is, strangely, no serious call to do that. It is easier to blame the tools and seek to restrict those than blame the people committing the violence and do something serious about them.

Laws do not prevent those gangs from acquiring large quantities of illegal drugs that fuel them. Laws do not prevent those gangs from acquiring the firearms that they use to protect themselves and eliminate their competition.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Nov 2017)

Loachman,
How many times have we defended our position. We've given the same answers to the same questions from those that have absolutely no intent of ever trying to comprimise. Save your breath.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Nov 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The social problems - racial, gangs (often race-based), and lack of mental health - are key, but ease of access isn't, not by law-abiding citizens, at least, and they're the only ones affected by restrictive laws.
> 
> As I have said several times, the vast majority of homicides are gang-related, and occur in very specific neighbourhoods in large cities. Eliminate the gang problem, and the US homicide rate would look remarkably like ours. There is, strangely, no serious call to do that. It is easier to blame the tools and seek to restrict those than blame the people committing the violence and do something serious about them.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> How many times have we defended our position. We've given the same answers to the same questions from those that have absolutely no intent of ever trying to comprimise. Save your breath.



I'm not looking at gangland shootings, I'm looking at mass shootings and public massacres, generally targetting random bystanders or at least killing random bystanders who are near the target.  A small percentage of the total?  Sure.  Something happening with disturbing regularity?  Flipping through Canada's history, I see Ecole Polytechnique (1989 - 14), Concordia (1992 - 4), Vernon Shooting (1996 - 10), Mayerthorpe (2005 - 5), Moncton (2014 - 3), Edmonton (2014 - 9), La Loche School (2016 - 6), Quebec Mosque Shooting (2016 - 6).  While I might of missed a few, I count 57 dead over 3 decades.  The guy in Vegas killed more than that in the span of minutes.  Look at the body counts in the US.  Texas (2017 - 26), Vegas (2017 - 58), Orlando (2016 - 49), San Bernadino (2015 - 16), Washington Naval Yard (2013 - 12), Sandy Hook (2012 - 28), Aurora Theater (2012 - 12), Fort Hood (2009 - 13), Binghampton (2009 - 14), Virginia Tech (2007 - 32).

Eliminate the gangland problem, but it doesn't address the repeated cases of public shootings in the US.  The fact that we don't have dozens of fatalities a year in schools and theaters in Canada means there is something different here - a mix of culture and legislation on access.  You can keep defending your position, and the bodies will keep piling up south of the border, so don't be surprised if nobody in Canada is sympathetic to your argument.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (7 Nov 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The social problems - racial, gangs (often race-based), and lack of mental health - are key, but ease of access isn't, not by law-abiding citizens, at least, and they're the only ones affected by restrictive laws.
> 
> As I have said several times, the vast majority of homicides are gang-related, and occur in very specific neighbourhoods in large cities. Eliminate the gang problem, and the US homicide rate would look remarkably like ours. There is, strangely, no serious call to do that. It is easier to blame the tools and seek to restrict those than blame the people committing the violence and do something serious about them.



No one has argued that mental health issues don't have a role in repeated mass shootings. The issue is that these people have easy access to high power weaponry. As infantryman noted, countries such as Canada, Australia, Great Britain, France, and other nations with gun control seem to have lower instances of mass shootings, and lower numbers of killed, even when adjusted for population variance.

As for the gang assertion. This has been proven patently false before, but I'll post a link again. There were 1824 gang related killings in 2011 (with all natures of weapons), whereas there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides by guns the same year. Moreover, as shown before the highest per capita gun violence states are "red" states including Alabama and Mississippi, where the the top 3 highest counties for gun violence are located (conveniently in solidly rural, white areas of the states)While the source for this particular article is the huffington Post the FBI statistics and gang violence research centres data is along the same line and linked in said article.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html

The mental health aspect is true, but also a cop out. If the individuals weren't easily able to access high powered weaponry than these situations could be reversed, as they have been in almost the rest of the world. On a further note, why is that whenever there is a terrorist attack we don't use the "mental health" route? The vast majority of terrorists suffer from mental health issues, including depression, trauma, and drug abuse. Why is it that for some events we say "guns aren't a problem, mental health is" and for others we say, "shoes are a problem- invest billions into x-ray machines at airports" when the former is a more significant statistical problem than the latter?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Nov 2017)

You could likely cut the number of mass shootings in half, if the current laws in the US were enforced and properly funded to be effective. Since roughly 54% of the murders take place in 2% of the counties, you could effectively cut the homicide rate in the US by half by dealing with the social issues within those areas. But it would take massive political will to do so and it would take longer than 5 years to show results. So few politicians are interested.

The odds in the US of getting killed by a rifle is about 1 in 900,000 (avg. 374 killings a year out of a population of 350mil) Even with the 2 latest mass shootings included, twice as many people are going to die of a drug overdose in BC alone then all the rifle (of all types) shootings in the US.


----------



## McG (7 Nov 2017)

And drug overdoses in BC have been recognized as a crisis by political leaders.  There is effort, attention and resources going toward that problem.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Nov 2017)

Yes, gang violence and drug epidemics are serious problems that kill lots (more) people, but don't use them as red herrings.  The relative likelihood of being killed in a public mass shooting is also immaterial when you consider that there are probably ways to mitigate occurrences, both in frequency and in severity.  Responsible citizens should be asking" why mass killings in the US happen more often and are of a greater magnitude than in other countries?", instead of just offering more thoughts and prayers and buckling down for the next 10-20 people to get mowed down in a public setting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Responsible citizens should be asking" why mass killings in the US happen more often and are of a greater magnitude than in other countries?"



That's a fair and important question to ask.

I just read a really heartbreaking story of a mother in the latest shooting in the US who sacrificed herself using her body to shield her kids, though one of them was still hit 5 times.  Very hard to read the story without getting teary eyed (at least for me if I'm being honest).

Feelings about semi-auto rifles aside banning them doesn't seem like a viable solution, at least in the US. Guessing a significant number of Americans are ready and willing to essentially go to war to keep their guns. Were they banned tomorrow would the US send police to confiscate the weapons they know about?  I think that would require a lot more police officers, and arming them with even more semi-automatic rifles.
Do Americans who turn their rifles in/get confiscated get reimbursed for their property that the government decides to take?

Definitely think it's a culture & availability issue. With a culture so immersed in firearms and "defense against tyrannical governments" how do you begun to address either of those issues?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yes, gang violence and drug epidemics are serious problems that kill lots (more) people, but don't use them as red herrings.  The relative likelihood of being killed in a public mass shooting is also immaterial when you consider that there are probably ways to mitigate occurrences, both in frequency and in severity.  Responsible citizens should be asking" why mass killings in the US happen more often and are of a greater magnitude than in other countries?", instead of just offering more thoughts and prayers and buckling down for the next 10-20 people to get mowed down in a public setting.



It's not a red herring, dead people are still dead regardless of method. The gun control crowd are not interested in anything but controlling guns, if offered a solution that does not involve that, they aren't interested. One should ask why mass shootings are more common since the 1990, beyond just the classification issue. Looking at that points to social issues and possible links to commonly prescribed drugs. Those issues are hard, so the politicians wail about gun control, which is a win for them either way, if they get a new law, they win. If the NRA and friends block them, they say we tried and failed to defeat the beast, so they still win as it appeared they did something. Even if they purposely put poison pills in the legislation. 

There are a lot of things the US could do to reduce the number of homicides by guns within the existing framework. First enforce the existing laws, the number of people convicted of being strawmen is a joke. The ability of the current system to track prohibitions on ownership is flawed and needs fixing. There are other issues as well, fixing those things is not sexy and won't get politicians re-elected. 

If you think the NRA and groups aren't interested in reducing the body count, then you are wrong. But they are not about to throw themselves under a bus to do so either. In fact there are many in the US that think the NRA is far to accommodating as it is.


----------



## FJAG (7 Nov 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could likely cut the number of mass shootings in half, if the current laws in the US were enforced and properly funded to be effective. Since roughly 54% of the murders take place in 2% of the counties, you could effectively cut the homicide rate in the US by half by dealing with the social issues within those areas. But it would take massive political will to do so and it would take longer than 5 years to show results. So few politicians are interested.
> 
> The odds in the US of getting killed by a rifle is about 1 in 900,000 (avg. 374 killings a year out of a population of 350mil) Even with the 2 latest mass shootings included, twice as many people are going to die of a drug overdose in BC alone then all the rifle (of all types) shootings in the US.



I'm not quite sure what the purpose was in limiting the statistics in your last paragraph to only rifles which is one of the least used firearms for homicides in the US. The FBI tables for 2016 show 374 homicides by rifle out of a total of *11,004* homicides by all types of firearms. Note that this is out of a total of 15,070 homicides of all types of methods so that shooting is the cause behind 73% of homicides. Stabbings in the US (1,604) constitute 10.6%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

In Canada on the other hand the preferred method of killing is consistently by stabbing which accounts for roughly 35% of all homicides while shooting is roughly 30%. 

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14244/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm

If you want to put that in the stats of per 100, 000 then in the US 3.3 in 100,000 are murdered by a firearm each year while in Canada it is 0.44 per 100,000. That means for every Canadian murdered by a firearm in a year, 7.5 Americans will be murdered by a firearm. Please note that these are homicide statistics and do not include suicides or accidents which is another whole kettle of fish.

The overall homicide rate in the US is 15,070/350,000,000 or *4.3 per 100,000* while Canada is 516/35,000,000 or *1.47 per 100,000*, a ratio of 2.9 to 1.

I don't think that there is any way to cut it other than to say that there is a gun culture issue in the US and that it has a direct effect on the number, rates and types of homicides that occur there. Maybe one of these days, Congress will grow a pair and allow the federal government to conduct some studies on the issue. :threat:

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Nov 2017)

The stats are important when you look at legislation, because the number is not what people expect. The only time the type of firearm it is comes into play is really in the mass shooting scenario and one needs to look at why is this becoming more common, why didn't more people do this before? Yes the gun culture exists, are the politicians more interested in political battles or solving the issue, even if it means looking at things they did not plan to. If you enter into discussions with the gun lobby with "we plan on restricting gun rights" you have already lost. For all the lamenting and fist thumping, I don't see the politicians finding ways to create common ground on the gun rights side to solve issues.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Nov 2017)

Meanwhile, in the stock market:

Why Investors Bet on Gun Sales After a Mass Shooting

Following the massacre in Las Vegas, firearm manufacturers saw their stock prices edge up.

What’s behind this grim trend? Understanding how mass shootings affect the demand for guns requires first recognizing the charged political and emotional space that guns occupy in American culture. There are a few reasons Americans buy more guns after shootings. Some describe wanting to protect themselves from violence; others worry that high-profile massacres will lead to stricter gun regulations, or a ban on the purchase of firearms entirely. Both of those impressions add some urgency to buying a gun, so demand goes up, and, in anticipation of that, so do the share prices of gun makers shortly after a shooting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/gun-sales-mass-shooting/541809/


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Nov 2017)

Transcript of the 10 April 2014 USAF court martial of Airman First Class Devin P. Kelley:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Nov 2017)

If a nut job wants a gun, to kill a bunch of people, they'll get one. Even confiscation of every firearm won't solve it. Unless you shut down every machine shop, take away every drill press and lathe, shut down every blacksmith shop and forge, people are going to have powerful weapons at their disposal. A single shot or double barrel shotgun will provide all the destruction you crave, with a competent operator. Whitman killed 16 and wounded 31including the stabbing deaths of his wife and mother. He used:

Remington 700 ADL (6mm) bolt action, centrefire
Universal M1 carbine. semi auto, centrefire
Remington Model 141 (.35-caliber) pump action, centrefire
Sears model 60 shotgun (12 gauge) semi auto
S&W Model 19 (.357 Magnum) revolver
Luger P08 (9mm) semi auto pistol
Galesi-Brescia (.25 ACP) semi auto pistol
Knife.
He killed and injured 11 and 31 from the 28th floor of the clock tower. The only effective firearms at that distance are the two Remingtons. The .30 carbine maybe. It fires an anemic pistol round. The bottom two are a luger and a small pocket pistol.

Point being, these were two manually operated single shot rifles. So even banning the dreaded black 'assault' rifle will do nothing if a person is intent on doing harm. 

I've seen an operational AK 47 made out of a shovel.
Tim McVey used fertilizer and diesel fuel.
If a person wants to kill 20 people they'll do it by any means available to them. 

Banning firearms won't do it. Simply because it is an impossibility.

The second amendment is meant to leave the population with a means to defend themselves against a corrupt government. It also possibly stopped an invasion by the Japanese. It will not be a stroke of a legislative pen that disarms Americans.

So what do they do? How do they stop it? Confiscation won't work. What viable, reasonable and accepted criteria does anyone have to stop this?

The US government with all their brain trust can't figure it out, and they know the most about it. I don't doubt all the simple off the cuff angst, ideas and solutions found here were the first things shoved off the table everytime people a lot more familiar with the problem try figure out where to go.

I believe the current restrictions, in general, not all, that we have are sufficient enough, with tweaking, would work stateside. However, no system of firearms control will stop mass killings. That's just the facts.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Nov 2017)

07 Jun 2012 El Paso Police Dept Incident report concerning Devin Kelley and the fact that he had escaped from  a Behavioral Health Services facility. Kelly suffered from mental health issues and had been caught smuggling firearms onto Hollman AFB and making threats against his superiors:


----------



## mariomike (7 Nov 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Please note that these are homicide statistics and do not include suicides or accidents which is another whole kettle of fish.



Speaking of statistics, about 80 per cent of the gun deaths we were sent into were ( or appeared to be ) suicides.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Nov 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I believe the current restrictions, in general, not all, that we have are sufficient enough, with tweaking, would work stateside. However, no system of firearms control will stop mass killings. That's just the facts.



But that's not the facts. At all.

- The facts CLEARLY show that countries with more restrictive gun laws have less gun related murders, less gun related accidental deaths (in 2015 there were 43 gun incidents involving TODDLERS!), and less occurrence of overall gun related crime by multiples. It's not even close.

- The facts clearly show that the "If we ban guns then only bad guys have guns" argument doesn't hold up. Australia, where there is significant gun control, has forced criminals to go without guns as semi-automatics have risen to an average of $45,000 AUD on the black market, outside the means of all but the richest criminals/gangs (which, btw, aren't coming for you).

- The facts clearly show the countries with higher gun control have less occurrences of mass shootings. The US is alone in this. 

The fact that toddlers kill more Americans with guns than terrorists kill with anything should be a sign there is a problem. That the US has invaded multiple countries to stop terrorism, spent billions in intelligence agencies, altered laws to allow for spying on their own citizens, and spent billions on security measures to stop a threat that hurts less people than toddlers but refuses to consider any sort of ban on guns that repeatedly are used (seeming bi-monthly) to kill 10-50 people is an indication of a larger societal problem. Guns are part of that problem. 

I get that people enjoy guns, I enjoy guns. I also enjoy fantasy football. If I read that fantasy football repeatedly caused 10-50 people to be killed I'd likely reconsider participating in it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2017)

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45]

I get that people enjoy guns, I enjoy guns. I also enjoy fantasy football. If I read that fantasy football repeatedly caused 10-50 people to be killed I'd likely reconsider participating in it.
[/quote]

Do you drink alcohol?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you drink alcohol?



I sense a red herring inbound.... yes, I drink alcohol. But if I learned that someone took beer and killed 58 people and wounded 500 with it at a concert than I'd probably reconsider.

Drinking alcohol is a personal choice that can't harm other people (directly). Being shot by a 65 year old man sporting the firepower of an infantry platoon at a country concert is not a personal choice. Heck, being shot by a toddler who's, assumedly idiotic parents, allowed to have access to a gun is not a personal choice.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Nov 2017)

You answered too fast Bird_Gunner.

I was about to tell you, in the immortal words of Dr. McCoy: "Don't answer Jim, they're setting you up!"

 ;D

On the other hand, this whole discussion has strayed quite far from it's original topic and started quite far into another one we have relating to gun control.

On the other hand (back to the first one I guess, since I only have two), it has interesting societal aspects not necessarily touched on in the gun control thread. Perhaps a split to a thread that would be called "Gun Cult in the US and How to Change It".

Split topic as per OP. - mm


----------



## Infanteer (8 Nov 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I believe the current restrictions, in general, not all, that we have are sufficient enough, with tweaking, would work stateside.



I do as well.  There needs, like in all things, to be a balance.  People who argue to simply ban guns aren't being realistic, especially when you do so in the context of the United States, where gun ownership is enshrined in the constitution.  I personally thought the Aussies went a little too far with their system and I've vigorously argued against banning semi-automatic firearms, not only for the reason you mentioned above but also as a matter of principle.  Guns in the wrong hands are the real problem, and our current system (with tweaking) does a acceptably good enough job of placing reasonable limitations on access (through the national PAL system and the unrestricted/restricted/prohibited categorization of firearms) while still allowing law-abiding citizens who wish to own and fire semi-automatic weapons to own and fire them as they wish.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I sense a red herring inbound.... yes, I drink alcohol. But if I learned that someone took beer and killed 58 people and wounded 500 with it at a concert than I'd probably reconsider.
> 
> Drinking alcohol is a personal choice that can't harm other people (directly). Being shot by a 65 year old man sporting the firepower of an infantry platoon at a country concert is not a personal choice. Heck, being shot by a toddler who's, assumedly idiotic parents, allowed to have access to a gun is not a personal choice.



Owning/shooting firearms is a personal choice that can't harm other people (directly).  Being run over by a 65 year old man who is driving while intoxicated is not a personal choice.

Only pointing out the logic here.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> On the other hand (back to the first one I guess, since I only have two), it has interesting societal aspects not necessarily touched on in the gun control thread. Perhaps a split to a thread that would be called "Gun Cult in the US and How to Change It".



To give you two examples:

I had a neighbour in the US who wanted to go to a movie one night.  However, he opted out.  Why?  Because the theatre chain prohibited firearms in their building.  He felt he needed to arm himself to go watch a movie in a mall theatre.

I have a relative (American) who carries a pistol in her purse.  She only needed to show her driver licence to do so.  She has no training in how to use the thing and is not an avid shooter.  She carries it because "Americans need to defend themselves."  I really believe, were she to use it, she'd be more a menace to herself/bystanders than anyone else as it is a small, difficult to handle pistol.

I've never really met anyone in Canada who instinctively needs to be armed in public.  This is the "gun culture" that we often talk about.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've never really met anyone in Canada who instinctively needs to be armed in public.  This is the "gun culture" that we often talk about.



I don't know about the rest of Canada, but even Toronto police officers are not authorized* to carry guns off-duty.

* Except in special circumstances.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Nov 2017)

It varies between police forces and which act they fall under. A lot of rural officers carry weapons in the trunk as they get called at any time. ATC for personal defense used to be far more common and every bank was required to have a gun at the branch. The laws still exists, but the CFO's make it almost impossible to get one. Considering the US experience of CCW holders having an average of 1% indictment rate, up here with our PAL system and a training requirement, we would have even less issues. Currently most self defense cases in Canada involves bad guys shooting other bad guys, but the courts are showing that they recognize that deadly force is still warranted when your life is threatened.


----------



## Lumber (8 Nov 2017)

As long as we're sharing anecdotes. My best friend met some Texans on his honeymoon. Real nice folks. Young, republican, but progressive. They came up to Ontario for a visit last summer, and of course, all our Canadian friends wanted to talk to them about was politics and Trump and gun control . I tried to stay out of it because I wanted them to enjoy their time and not cause any awkward feeling between them on us, however, I did ask him one question. I asked:

"So you own, what was it 27 guns, right?" 
"Something like that, yea."
"And when you walk and drive around Houston, you know that just about everyone around you has a gun on them or in their vehicle, right."
"Not everyone, but I'd say most of them, yea."
"So how does it feel, as you're touring around Canada with (my best friend), that no one around you, not one of these people, has a gun, either on them, or in their cars?"
"It's totally f***ing weird."


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ATC for personal defense used to be far more common and every bank was required to have a gun at the branch.



That came to an end in Toronto in the 1950's when a bank manager accidently killed a bank employee with a ricochet aimed at a robber.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I sense a red herring inbound.... yes, I drink alcohol. But if I learned that someone took beer and killed 58 people and wounded 500 with it at a concert than I'd probably reconsider.
> 
> Drinking alcohol is a personal choice that can't harm other people (directly). Being shot by a 65 year old man sporting the firepower of an infantry platoon at a country concert is not a personal choice. Heck, being shot by a toddler who's, assumedly idiotic parents, allowed to have access to a gun is not a personal choice.



Thanks for your candor my friend. 
I've been shooting for 33 years and drinking for 20. I've never behaved dangerously while shooting, after shooting or with a gun in my hand but I've done some extremely stupid things while drinking and almost got people hurt.

I couldn't begin to guess how many assaults, rapes, murders, accidents, accidental deaths and suicides happen where alcohol is a factor. 

I would guess there is a bigger chance of you the average gun owner doing something dumb dangerous or deadly while drinking than with a gun in their hand (without alcohol present).

As infanteer points out its not my choice to get hit  by a drunk driver. None of us here have went on a shooting spree, how many of us endangered lives by having a few too many?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Nov 2017)

I believe it ended later out here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> That came to an end in Toronto in the 1950's when a bank manager accidently killed a bank employee with a ricochet aimed at a robber.



A police officers bullet likewise killed a hostage during the siege/mass shooting in Australia in 2014.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A police officers bullet likewise killed a hostage during the siege/mass shooting in Australia in 2014.



The situation you describe sounds like a SWAT type operation with regrettable "collateral damage".

My reply was to, "every bank was required to have a gun at the branch."

There was no hostage, police negotiations or siege. The employee was accidentally killed by a civilian bank manager.

That is when ( late 1950's ) guns were removed from bank branches in Toronto.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Owning/shooting firearms is a personal choice that can't harm other people (directly).  Being run over by a 65 year old man who is driving while intoxicated is not a personal choice.
> 
> Only pointing out the logic here.



Agree. I would also support having breathalyzers on all cars to avoid such things (if it were to ever be feasible) for the same reasons. The reality is that as a society we "should" be attempting to do what is in the social interest. As there is no real need for private citizens to own semi-automatic weapons and they are linked to mass shootings than it seems logical that we would ban these weapons in the public interest, in the same way we ban drunk driving.

I don't believe banning guns is a 100% solution. I also don't believe mental health education is a 100% solution. I do believe that gun control and mental health are part of an overall solution to reducing mass shootings.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would also support having breathalyzers on all cars to avoid such things (if it were to ever be feasible) for the same reasons.



It will never be perfect, but progress in safety is being made. At least as far as traffic fatalities are concerned.

In the US, the 32,479 traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-08/u-s-highway-deaths-decline-2-9-falling-for-fifth-year-1-


----------



## FSTO (8 Nov 2017)

When I was going to high school in rural SW Manitoba during the late 70's, I would hazard to guess that of all the pickups in the student parking lot 75% would have at least a .22 behind the seat if not on the gun rack in the back window. During hunting season shot-guns and high powered rifles would also be included in the armoury.

We had our bullying issues and screwed up kids but there was never even a thought that someone would go get the gun out of the truck and start shooting up the school. Different time for sure.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> When I was going to high school in rural SW Manitoba during the late 70's, I would hazard to guess that of all the pickups in the student parking lot 75% would have at least a .22 behind the seat if not on the gun rack in the back window.



Couldn't resist.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjYAEtO-Ohk
01:45


----------



## GAP (8 Nov 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> When I was going to high school in rural SW Manitoba during the late 70's, I would hazard to guess that of all the pickups in the student parking lot 75% would have at least a .22 behind the seat if not on the gun rack in the back window. During hunting season shot-guns and high powered rifles would also be included in the armoury.
> 
> We had our bullying issues and screwed up kids but there was never even a thought that someone would go get the gun out of the truck and start shooting up the school. Different time for sure.



I was so proud of my custom gun stock in the back window...... :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Agree. I would also support having breathalyzers on all cars to avoid such things (if it were to ever be feasible) for the same reasons.


Thats such a wicked idea. Breathalyzers in all cars. I'd support that 100%.

But what about speed limiters?  Do you need a car that goes 120kph when our highest speed limit is what, 110kph?




> As there is no real need for private citizens to own semi-automatic weapons and they are linked to mass shootings



The second last mass shooting in Canada was done with a crossbow. 3 dead. 

The third last mass shooting in Canada was one with a shotgun. 4 dead 7 injured. 

June 17th 2017 police in Northern Quebec shot a 19 year old who killed 3 people with a knife. 



Given the number of mass shootings in Canada where semi automatics were used in the last 10 years is it really a viable solution to ban semi auto rifles? Is it going to significantly impact the number of mass murders in Canada? Or lower the potential of dead and injured?  

Should we stop at semi auto rifles or maybe add pistols to the list, or high capacity shotguns? Bolt action rifles with detachable magazines? 

Do first Nations who use rifles for sustinent hunting get special exemptions or would we send the RCMP on to reserves and up north to confiscate them? 


(sorry just realized I'm drifting into Canadian gun control debate but I guess the question about FN would jive down there too)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> More people are killed with guns than knives in the US.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/



Given the bad exposure Snopes has rec'd showing left leaning bias and adulteration of facts to fit their narrative, I'd be inclined to depend on them even less than Wikipedia for facts. Not doubting your claim, just saying Snopes doesn't cut it as a dependable source any more.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Given the bad exposure Snopes has rec'd showing left leaning bias and adulteration of facts to fit their narrative, I'd be inclined to depend on them even less than Wikipedia for facts. Not doubting your claim, just saying Snopes doesn't cut it as a dependable source any more.



I checked with snopes if they're left wing biased and they said that accusation is false.

Also an interesting article by Forbes 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/

Glad you're back RC but hurt you didn't comment  on my newest acquisition  ;D


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> https://www.snopes.com/four-times-more-stabbed-than-rifles-any-kind/



"On 16 October 2017, Breitbart.com posted a story..."

I don't read Breitbart.com, but for anyone interested,

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/28/breitbartcom-becoming-media-arm-alt-right
"Is Breitbart.com Becoming the Media Arm of the 'Alt-Right'?"

What is the "Alt-right"?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22alt-right%22+breitbart&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=eZMDWp2oMoKR8QeC1JQI&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2017)

Breathalyzer in every car. No semi auto firearms. (I assume you also mean .22 cal rimfire.) What else would you prohibit the masses from having because you don't like the reality of a situation?

So, basically, if you don't like it, it needs to be banned?

Like I said earlier, you can't legislate behaviour.

From your research:
"Table 12 also shows that more people were killed via the use of “hands, fists, feet, etc.,” than were killed by rifles of any kind. In fact, the tally shows that the death numbers were not even close. While approximately 374 people were shot and killed with rifles, roughly 656 people were beaten to death with “hands, fists, feet, etc.” "

Last I looked, assault causing death was against the law and 656 seems like an excessive number at least compared to those of rifles.

After cutting off everyone's hands and feet, we'll have to figure how far back to cut the stumps so they can't be used to club or poke.  ;D j/k


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I checked with snopes if they're left wing biased and they said that accusation is false.
> 
> Also an interesting article by Forbes
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/
> ...



Cheers Jarn. Not really back and don't spend any time here when I am. Sometime something catches my eye. Abolishinists and prohibitionists are like blood in the water.  :rofl: 

I'll check out your new toy before I go.


----------



## FJAG (8 Nov 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Given the bad exposure Snopes has rec'd showing left leaning bias and adulteration of facts to fit their narrative, I'd be inclined to depend on them even less than Wikipedia for facts. Not doubting your claim, just saying Snopes doesn't cut it as a dependable source any more.



These are the FBI statistics:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

 :cheers:


----------



## BeyondTheNow (8 Nov 2017)

I’ve been following these discussions and they all seem to go the same way. People who are in favour of gun ownership and people who aren’t debating/discussing whether to get rid of guns, which guns specifically, how many guns, etc. and which types of gun regulations will stop the same ridiculousness from occurring again. I have to chime in, simply out of frustration...

Gun culture isn’t what needs to change in the US. Guns and their accessibility simply contribute to an issue that isn’t going to change, because no one can figure out why the issue even exists. And the issue is, what, exactly, is wrong with (so many) Americans? There is something so fundamentally defective in their psyche—something in their very wiring—that pushes them to extremes. Their racial conflicts, their political views, their extreme beliefs WRT ‘their right to bear arms’, their numbers of serial killers, looking back at countless events throughout their history (and for such a young country) etc etc. They are a society of extremes and/or violence in practically all major facets of life.

If guns became/become severely restricted/governed, then someone would/will come up with some other method of destruction with which to take as many people out as quickly as possible. (Vehicles & crowds seems to be popular right now...) 

I personally don’t understand why Joe down the street needs (or even has a desire to own) 10, 20, 40+ guns. I like the way Week-end Update on SNL put it (paraphrasing), ‘No one should own 48 of anything...If someone owns 48 cats, the person is considered a crazy cat-person, the government declares you an unfit, irresponsible cat owner and confiscates your cats...’ Humourous/tongue-n-cheek, but easy to see the point. I absolutely believe there is a problem with guns and gun ownership in the US. But I also have absolutely zero doubt that restricting them will do little, if anything at all, in curbing the violence in that country. Specifically gun violence? Maybe. But incidences where an individual (legally sane/mentally ill or not) seeks to kill/injure large quantities of people, for whatever reason, isn’t going to stop. These threads will continue, they’ll just have a different method in their title.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Nov 2017)

There has clearly been a change that has led to more shootings and killings, is it education, drugs, family structures, movies or a combination of the above. As I said earlier looking at these factors than just the weapon will lead you to answers that might require people to acknowledge that their ideas or products are flawed. You can imagine how interested they are to do that. Far easier to beat on the NRA instead.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (9 Nov 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> There has clearly been a change that has led to more shootings and killings, is it education, drugs, family structures, movies or a combination of the above. As I said earlier looking at these factors than just the weapon will lead you to answers that might require people to acknowledge that their ideas or products are flawed. You can imagine how interested they are to do that. Far easier to beat on the NRA instead.



(Edit to add: Colin P: I read too quickly and initially misunderstood your point. Still agree. I’ll keep what I initially typed below though.)

I do agree. But I always come right back to the fact that other countries (with similar cultures) have the same access to info, education, familial struggles, etc and don’t deal with the same frequency, or escalation of violence in any given number of scenarios that they do, either now or in the past.

Obviously, when comparing we have to look at percentage/per capita vs plain figures because they have such a large population. But I really struggle to assume that (I’ll use us, because, well, it’s easy) Canada would be on par, or close to it, with our Southern neighbours if we also had a population of 300+ million. I deeply believe we wouldn’t have the same level of issues, either to the scale or the volume that they deal with far too often. We simply don’t *think* like they do. As a whole, I feel we are a population of far more critically thinking people, who analyze problems, outcomes, and solutions much more contructively than they (as a whole) do. We don’t display the same levels/frequency of divisiveness and anger that they do either.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Nov 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> There has clearly been a change that has led to more shootings and killings, is it education, drugs, family structures, movies or a combination of the above. As I said earlier looking at these factors than just the weapon will lead you to answers that might require people to acknowledge that their ideas or products are flawed. You can imagine how interested they are to do that. Far easier to beat on the NRA instead.



Re-introduce conscription. 

Then they'll all be so p*ssed off with dragging weapons around and cleaning them, and getting charged for losing them/ having NDs, that they'd want nothing to do with bang bangs after their period of service was up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Nov 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> These are the FBI statistics:
> 
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
> 
> :cheers:



You'll note where I didn't dispute the stats. Simply that Snopes is not to be trusted as 100% true.


----------



## Jungle (9 Nov 2017)

I've been living in the US southwest for a few years now, and I feel quite safe here. Most discussions about crime in the USA take the numbers in isolation, but very few look at stats. This wiki entry uses stats from the  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) for its table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

When we look at homicide statistically (number of intentional homicides per 100 000 population) we find that the USA is far below some of the countries we like to visit for holidays:

USA: 4.88
Jamaica: 43.21
Belize: 34.4
Bahamas: 29.81
Dominican Republic: 17.39
Barbados: 10.91
Guadeloupe (France): 7.90
Turks and Caicos Islands (UK): 6.61
Bermuda (UK): 6.45

Canada sits at 1.68

Most countries above have strict gun laws. In the Bahamas or Bermuda, it is nearly impossible to own a firearm even for hunting. Yet their homicide rates are much higher than in the US.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Nov 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Breathalyzer in every car. No semi auto firearms. (I assume you also mean .22 cal rimfire.) What else would you prohibit the masses from having because you don't like the reality of a situation?
> 
> So, basically, if you don't like it, it needs to be banned?
> 
> ...



This is a weak argument. Drinking and driving is against the law, so if there is a way to better enforce the law, why wouldn't we, as a society, want that? Unless you believe that people killed by drunk drivers is just something we should accept for "reasons"....  There is no valid reason why anyone should drink and drive anymore (or ever for that point). So, yes, if the law prohibits drunk driving and a breathalyzer engine block will stop people from doing it, than why wouldn't this be something every law abiding citizen wants?

So no, it's not a case of "if I don't like it it should be banned". It's more of a case of "if the law says something it should be enforced".


----------



## Jungle (9 Nov 2017)

Now let's look at gun ownership in the same countries, per 100 residents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

USA: 101
Jamaica: 8.1
Belize: 10
Bahamas: 5.3
Dominican Republic: 5.1
Barbados: 7.8
Guadeloupe (France): Unknown (Not on list)
Turks and Caicos Islands (UK): Unknown (Not on list)
Bermuda (UK): Unknown (Not on list)

Canada: 30


----------



## Lumber (9 Nov 2017)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Now let's look at gun ownership in the same countries, per 100 residents:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
> 
> ...



How about poverty and income inequality?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> How about poverty and income inequality?



Ding. Ding. Ding! We have a winner!


----------



## Jungle (9 Nov 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> How about poverty and income inequality?



Yes, we could also look at the number of fridges and the availability of mayonnaise, but this conversation is about the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates... 

But Belize, Barbados, Bahamas and Bermuda are far from 3rd world countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal,_Atlas_method)_per_capita


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Nov 2017)

Belize, Barbados and Bahamas could have gun violence issues due to the drug trade.

Not sure what to think about Bermuda.

I wonder- is there a correlation between former slave owning states and gun violence?


----------



## Jungle (9 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Belize, Barbados and Bahamas could have gun violence issues due to the drug trade.



So does the USA...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2017)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I've been living in the US southwest for a few years now, and I feel quite safe here. Most discussions about crime in the USA take the numbers in isolation, but very few look at stats. This wiki entry uses stats from the  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) for its table:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
> 
> ...



Jungle:

Nice find on the statistics front.

However, we must be very careful here. If you read the beginning of the Wiki entry, you will see that they themselves indicate the stats are not quite reliable as "intentional" is defined differently from one country to another. Also, and this is the more important aspect: these homicide rates are all encompassing and do not in any way distinguish or indicate by which mean the homicide was committed. So, they include all forms of homicide, be it by gun, knife, broadaxe, intentional use of car to run over, etc.

The other thing that all the stats we have been looking at in this thread do not clearly indicate either (at least so far), is who is murdered and why. I say that because I believe, and any LEO in here feel free to chime in, that in Canada - for instance - the majority of our intentional homicides are instances of "domestic violence", internal to families (at large), in-laws and close friends.

I think that, if this type of research was done in the US, we would find the same thing. And here is the big problem I see in changing attitudes in the US: They don't want to find out. That's why Congress doesn't want the CDC to look into these matters. And I believe they don't want to look into it because Americans have no appetite for looking into their national psyche and social problems (from drug use, poverty, lack of education and underlying racism) and find out all the problems that exist there* - lest they have to actually start to do something about it.


*: While I don't want to blame Hollywood for the ills of US society, IMHO, one of the underlying problem in the American collective psyche is some of their foundational myths. For instance, and that was greatly propagated by Hollywood, one such myth is that of the wild West, with the gunslingers and shoot-outs. In fact, while there was certain number of criminals (that's what they were) of that ilk, the alleged wild West looked a lot more like _Little House on the Prairie_ than _Shooting at the O.K. Corral_. Sure, the farmers had a single long barrel gun by the door, but it had a lot more to do with chasing the coyotes from the herd than to defend one self. And most cowboy's did their work totally unarmed (I know: sacrilege!) - and "Indians" were not constantly on the war path and a menace. Similarly, today, the myth is that of the whole world trying to come in and attack them at home, with all their TV drama and Hollywood movies foiling time and time again "bad people" trying to commit horrible crime against them. I suspect there have been more "foiled attacks" on the US in NCIS than have actually been detected by the CIA in its whole history  ;D. 

Add to that the ingrained paranoia that is found in a large portion of the US population and it's a recipe for collective mental illness. That paranoia expresses itself, for instance in that person referred to in posts above, who wouldn't go to a theater in the US because he was not allowed to carry his gun for self defence. That person most likely had never, in his whole life, had to pull out his gun to defend himself, nor had probably ever had a friend, relative or any one lisle he knows need to do so either. The USA is simply not that dangerous a place.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Nov 2017)

So where does that leave the US?

Guns aren't going away. It has been pointed out that gun ownership is enshrined in their constitution and a I believe a significant enough portion of the US population would literally go to war to stop a government from taking their guns.

If that is the case (and I believe it is), someone serious about reducing violence in the US (in all forms) actually has to approach the problem from another angle.


----------



## mariomike (9 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Drinking and driving is against the law, so if there is a way to better enforce the law, why wouldn't we, as a society, want that?



Driver education, defensive driving courses, licencing improvements, suspensions, increased insurance rates for bad drivers, police ticketing and fines, distracted driving laws, MADD, breathalysers, ignition interlock, seatbelts and seatbelt enforcement, air bags, laminated and tempered glass, crumple zones, side impact protection beams, collapsible steering columns and padded dashboards.  Convertibles without roll-over bars are less common now. Less blowouts thanks to improved tires. Car fires are also much less common, thanks to improved fuel system integrity and fire retardant materials. 
Improved highway construction. 

I remember having to sit through the old Highway Safety films with titles like, "Mechanised Death", "Signal 30", "Red Asphalt" and "Highways of Agony" etc. 
They put a waste paper basket in the aisle for those who had to puke. 

Paramedic services at accident ( and shooting ) scenes have improved greatly. In 1960 President John F. Kennedy declared that "Traffic accidents constitute one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, of the nation's public health problems". Then in 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson and President's Commission on Highway Safety/National Academy of Sciences declared the carnage "the neglected disease of modern society." 

The report revealed that in 1965 alone, vehicle accidents killed more Americans than were lost in the Korean War. 

Soon after, the National Highway Traffic Safety Act was adopted which standardized EMS training, promoted state involvement, encouraged community oversight, recommended radio communication, and stressed a single emergency number.

In Toronto, most traffic fatalities are pedestrians.

"Last year in Toronto, there was the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 50 years."
Police Chief Bill Blair 
Star Jan 21 2010.

Metro Police don't do it anymore, but  I remember they used to fly black flags on those high radio whip aerials they had on their yellow cars. What was even more startling were the announcements made on CHUM radio. They were unbelievably somber and macabre, accompanied by a drum roll and grim music, announcing that, "The Black Flag is Flying! This is not a tribute to the dead, but a warning to the living"!! 
The amazingly grisly and macabre announcements of the latest traffic fatalities in Metro Toronto. 
There was also Elmer the Safety elephant. 

Always room for improvement. We could return to the days of getting around on the backs of animals. < joking.

The public refused to tolerate the carnage and demanded their public safety officials do something about it. 

More than just thoughts and prayers.

My point is that Presidents Kennedy and Johnson treated it as a "public health problem" and a "disease".

Perhaps, or perhaps not, Americans will one day come to feel the same way about this topic?


----------



## Jungle (9 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Jungle:
> 
> Nice find on the statistics front.
> 
> However, we must be very careful here. If you read the beginning of the Wiki entry, you will see that they themselves indicate the stats are not quite reliable as "intentional" is defined differently from one country to another. Also, and this is the more important aspect: these homicide rates are all encompassing and do not in any way distinguish or indicate by which mean the homicide was committed. So, they include all forms of homicide, be it by gun, knife, broadaxe, intentional use of car to run over, etc.



If you re-read my posts, you will find that I do not talk about gun crimes. I simply prove that countries with much lower gun ownership (or no gun ownership) in the high income group still have a higher homicide rate than the USA.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2017)

I understood that, Jungle. That's why I used a general "we" in my warning to be careful, not a specific "you". 

The whole thread is about gun culture in the US, so I wanted everyone to be on guard as regards that specific statistic, for those who wouldn't have paid close attention.

And, yes, it is an interesting statistics to keep in mind and certainly useful to the discussion.


----------



## MAJONES (9 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> someone serious about reducing violence in the US (in all forms) actually has to approach the problem from another angle.



Agreed.  In line with politics being the art of the possible; you are not going to get the Americans to give up their guns.  My suggested alternative is money for social programs and education.  Well fed, educated and adequately housed people are less prone to violence.  
If the democrats were smart they would present it as an option to the republicans;  i.e. Offer to drop pursuit of gun control in exchange for support of more social spending.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2017)

MAJONES said:
			
		

> Agreed.  In line with politics being the art of the possible; you are not going to get the Americans to give up their guns.  My suggested alternative is money for social programs and education.  Well fed, educated and adequately housed people are less prone to violence.
> If the democrats were smart they would present it as an option to the republicans;  i.e. Offer to drop pursuit of gun control in exchange for support of more social spending.



They have, on at least one aspect, but the Republican prefer to cater to their rich donators rather than ensure that more than 35 million American get proper health care. And that's just one little step in making many inequalities and poverty go away.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> .....approach the problem from another angle.


How about Chris Rock's suggestion [it _is_  Radio Chatter, after all]:

“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need?  We need some bullet control.  Man, we need to control the bullets, that’s right.  I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why?  Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.  Yeah!  Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’

And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars.  ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’  ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man.  You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’

Even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out.  Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2017)

Just playing with some thoughts here (not meaning to offend American posters so correct me if I'm out to lunch)


-The US as a country was essentially born from a rebellion fending off an oppressive and tyrannical government. Firearms played an early pivotal role.
-A civil war devastated them with the cliche (but true) brother against brother where 2% of their population died from the war.
-Involved in 2 world wars where I'd guess their youth are taught in school they pretty much saved the world, twice.
-Their military is active in close to 150 countries spanning the entire globe. They export a lot of violence all over.
-Many of their citizens are employed in the Defense industry at home or abroad, as well, many are employed in all facets of the firearm industry.
-Music industry has violence associated with it, especially rap.
-Entertainment industry seems built on violence and war.  Even actors who profess to being anti-gun make millions of dollars off violent gory movies that gross tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. (Actors who themselves have private armed guards). Hit movies often seem to involve heros racking up body counts in the dozens or hundreds.
-Video game industry is ultra violent. [As an example the game I'm playing myself your character is out in the country side and a random stranger approaches them and tells you someone stole something from them/is harassing them/whatever and you're instructed to go kill the offending party. It's just build around a couple puzzles and a lot of killing strangers. There ARE some games out there where you're challenged with the _option _of NOT murdering everyone you meet, duex ex and Dishonoured come to mine, but those games are few and far between.]


Maybe one of the problems or contributing factors is that Americans are desensitizing their youth to violence. So when someone in the work place or school is picking on you or wrongs you go and blow them away.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> They have, on at least one aspect, but the Republican prefer to cater to their rich donators rather than ensure that more than 35 million American get proper health care. And that's just one little step in making many inequalities and poverty go away.



The democrats are in control of a good number of the 2% of counties were the main problems are, they have not bothered to fix things under their control. That being said, the US as a whole needs to tackle some of these social issues as you are looking at generational fix and not within 1 or 2 election cycles.


----------



## mariomike (9 Nov 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Re-introduce conscription.



The US had it from 1940 to 1973. 
Canada hasn't since 1945.

Has that had anything, or nothing, to do with gun culture in the US?



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Then they'll all be so p*ssed off with dragging weapons around and cleaning them, and getting charged for losing them/ having NDs, that they'd want nothing to do with bang bangs after their period of service was up.



In the RCASC ( PRes ) we qualified on the range.  But, on time performance was priority.

"Victory is the beautiful, bright-colored flower. Transport is the stem without which it could never have blossomed."
Winston Churchill


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Nov 2017)

Most Americans dont want to change our right to bear arms. 8)


----------



## FJAG (9 Nov 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Most Americans dont want to change our right to bear arms. 8)



I was going to cite this quote: People tend to forget their duties but remember their rights - Indira Gandhi , but decided that I wouldn't.

Instead when it comes to US gun control I'm somewhat perplexed by the fact that well over 90% of the US public (including Republicans) want some measure of gun control. Further, Many states have various types of gun control in place. It seems to me that the whole gun control issue is just a hot button issue to keep the "Federal" government from doing anything that might in some way put universal measures into effect across the country.

That leaves me with the somewhat jaded viewpoint that the "right to bear arms" debate isn't so much about putting reasonable controls on the right to be a gun owner but about having those controls apply universally within the US. Sometimes there's something good to be said about the "peace, order and good government " clause in our constitution.

 :remembrance:


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Nov 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Most Americans dont want to change our right to bear arms. 8)



While Americans may have a right to bear arms, that doesn't imply a right to cheap arms.

If every firearm was taxed $100 at point of sale and every round of ammunition cost an extra five cents, how much would that produce to put into health care programs and education programs to counter the tendency of some to reach for a weapon every time they have a problem with someone else?


----------



## kkwd (9 Nov 2017)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> While Americans may have a right to bear arms, that doesn't imply a right to cheap arms.
> 
> If every firearm was taxed $100 at point of sale and every round of ammunition cost an extra five cents, how much would that produce to put into health care programs and education programs to counter the tendency of some to reach for a weapon every time they have a problem with someone else?



Free analysis and meds for everybody? Or just people that own guns?


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Nov 2017)

kkwd said:
			
		

> Free analysis and meds for everybody? Or just people that own guns?



Why not anyone, those who do not own guns may someday desire to own guns.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2017)

Americans buying a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches or over all length shorter than 26 inches have to pay a short barrel rifle (sbr) tax of  $200.


----------



## dimsum (9 Nov 2017)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> While Americans may have a right to bear arms, that doesn't imply a right to cheap arms.
> 
> If every firearm was taxed $100 at point of sale and every round of ammunition cost an extra five cents, how much would that produce to put into health care programs and education programs to counter the tendency of some to reach for a weapon every time they have a problem with someone else?



That just reminded me of a Dave Chappelle joke:

“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders. 
Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”


----------



## larry Strong (9 Nov 2017)

Errrr Ummmm  :



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> How about Chris Rock's suggestion [it _is_  Radio Chatter, after all]:
> 
> “You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need?  We need some bullet control.  Man, we need to control the bullets, that’s right.  I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why?  Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.  Yeah!  Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... crap, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ***.’
> 
> ...






			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> That just reminded me of a Dave Chappelle joke:
> 
> “You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
> Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... crap, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ***.’
> ...




Cheers
Larry


----------



## kkwd (9 Nov 2017)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Why not anyone, those who do not own guns may someday desire to own guns.



I'm not quite sure on the analysis part but I bet a few would partake of the free meds. That's a new angle, I want to buy a gun to get free meds.  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Belize, Barbados and Bahamas could have gun violence issues due to the drug trade.
> 
> Not sure what to think about Bermuda.
> 
> I wonder- is there a correlation between former slave owning states and gun violence?


That doesn't explain Chicago though. Not past slave owners, some of the strictest gun laws in the US and is responsible for a huge portion of gun deaths there. :dunno:


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2017)

Initial guess?  Gun laws in Chicago and Illinois are useless when surrounding states like Indiana and Wisconsin have relatively lax laws.  I imagine if guns are harder to get in Illinois, then criminals get them a few hours away through a variety of relatively simple means.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Nov 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That doesn't explain Chicago though. Not past slave owners, some of the strictest gun laws in the US and is responsible for a huge portion of gun deaths there. :dunno:



By states, I mean countries. Not states in the USA sense.

Chicago is tickling my brain right now, but too tired to post a coherent thought. Maybe tomorrow it will come.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This is a weak argument. Drinking and driving is against the law, so if there is a way to better enforce the law, why wouldn't we, as a society, want that? Unless you believe that people killed by drunk drivers is just something we should accept for "reasons"....  There is no valid reason why anyone should drink and drive anymore (or ever for that point). So, yes, if the law prohibits drunk driving and a breathalyzer engine block will stop people from doing it, than why wouldn't this be something every law abiding citizen wants?
> 
> So no, it's not a case of "if I don't like it it should be banned". It's more of a case of "if the law says something it should be enforced".



Funny you didn't pick the rest of the post to rebutt.

No biggie. Anyway, you want to take choice away from people. Basically, you're saying everyone is guilty until proven innocent. That's wrong and puts me in mind of group punishment used by socialists. That's being a control freak. Name me one democratic country that has implimented breathalyzer locks on every vehicle. There's tons of legislators around the world with a better handle on this than you and they've stayed clear of the discussion for a reason. 

It's stupid like that from politicians as to why the US has a second amendment. When you start controlling every aspect of people's lives, to the point where you are removing choice of everyday things, especially against their wishes and against their preference, you can expect pushback. Which is why every dictator in the world, Mao, Mihn, PolPot, Hitler, Stalin, ad nauseum, have made firearms confiscation the top priority once they seize power.

I've brought us back to guns. Let's try keep it there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Initial guess?  Gun laws in Chicago and Illinois are useless when surrounding states like Indiana and Wisconsin have relatively lax laws.  I imagine if guns are harder to get in Illinois, then criminals get them a few hours away through a variety of relatively simple means.



So why no problem in those states, with their lax laws. If that's a causation, why don't those states have the problem Chicago has?


_edit-spelling_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe one of the problems or contributing factors is that Americans are desensitizing their youth to violence. So when someone in the work place or school is picking on you or wrongs you go and blow them away.



Violent inner city youth are not the product of video games.

They are like that from growing up without father's to knock some respect into them.

A study I just saw last week (I hope I can find it or I'll be accused of making shit up). The increase in inner city violence correlated with the increasing amount of single mother families.

Not saying it's Obama's fault but the amount of those families moved into double digits during his reign.


----------



## ballz (10 Nov 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So no, it's not a case of "if I don't like it it should be banned". It's more of a case of "if the law says something it should be enforced".



There comes a point where the actual enforcement of the law itself becomes oppressive, even if the law is a just one. Aka if we start cutting toes off for speeding, I think you would agree that would be oppressive, even if restricting speeds is reasonable.

Everyone's comfort level with how much enforcement they are willing to accept "for the greater good" is going to vary. Personally, I'm quite tired of big brother as it is. I already have to jump through 18 hoops of fire just to do anything with my firearm, I don't need anymore hoops just to use my vehicle. 

There is also the law of diminishing returns to consider. And there is also the economic costs of government regulation that our supreme overlords never consider, which of course, hurts the impoverished more so than anyone but definitely doesn't help anyone.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Nov 2017)

Has anyone seen the scare video put out by USAToday about possible AR15 attachnents?

Its epic. 
Buttstocks, sights, handguards, trigger,  CHAINSAW BAYONET

https://youtu.be/KydTB_EAdrM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Nov 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I was going to cite this quote: People tend to forget their duties but remember their rights - Indira Gandhi , but decided that I wouldn't.
> 
> Instead when it comes to US gun control I'm somewhat perplexed by the fact that well over 90% of the US public (including Republicans) want some measure of gun control. Further, Many states have various types of gun control in place. It seems to me that the whole gun control issue is just a hot button issue to keep the "Federal" government from doing anything that might in some way put universal measures into effect across the country.
> 
> ...



Knowing your background, I will assume you believe that most people want "More gun control". There is a lot of gun control laws in the US, there are Federal laws, State laws, County level and municipal level along with private property proscriptions. Anyone with a CCW permit has to be incredibly aware of the web of laws and regulations and often get caught out by the simple act of dropping off a letter for mailing at a post office or god help you if your flight gets diverted to a restrictive State when you have a legal gun in checked baggage. The NRA and other gun right orgs are backed into a corner, if they give even an inch in the fight the gun control types will smell blood and come back for more, eventually they will take everything. Plus surrendering on an issue may set a legal precedent that will further constrain or erode. While all this is happening gun owners look around and notice that very little gets done about the social issues that lead to most of the problems in the US, so why would they give up anymore than they already have. I routinely hear from many US gunowners that the NRA has no balls and has given up to much already. Try even discussing the NRA very successful gun safety programs with the gun control types and see what reaction you get. I expect if you said that at your next dinner party you get some very anger denouncements by people that have never bothered to even look at them.


----------



## mariomike (16 Nov 2017)

Saw this in the Las Vegas massacre discussion,



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Rather than fight more almost pointless battles on gun control, work together on mental health issues, social issues and education issues. The overall social improvements will affect all types of homicides, crime, improve the economy, reduce single parent families and be generally good for the country. But then those issues don't fit neatly into the election cycle, so they charge the windmill again.



I will reply here,

I doubt gun culture in America will change anytime soon.

The change I am most aware of came after the Columbine massacre with the introduction of the Rescue Task Force ( RTF ) concept.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2017)

The painful reality is that more people die in the US because of the social issues that exist than from the guns, solving a number of the social issues will solve a lot of the gun homicide issues. Thanks to the good data collection the US could focus on those regions with the highest number of homicides and actually achieve some success, if they cut the homicides by half in those 2% of the counties that that would prevent roughly 4,000 murders a year. 

That action will reduce mass shootings but not eliminating them, looking at all of the factors for each shooting and looking at common themes and requiring full brain autopsy as well for dead/executed shooters might lead to answers that can reduce them as well.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2017)

Numerous people have already commented on the proliferation of laws and enforcement, so the only real observation to make about that is to observe where most of the "day to day" gun violence occurs. Embarrassingly for proponents of tougher laws and gun control, places like Chicago have extremely restrictive gun control laws, yet lead the United States in gun crimes and homicides, quite the opposite of what gun control proponents would have you believe.

It is also instructive that this fact is always overlooked by mainstream US media outlets whenever the subject of gun control raises its head. So if gun control has _already_ been demonstrated to fail in practice, then why is it always the go to position whenever an event occurs? (This is largely a rhetorical question, of course).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2017)

Holy cow. Someone agrees with my reasoning? Tanks Thuc!


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Dec 2017)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yes, gang violence and drug epidemics are serious problems that kill lots (more) people, but don't use them as red herrings.  The relative likelihood of being killed in a public mass shooting is also immaterial when you consider that there are probably ways to mitigate occurrences, both in frequency and in severity.  Responsible citizens should be asking" why mass killings in the US happen more often and are of a greater magnitude than in other countries?", instead of just offering more thoughts and prayers and buckling down for the next 10-20 people to get mowed down in a public setting.



Maybe they should deal with guns like they dealt with knives in Scotland. Spoiler alert: it's not all about banning knives: 

How Scotland reduced knife deaths among young people 

The study concluded that Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world. Based on telephone interviews with crime victims conducted between 1991 and 2000, it found that excluding murder, Scots were almost three times as likely to be assaulted as Americans and 30 times more likely than the Japanese.

Between April 2006 and April 2011, 40 children and teenagers were killed in homicides involving a knife in Scotland; between 2011 and 2016, that figure fell to just eight. The decline has been most precipitous in Glasgow, which once had one of the highest murder rates in western Europe. Between 2006 and 2011, 15 children and teenagers were killed with knives in Scotland’s largest city; between April 2011 and April 2016, none were.

The number of people carrying knives also appears to have declined across Scotland. According to figures from Police Scotland, there were 10,110 recorded incidents of handling an offensive weapon in 2006-07, a figure which fell to 3,111 in 2015-16 – a decline of 69% in a decade.

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/dec/03/how-scotland-reduced-knife-deaths-among-young-people


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Dec 2017)

The "Ferguson effect" basically shoots that idea in the head, in fact the police in the worst areas are doing the opposite, pulling away from interacting with the public and it has lead to an almost immediate upswing in violence in those areas. There is zero desire to tackle the underlying issues because accusations of racism will be fired at anyone who tries. Blaming the NRA for everything is politically safe.


----------



## mariomike (4 Dec 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The "Ferguson effect"



Reply #13
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/126849/post-1508634.html#msg1508634


----------

