Gun Control: US and Global II

[brihard]

I guess knives and other objects can be deadly after all.  : These are not made up facts.

I guess these people were just stupid, as some contend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/world/asia/knife-japan-stabbing-sagamihara.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2289445.stm

Nobody is claiming that lack of guns stops mass murder any more than lack of fatty, sugary food stops obesity or heart disease. It is not a binary question or they either completely explain mass murders or they contribute nothing. In formal logic the concept you’re missing is ‘sufficient’ versus ‘necessary’. Epidemiologically, easy access to guns is a massive contributory factor to mass murder.

You’ve nicely highlighted my point for me. Nobody - least of all me - is claiming that other weapons (any tool used or intended to hurt or wound is a weapon) cannot be deadly. But to find an example you hoped would convince, you had to hang your hat or an instance where a physically health adult male entered a residence for people with disabilities at half past two in the morning. All 19 of the dead were residents there; we can infer they were disabled. That was their deadliest attack in something like a decade. 19 dead in a shooting in the US would be noticeable, but hardly unprecedented or a record. The Japan knife attack you cite was as close as one can get to an experimental frictionless vacuum. He was as set for unhindered success as he possibly could have been. Your other example had a whole two people killed. That barely registers. A mass killing with a knife is hugely exceptional.

Contrast that with Dayton, Ohio shooting, where the shooter was very unlucky. He was confronted by six police who were on scene already, and was shot and killed in thirty seconds after his first shot. 9 dead, more than 20 injured. It reinforces my point that a gun is a tremendous equalizer. The Japan attacker had insider knowledge of location, targets, security, and pattern of life from having previously worked there. The Ohio shooter simply needed a gun and a crowd. Like the El Paso shooter. Or like any other mass killer who has recently laid waste with a gun.

It will always be possible to find exceptional circumstances. I was in Nice a couple days after the truck attack and walked the ground. He had about as ideal a situation and venue as can be had for such an event, and the toll reflects that. We have seen significant changes in urban security in the past decade. Big events are quite easily hardened against such attacks. Mitigating the risks of a vehicle attack is a pretty simple CPTED problem. As I presently sit here having lunch outside a typical soft target in Vancouver (BC Place stadium), I see bollards, planters and such that are relatively unobtrusive and inexpensive, but would serve well to minimize the damage that can be done. Were a crowd to be here for a Lions game, and someone went rogue with a knife, I see dozens of fit and strong adults in the immediate vicinity. Some combination of us would probably stop it fast, admittedly at the risk of getting carved up. Conversely, someone hopping out of a car with a gun could enter any of the restaurants and cafes here and kill or wound dozens, and likely fend off at least the first attempts by anyone to rush them. They could do that with minimal training and experience so long as they’ve repped out some basic stoppage and reload drills for half an hour.

A truck as a weapon can kill. With considerable luck it can kill a lot. The cost/benefit in municipal design for target hardening against this isn’t at all outlandish.

A knife as a weapon can kill. Absent exceptionally fortunate or ideal circumstances, this attack will be quickly limited by people fighting back, and the wounds, while grievous, tend to be survivable. You have to physically reach the target to wound them. Potential victims are much more likely to have weapons/shields of opportunity at hand.

Guns with the right characteristics for combat (semiautomatic, detachable magazine, and ammunition with sufficient KE to create a meaningful secondary cavity in tissue) are completely in their own class for the ability of any angry idiot to acquire and use to great effect. You can very rapidly wound pretty much anyone within sight. They are the among the hardest things to proof against through environmental design, barriers to access them in the US are negligible, and they are easy for anyone to learn to use ‘well enough’.

As I said, any entry into this debate must start with accepting the basic truth about the extreme utility of firearms for interpersonal violence, and working from there. Any position that does not in face of abundantly clear evidence is dishonest and useless.

I enjoy shooting, I am no hoplophobe, I use and instruct firearms use professionally - including in the context of responding to exactly such attacks. I don’t want everyone stripped of their firearms. Nor will I try to bury my head in fantasy though just because something is enjoyable to me. America has a gun problem, and that problem is the wrong guns (inclusive of things like high capacity magazines) too easily accessed by the wrong people, with constant tragic consequences.

 

[mariomike]

an instance where a physically health adult male entered a residence for people with disabilities at half past two in the morning. All 19 of the dead were residents there; we can infer they were disabled. That was their deadliest attack in something like a decade. 19 dead in a shooting in the US would be noticeable, but hardly unprecedented or a record. The Japan knife attack you vote was as close as one can get to an experimental frictionless vacuum. He was as set for unhindered success as he possibly could have been. Your other example had a whole two people killed. That barely registers. A mass killing with a knife is hugely exceptional.

Some are capable of engaging in physical activities outdoors, while others are bedridden.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/25/japan-knife-attack-live-updates

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Don't get lost in the weeds.

A madman killed 19 people with a knife. That is the bottom line. The circumstances, time, etc are as mundane as those of a mass shooter. Boiled down to the essence, evil people will do evil with whatever they have at their disposal.

I've never disputed access to firearms is a problem. What I dispute is the people calling for an all out, knee jerk reaction ban, without looking at any possibilities or other actions that may mitigate an all out ban and try to find some common ground for all sides to work on.

I've argued before that an all out ban will be fruitless. If someone wants a gun, they will get a gun. They will purchase, steal, modify or make one. We have to look at other means of mitigating it. A gun ban won't cut it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

RomeoJuliet, Interesting stuff. I couldn't quote your post for some reason.


Check this out.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Look at the types of firearms used in shootings reference your metrics above. Handguns appear to have been used steadily and quite often before, during, and after the assault weapon ban ended. And those pistols are responsible for a number of the higher death counts too.

Lots of Glock 9mms to go along with the cheaper AR15s, Rugers and Bushmasters. Not many $3000USD Knights Armament AR15s used or $1000 pistols.

Why would so many handguns be used when the shooters could buy AR15s?

 

[mariomike]

I didn't look at your article, Jarnhamar. But, Saturday Night Specials have always been easy to obtain, cheap, and easily concealed.

We used to call them suicide specials.

 

[Remius]

Nobody is claiming that lack of guns stops mass murder any more than lack of fatty, sugary food stops obesity or heart disease. It is not a binary question or they either completely explain mass murders or they contribute nothing. In formal logic the concept you’re missing is ‘sufficient’ versus ‘necessary’. Epidemiologically, easy access to guns is a massive contributory factor to mass murder.

You’ve nicely highlighted my point for me. Nobody - least of all me - is claiming that other weapons (any tool used or intended to hurt or wound is a weapon) cannot be deadly. But to find an example you hoped would convince, you had to hang your hat or an instance where a physically health adult male entered a residence for people with disabilities at half past two in the morning. All 19 of the dead were residents there; we can infer they were disabled. That was their deadliest attack in something like a decade. 19 dead in a shooting in the US would be noticeable, but hardly unprecedented or a record. The Japan knife attack you cite was as close as one can get to an experimental frictionless vacuum. He was as set for unhindered success as he possibly could have been. Your other example had a whole two people killed. That barely registers. A mass killing with a knife is hugely exceptional.

Contrast that with Dayton, Ohio shooting, where the shooter was very unlucky. He was confronted by six police who were on scene already, and was shot and killed in thirty seconds after his first shot. 9 dead, more than 20 injured. It reinforces my point that a gun is a tremendous equalizer. The Japan attacker had insider knowledge of location, targets, security, and pattern of life from having previously worked there. The Ohio shooter simply needed a gun and a crowd. Like the El Paso shooter. Or like any other mass killer who has recently laid waste with a gun.

It will always be possible to find exceptional circumstances. I was in Nice a couple days after the truck attack and walked the ground. He had about as ideal a situation and venue as can be had for such an event, and the toll reflects that. We have seen significant changes in urban security in the past decade. Big events are quite easily hardened against such attacks. Mitigating the risks of a vehicle attack is a pretty simple CPTED problem. As I presently sit here having lunch outside a typical soft target in Vancouver (BC Place stadium), I see bollards, planters and such that are relatively unobtrusive and inexpensive, but would serve well to minimize the damage that can be done. Were a crowd to be here for a Lions game, and someone went rogue with a knife, I see dozens of fit and strong adults in the immediate vicinity. Some combination of us would probably stop it fast, admittedly at the risk of getting carved up. Conversely, someone hopping out of a car with a gun could enter any of the restaurants and cafes here and kill or wound dozens, and likely fend off at least the first attempts by anyone to rush them. They could do that with minimal training and experience so long as they’ve repped out some basic stoppage and reload drills for half an hour.

A truck as a weapon can kill. With considerable luck it can kill a lot. The cost/benefit in municipal design for target hardening against this isn’t at all outlandish.

A knife as a weapon can kill. Absent exceptionally fortunate or ideal circumstances, this attack will be quickly limited by people fighting back, and the wounds, while grievous, tend to be survivable. You have to physically reach the target to wound them. Potential victims are much more likely to have weapons/shields of opportunity at hand.

Guns with the right characteristics for combat (semiautomatic, detachable magazine, and ammunition with sufficient KE to create a meaningful secondary cavity in tissue) are completely in their own class for the ability of any angry idiot to acquire and use to great effect. You can very rapidly wound pretty much anyone within sight. They are the among the hardest things to proof against through environmental design, barriers to access them in the US are negligible, and they are easy for anyone to learn to use ‘well enough’.

As I said, any entry into this debate must start with accepting the basic truth about the extreme utility of firearms for interpersonal violence, and working from there. Any position that does not in face of abundantly clear evidence is dishonest and useless.

I enjoy shooting, I am no hoplophobe, I use and instruct firearms use professionally - including in the context of responding to exactly such attacks. I don’t want everyone stripped of their firearms. Nor will I try to bury my head in fantasy though just because something is enjoyable to me. America has a gun problem, and that problem is the wrong guns (inclusive of things like high capacity magazines) too easily accessed by the wrong people, with constant tragic consequences.

Great post.  :goodpost:

 

[Jarnhamar]

I didn't look at your article, Jarnhamar. But, Saturday Night Specials have always been easy to obtain, cheap, and easily concealed.

We used to call them suicide specials.

*Channels Cathy Newman* So what you're saying is if you did read the link you would agree that pistols are used in just as many mass shootings as sinister assualt rifles, often causing around the same amount of killed and injured, and you think the gun someone uses has more to do with whatever is available on hand and less about the weapons characteristics? Further more you believe that while there are cases where shooters have no warning signs, most times there are tons of warning signs that are repeatedly ignored? I find myself agreeing with you.

 

[mariomike]

*Channels Cathy Newman* So what you're saying is if you did read the link you would agree that pistols are used in just as many mass shootings as sinister assualt rifles, often causing around the same amount of killed and injured, and you think the gun someone uses has more to do with whatever is available on hand and less about the weapons characteristics? Further more you believe that while there are cases where shooters have no warning signs, most times there are tons of warning signs that are repeatedly ignored? I find myself agreeing with you.

No idea who Cathy Newman is. Could look her up, but don't care. Did not read your link. Maybe after dinner. I simply made a comment that Saturday Night / Suicide Specials are cheap, relatively easy to obtain, and concealable.

That is all I said.

 

[Remius]

No idea who Cathy Newman is. Could look her up, but don't care. Did not read your link. Maybe after dinner. I simply made a comment that Saturday Night / Suicide Specials are cheap, relatively easy to obtain, and concealable.

That is all I said.

I have no idea who she is either.  I checked.  Looks like a British journalist.  She received death threats after an interview with Jordan Peterson. 

Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Newman

I’m not up to speed on pop culture quotes that Millennials use.  I guess she’s possibly someone they quote?

:dunno:

 

[brihard]

Don't get lost in the weeds.

A madman killed 19 people with a knife. That is the bottom line. The circumstances, time, etc are as mundane as those of a mass shooter. Boiled down to the essence, evil people will do evil with whatever they have at their disposal.

I've never disputed access to firearms is a problem. What I dispute is the people calling for an all out, knee jerk reaction ban, without looking at any possibilities or other actions that may mitigate an all out ban and try to find some common ground for all sides to work on.

I've argued before that an all out ban will be fruitless. If someone wants a gun, they will get a gun. They will purchase, steal, modify or make one. We have to look at other means of mitigating it. A gun ban won't cut it.

That’s the closest I’ve seen you come to conceding that there is any exceptionality to guns. You’re the guy who will “but, knives!” or “but, hammers!”.

You started with a strawman. I’ve seen no one here arguing for a full on gun ban. I doubt you’ll find anyone so minded on army.ca. So you’re arguing a position that no one is taking.

Early in this thread direction you said:

A hammer, knife or garden shovel, is as deadly as a gun, when wielded by a madman.

I took issue with that because it’s clearly absurd. It’s taken more effort than it should to get you to concede that just maybe there’s something about guns that makes them better weapons than most other things. Nobody here has argued that evil people won’t do evil things. The clear position I’m staking is that guns make it much easier to do more evil for someone so minded, and it makes them harder to prevent or stop. I will at least tip my hat to the fact that you seem to be tacitly conceding that now. It puts us in the same chapter if not on the same page.

I believe we will all agree there are many factors that all deserve to be addressed. The US (and us) need more better access to mental health care, and that needs to bypass economic barriers. That leads us to that ugly concept ‘socialism’ (for those inclined to throw the word around too loosely), but if we want to look beyond just health care insurance in society, and to health care as insurance for society, then some rational decisions have to be made about where some funding’s gonna go.

Guns do not inherently cause violence any more than cars cause impaired or reckless driving. Nobody here is arguing that guns cause mass shootings. Just that, mass shootings are deeply linked to gun availability, and that mass shootings form a bulk of mass killings. Just as we license and insure the use and register the ownership of motor vehicles, with all manner of sanctions and enforcement measures, there is much more room for reasonable restrictions than are currently in place in many jurisdictions.

Absolutely let’s talk about those other things, and be willing to make policy changes. Let’s also hope the US can be willing to talk about and make policy changes around guns, if they want to actually achieve anything.

 

[daftandbarmy]

An interesting article from the Harvard Gazette....

Want to stop mass shootings?

A public-health prescription: Tougher laws, an NHTSA for guns, and politicians who look more like America

The mass shootings over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, killed at least 31 people and wounded scores more. Those incidents were just the latest such deadly attacks in the United States, which has tallied more than 250 since Jan. 1, according to a new report by Gun Violence Archive. The group defines a mass shooting as one that claims the lives of at least four victims. David Hemenway, professor of  health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and author of the 2006 book “Private Guns, Public Health,” has spent much of his career studying gun violence. He spoke with the Gazette recently about what can be done to stop mass shootings.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/08/harvard-professor-of-health-policy-discusses-gun-violence-in-the-wake-of-two-u-s-mass-shootings/

 

[Jarnhamar]

I have no idea who she is either.  I checked.  Looks like a British journalist.  She received death threats after an interview with Jordan Peterson. 

Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Newman

I’m not up to speed on pop culture quotes that Millennials use.  I guess she’s possibly someone they quote?

:dunno:

Ahh, I should explain then. If you watch the interview she did with Jordan Peterson Jordan would say something and she would completely take his comment out of context and make up ridiclous statements.

I'll paraphrase

Jordan: men and women are traditionally interested in different jobs. In scandanavia where there is the least amount of barriers for women, women still gravitated towards jobs like nursing and clerical work.

Cathy: so what you're saying is you think men are smarter than women and more successful because women are indecisive and are just on this planet to make babies.

I doubt I'm doing it justice, watch their interview.

Of course I don't mean Mariomike is anything like that, I was just making a joke about "so what you're saying is" because I completely took what MM said out of context.

 

[Remius]

Ahh, I should explain then. If you watch the interview she did with Jordan Peterson Jordan would say something and she would completely take his comment out of context and make up ridiclous statements.

I'll paraphrase

Jordan: men and women are traditionally interested in different jobs. In scandanavia where there is the least amount of barriers for women, women still gravitated towards jobs like nursing and clerical work.

Cathy: so what you're saying is you think men are smarter than women and more successful because women are indecisive and are just on this planet to make babies.

I doubt I'm doing it justice, watch their interview.

Of course I don't mean Mariomike is anything like that, I was just making a joke about "so what you're saying is" because I completely took what MM said out of context.

Ah ok.  I’ll look for it thanks.

 

[RocketRichard]

RomeoJuliet, Interesting stuff. I couldn't quote your post for some reason.


Check this out.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Look at the types of firearms used in shootings reference your metrics above. Handguns appear to have been used steadily and quite often before, during, and after the assault weapon ban ended. And those pistols are responsible for a number of the higher death counts too.

Lots of Glock 9mms to go along with the cheaper AR15s, Rugers and Bushmasters. Not many $3000USD Knights Armament AR15s used or $1000 pistols.

Why would so many handguns be used when the shooters could buy AR15s?

Hmmm, handguns are easier to conceal? I agree with you that Canada’s handgun laws are most likely adequate (and the rules regarding ATT can be a major pain).

Assault weapons with high capacity mags for those other than military and police? Not a fan. Although I could definitely use more practice so I can score higher when my unit shoots biannually.
PS when hand guns and assault weapons are used in mass shootings I wonder what percentage of shooters used high capacity mags?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Assault weapons have a definition. AR15's don't meet that definition. If people are going to be hammered here for accuracy in statements, it has to be for everything. In this case AR15's are not full auto.

Facts matter.

 

[RocketRichard]

Assault weapons have a definition. AR15's don't meet that definition. If people are going to be hammered here for accuracy in statements, it has to be for everything. In this case AR15's are not full auto.

Facts matter.

Yup, correct.

‘Because assault weapon is not a legally-defined term, providing a count of how many are held in Canada is not possible.’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brad Sallows]

>mass shootings are deeply linked to gun availability

Mass shootings are linked to availability, but "deeply" is unlikely.  Firearm availability has been high in the US for a long time; the increase in "mass shootings" not involving criminals is recent.  Some explanation based on other factors is needed.  My money is on social rather than material factors.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Resistance to "smaller mags" stems from self-defence advocates arguing from a position of common sense and evidence: if larger mag capacity is good for police against bad guys, it's good for citizens against bad guys.

When something bad happens and the political prescriptions start to roll out, a useful first question is: does this politician propose to solve the problem by placing the burden of shrinking liberties on criminals, or on citizens?

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=RomeoJuliet]
Assault weapons with high capacity mags for those other than military and police?
[/quote]
Fair enough. You also said there's no reasons for high capacity magazines. Lets flush that out.

Bare with me, I'm a little long winded sometimes.

Lets say on top of the 5-round magazine limit the government full on bans AR15 rifles, and, any ALL other firearms that remotely "looks army". Call it assault weapons or military style weapons.


Someone walks into a school with a Browning BAR semi-automatic hunting rifle (which has a detachable magazine) and 5 magazines in his pocket. [This is a 308, where an AR15s bullet is often too light to hunt deer in many places, you can use 308s to hunt bears]
He starts shooting and takes the lives of 10 or 15 students. What happens next? Well why do you even need semi-automatic guns for hunting.

Ban all semi-automatic rifles.

Someone else walks into a church with a Remington pump action hunting shotgun and a pocket full of shells. You're only legally allowed 3 rounds in there but he just took the plug out and had 5 or 6 rounds in there. He starts shooting and takes the lives of 8 or 9 students. What happens next? Why do you need a gun that holds more than 2 bullets?  (forget that the police and military use remington pump shotguns)

Ban shotguns and rifles other than break-action shotguns, which are a far cry from AR15s right? Bullet or two then reload, plenty of time to tackle the shooter.

Someone else walks into a store and uses a break action shotgun and murders 8 people. (on 2 Jun 2010 George Fisher used a break action double barrel shotgun and bolt action .22cal to murder 13 people and injure 11 more).  What happens next? What's left to ban?




I won't argue that military style semi-autos are pretty good at killing people quickly. There's lots of examples of people using all manner of firearms to kill lots of people quickly. Pistols, rifles, shotguns and even a double barrel shotgun.  The link I posted shows how equally represented pistols are in shootings (possibly used even more?). But rifles modeled after assault rifles are probably at the top.
The media always obsesses about what kind of gun is used. Should the debate be about whether 7 people with a pistol vs  12 people with an AR get shot? Or should we be concentrating on why a guy who is caught with a rape and kill list, with a history of threats and violence, slips through the cracks and both falls off the police radar, and, manages to buy any gun.

 

[Remius]

>mass shootings are deeply linked to gun availability

  My money is on social rather than material factors.

I think it’s  a combination.  Societal factors with the added issue of easily accessed weapons and a stunted government not willing or able to deal with either.