The Official Gun Control Debate thread

[mr_gyptian]

Sarah Brady was a Republican.

no wonder it took twenty years for such a toothless gun law.

[Free Range Lobster]

no wonder it took twenty years for such a toothless gun law.

Hey man. Scary looking guns are... errr.... scary?

[mr_gyptian]

Hey man. Scary looking guns are... errr.... scary?

oddly scary looking guns are scary to people carrying them too.

how different would yesterday have been if someone had access to a firearm during the assailant's cross campus trip?

Or if people that run and staff university's were equipped to make decisions. but I guess that's why they're in the profession they are in.

[Free Range Lobster]

That type of speculation is what keeps people like you flocking to people like the Nuge.

[tommyvee]

After all the invective, here is some data (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html)

As you can see, the US Intentional Gun Death Rate is 192 times higher than Japan, 33 times higher than UK, 5.9 times higher than Sweden. But to the ideologues there is no evidence that gun control works. The fact that nations with gun control have murder rates 50 to 90% lower than the US, and intentional gun death rates are many times lower is mere coincidence.

If you look at the plain words of the US constitution, regulation of guns is clearly intended.
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Some "black is white" people may try to argue away the existence of the words "well regulated", but that leads off to NeverNeverLand. Does anyone argue that personal ownership of nuclear weapons, chemical/biological weapons,bazookas, etc. is mandated by the constitution? (probably)
But the simple language shows the founders were concerned about a well regulated militia, similar perhaps to Switzerland, where adults are trained in use of weapons and store them in their homes if they are stable and complete training, but unauthorized discharge of a single round is a serious offense.

Don't expect to change the attitudes of the true believers, but I wonder what it would take for them to at least acknowledge the extent of internal and external violence the US is responsible for, and to consider realistic ways to reduce it, rather than parroting conservative cliches.


Table 1 - International Firearms Regulation, Access and Death Country Licensing of gun owners? Registration of firearms? Other Households with firearms (%) Gun Homicide (per 100,000) Gun Suicide (per 100,000) Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan Yes Yes Prohibits handguns with few exceptions 0.6 0.03 0.04 0.07
Singapore Yes Yes Most handguns and rifles prohibited 0.01 (795 in the country) 0.07 0.17 0.24
Taiwan N/A N/A N/A 0.15 0.12 0.27
Kuwait N/A N/A N/A 0.34 0.03 0.37
England/ Wales Yes Yes Prohibits handguns 4.0 0.07 0.33 0.4
Scotland Yes Yes Same as England and Wales 4.0 0.19 0.30 0.49
Netherlands Yes Yes 1.9 0.27 0.28 0.55
Spain Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 13.1 0.19 0.55 0.74
Ireland Yes Yes N/A 0.30 0.94 1.24
Germany Yes Yes 8.9 0.21 1.23 1.44
Italy Yes Yes N/A 1.16 1.11 2.27
Sweden Yes Yes Restrictions in some regions 20 0.18 2.09 2.27
Denmark Yes Long guns only 8 0.23 2.25 2.48
Israel Yes Yes N/A 0.72 1.84 2.56
New Zealand Yes Handguns. Proposed for long guns 20 0.22 2.45 2.67
Australia Yes Yes Banned semiautomatics unless good reason 16.0 0.56 2.38 2.94
Belgium Some Yes Some rifles are prohibited 16.6 0.87 2.45 3.32
Canada by 2001 All guns by 2003 Assault weapons and some handguns 26 0.60 3.35 3.95
Norway Yes Unknown 32 0.36 3.87 4.23
Austria Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 16-18% 0.42 4.06 4.48
Northern Ireland Yes Yes UK legislation applies 8.4 3.55 1.18 4.72
France Yes Yes, except sporting rifles 22.6 0.55 4.93 5.48
Switzerland Yes Yes 27.2 0.46 5.74 6.2
Finland Yes Yes No prohibitions 50 0.87 5.78 6.65
USA in some states Handguns in some states Some weapons in some states 41 6.24 7.23 13.47

[Kya]

Here is the solution to the gun-control debate.

MUZZLE LOADING MUSKET.

People can still have the right to own a gun. People can still hunt, be more skilled. People can still defend thier homes. But, it would be hard to hide and nearly impossible to commit a crime such as this.

Its a compromise, both side gets and gives up something. It's at least a place to start.

[truckeelocal]

Its a compromise, both side gets and gives up something. It's at least a place to start.

The NRA doesn't compromise. They've got the guns. Plus a musket isn't a rifle (nor are handguns come to that).

[rockon]

Here's a story about Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to sue gun dealers in Virginia ... and their [asinine] response:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2963507

[yodaottis]

Gun laws apply only to those that choose to follow the law.
The Muzzle loading solution is....lacking. (Notice my restraint in not using the word "retarded.")
Maybe a good start would be actually enforcing the laws we currently have in place and seeing if that reduces crime?

Random thoughts:
The second amendment is not in place to protect our right to hunt.
An angry, unstable husband will stab his wife in the absence of a gun, have we solved the social issue with gun control?
There aren't many people being mugged in Texas, can you figure out why?
Would a person walk into a classroom and begin shooting students if they knew multiple people nearby are likely armed?

Do you want to measure and load powder, jam ball and patch an inch down the barrel with one tool, switch to a ram rod and push it the rest of the way with sometimes considerable effort, insert a primer cap, move through your house with a 30 inch barrel, aim and shoot without any assurance that the rifle will actually fire........while someone is raping your wife or doing harm to your children?
Good solution.

[truckeelocal]

Gun laws apply only to those that choose to follow the law.
The Muzzle loading solution is....lacking. (Notice my restraint in not using the word "retarded.")
Maybe a good start would be actually enforcing the laws we currently have in place and seeing if that reduces crime?

Random thoughts:
The second amendment is not in place to protect our right to hunt.
An angry, unstable husband will stab his wife in the absence of a gun, have we solved the social issue with gun control?
There aren't many people being mugged in Texas, can you figure out why?
Would a person walk into a classroom and begin shooting students if they knew multiple people nearby are likely armed?

Do you want to measure and load powder, jam ball and patch an inch down the barrel with one tool, switch to a ram rod and push it the rest of the way with sometimes considerable effort, insert a primer cap, move through your house with a 30 inch barrel, aim and shoot without any assurance that the rifle will actually fire........while someone is raping your wife or doing harm to your children?
Good solution.

Your argument is inconsistant. The existance of the musket is a deterrent but the use of the musket is inconvenient hence it's not a deterrent. So the situation we have is access to tools that are convenient to use. Except the tool is designed to kill. We've got convenient killing tools available to almost all in the US. And we wonder why we've got a problem Oh, and the solution is to introduce more killing tools into more situations, like college campuses.

[summit]

AntiGun:
If we take the guns away from all the law abiding innocents it will make it a little harder for the criminals to get guns. They are being disarmed for their own protection!

ProGun:
Criminals don't care about laws, but the innocents will be disarmed. They will have no defense against the criminals... who will still have guns.

AntiGun
Innocents go psycho and shoot their spouses in crimes of passion.

ProGun
Innocents will still go psycho and stab their spouses.

AntiGun
A gun ban could work!

Pro Gun
Like that alcohol ban? Or the drug war? There are already so many out there. Only some of the law abiding would turn them in. Then we can be like the UK which is passing KNIFE CONTROL LEGISLATION.

AntiGun
Guns don't protect from tyranny. You can't possibly oppose the government! They have tanks.

ProGun
Look at Iraq! The insurgents are fighting the American Army with effect.

AntiGun
Guns are evil and cause crime.

ProGun
Guns are inanimiate hunks of metal and wood. Criminals with guns cause crimes. But would a criminal rob a store or attack a school if he *knew* there would be many people shooting back at him?

there... that should cover most of the thread

[Tuckerman]

After all the invective, here is some data (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html)

Table 1 - International Firearms Regulation, Access and Death Country Licensing of gun owners? Registration of firearms? Other Households with firearms (%) Gun Homicide (per 100,000) Gun Suicide (per 100,000) Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan Yes Yes Prohibits handguns with few exceptions 0.6 0.03 0.04 0.07
Singapore Yes Yes Most handguns and rifles prohibited 0.01 (795 in the country) 0.07 0.17 0.24
Taiwan N/A N/A N/A 0.15 0.12 0.27
Kuwait N/A N/A N/A 0.34 0.03 0.37
England/ Wales Yes Yes Prohibits handguns 4.0 0.07 0.33 0.4
Scotland Yes Yes Same as England and Wales 4.0 0.19 0.30 0.49
Netherlands Yes Yes 1.9 0.27 0.28 0.55
Spain Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 13.1 0.19 0.55 0.74
Ireland Yes Yes N/A 0.30 0.94 1.24
Germany Yes Yes 8.9 0.21 1.23 1.44
Italy Yes Yes N/A 1.16 1.11 2.27
Sweden Yes Yes Restrictions in some regions 20 0.18 2.09 2.27
Denmark Yes Long guns only 8 0.23 2.25 2.48
Israel Yes Yes N/A 0.72 1.84 2.56
New Zealand Yes Handguns. Proposed for long guns 20 0.22 2.45 2.67
Australia Yes Yes Banned semiautomatics unless good reason 16.0 0.56 2.38 2.94
Belgium Some Yes Some rifles are prohibited 16.6 0.87 2.45 3.32
Canada by 2001 All guns by 2003 Assault weapons and some handguns 26 0.60 3.35 3.95
Norway Yes Unknown 32 0.36 3.87 4.23
Austria Yes Yes Some handguns and rifles are prohibited 16-18% 0.42 4.06 4.48
Northern Ireland Yes Yes UK legislation applies 8.4 3.55 1.18 4.72
France Yes Yes, except sporting rifles 22.6 0.55 4.93 5.48
Switzerland Yes Yes 27.2 0.46 5.74 6.2
Finland Yes Yes No prohibitions 50 0.87 5.78 6.65
USA in some states Handguns in some states Some weapons in some states 41 6.24 7.23 13.47

Wow that's a limited list of countries, I wounder why?

[yodaottis]

Your argument is inconsistant. The existance of the musket is a deterrent but the use of the musket is inconvenient hence it's not a deterrent. So the situation we have is access to tools that are convenient to use. Except the tool is designed to kill. We've got convenient killing tools available to almost all in the US. And we wonder why we've got a problem Oh, and the solution is to introduce more killing tools into more situations, like college campuses.

I don't see how it's inconsistent at all. Someone proposed a solution: muzzle loading weapons for hunting/protection as a compromise. I don't see criminals having automatic and semi-automatic weapons and law abiding citizens having access to 200 year old technology as a valid solution.
By your argument, we should outlaw swords, knives, firecrackers, baseball bats and chainsaws too. They could be used by people to kill people.

Used by people to kill people.

Note the lack of the words "gun" or "firearm" in that last statement.

What's in a person's hand when they murder another human being isn't the issue, murder is the issue. An officer or a citizen able to react to what happened in that classroom with a similar "tool" may have reduced the death count to 1 person: the original shooter.

[tommyvee]

Summit you win the Straw Man Award.
Supporting reasonable regulation of guns does not make you "anti-gun", anymore than supporting traffic laws makes you "anti-car".

No one did or would argue that:
"AntiGun
Guns are evil and cause crime."

Does supporting speed limits, drunk driving and right-of-way laws mean that you believe "cars are evil"? Of course not, it means that you recognize that laws governing human use of inanimate objects can make society safer for everybody. There is probably a liberterian freak somewhere that would argue that speed limits are an unconscionable limitation on freedom, but we ignore him. Similarly, the rest of the civilized world functions fine with stronger gun regulation than the US, but even discussing it here brings out the obscenities and the personal attacks.

The arguement is not that
"A gun ban could work!"
but that gun regulation clearly already works in the rest of the civilized world, with gun death rates fractions of the US rate. No one has proposed a gun ban.

And so on...

[tommyvee]

Wow that's a limited list of countries, I wounder why?

If you think the list is limited, why not add your own (data instead of BS)?
Google is free.

The countries on that list are the developed countries most similar to the US, in economics, culture, history. Plus they are developed enough to keep statistics.

[hemas]

What's in a person's hand when they murder another human being isn't the issue, murder is the issue.

True, but for such passion crimes as this one in Va... A gun is much more conviniet than a short sword, or a hunting knive...

[flowtron]

The problem is cultural, but that's the third rail in this kind of discussion. Nobody will touch it, for a variety of reasons.

Ding ding ding!
"Cultural" is obviousy a very broad blanket, but it was was the first thing I thought of when this news started to break yesterday. I can't bring myself to the conclusion that the availability of guns is the one and only issue in this incident. On either side. Having everybody packing heat is not the answer, but neither is outlawing possesion of guns outright.
I think our culture is drowning in violence. We are becoming numb. From the recent explosion of ultra-violent, sadistic horror movies (and their extra gore unrated DVD releases), to the growing popularity of "ultimate fighting", to the continuing evolution of more realistic and gory video games, I think its making shooting scenarios like yesterday more plausible for people on the brink.
I would put money on the fact that this VT gunman played lots of 'realistic!' shooter video games.
I know I sound like Tipper Gore or some shit, but honestly, I think we need to step back and call for a little bit of responsibility from our sources of entertainment culture.
I grew up playing 'guns' in the woods, played with GI Joes, watched lots of war movies and Chuck Norris and Steven Segal, etc...but I now I can barely watch commericals for shitty horror movies and when I seen the crazy shooter video games and gamer chairs and speakers at Best Buy I get the creeps.
Soooo thats my contribution, its not just guns, but culture... and a diminishing value of human life. Not a good combination.

[tommyvee]

There aren't many people being mugged in Texas, can you figure out why?

Texas Murder Rate 2005 6.2 per 100,000

Australia Murder Rate 2004 1.28 per 100,000

So, yeah, all those guns have really made Texas a safe place!

[tommyvee]

Ding ding ding!
"Cultural" is obviousy a very broad blanket, but it was was the first thing I thought of when this news started to break yesterday. I can't bring myself to the conclusion that the availability of guns is the one and only issue in this incident. On either side. Having everybody packing heat is not the answer, but neither is outlawing possesion of guns outright.
I think our culture is drowning in violence. Soooo thats my contribution, its not just guns, but culture... and a diminishing value of human life. Not a good combination.

Although I think tougher gun laws are only common sense (along with about 80% of the US population), I would agree that gun availability is far from the only relevant variable.

Culture matters, but so does economics. In traveling through many countries I have often noticed a correlation between income inequality and violent crime (probably one reason that Japan and the Nordic countries are so peaceful). So I googled it and studies show the same thing. http://www.springerlink.com/content/t78uw23j026r5lv1/

Not suprising in a way. Winner-take-all societies like the US, Mexico, and Brazil do not inspire adherence to social norms in the permanent underclass. Clearly this was not the source of the VT tragedy, but one consequence of eliminating the social safety net is a more violent society. Intuitively everyone knows it is unsafe to walk in the ghetto, but not all societies have chosen to have ghettos (Could not find one in Oslo!).

[mr_gyptian]

That type of speculation is what keeps people like you flocking to people like the Nuge.

I assume you mean Ted Nugent, and I honestly could not name a single song he sings.

but it's not really pure speculation:

At Pearl High School, in Mississippi, the assistant principal brought an end to Luke Woodham's murders by retrieving a pistol from his vehicle. Similarly, a student at Appalachian Law School stopped another mass murder by retrieving a gun from his car.

UPDATE: A reminder: if someone commits mass murder with a weapon other than a gun, the national news media usually ignore it. For example, Hector Escudero started a fire at a casino in Puerto Rico in December 1987 as part of labor union activism, and killed 96 people. Julio Gonzalez threw $1 worth of gasoline into an illegal night club in New York City in April 1990 to get back at his girlfriend, and killed 87 people. These stories received almost no national news coverage at the time--while mass murders that were substantially smaller received vastly more coverage. Why? Gonzalez and Escudero's crimes didn't advance the cause of gun control. You can read my paper that was published by the Journal of Mass Media Ethics here for an examination of the role that excessive media coverage played in causing at least one of the mass murders of that era.

[spook]

I agree. I'm sure then Super-spook could have a conference, much like Al Sharpton or Rev. Jackson, which, through his overpowering sense of ethics, right and wrong, etc. could explain to the criminals that crime is wrong and should not be committed. Given how persuasive he is here I can't see how this couldn't work.

Maybe he can come to some sort of compromise with the criminal underworld. We could all set an eightball of speed on our doorstep -- that way we could eliminate one big reason our houses are robbed.

Having a way to protect your family is so yesterday.

perhaps you should examine why you are so preoccupied with having to protect your family in such an "advanced" and "peaceful" industrialized nation.

loading up with guns does nothing to resolve the underlying causes. you seem to confuse what you perceive to be my ethics with an actual attempt to address the causes of the problem.

even a twit can see that our growing police state, highly targeted and prejudiced judicial and prison systems and highly armed citizenry has done absolutely nothing to improve the situation (although it has made capitalists involved in those endeavors insanely rich). our extension of this culture of violence overseas is just another facet of the problem.

families need protection from indoctrination at least as often as they need protection from the boogie man.

for instance, blaming ethnic/racial minorities for the crime problem. blaming ethical/moral failings for the crime problem. these are common examples of excuses made by people who have a highly propagandized understanding of what is actually happening.

cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing.

i think this is worth a repost given how few are even aware of the idea (yes, whether they agree with it or not):

...
In his recent U.C. Davis Law Review article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Carl T. Bogus offers a thesis that could forever change the way Americans view the Second Amendment: James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.
...
Professor Bogus' article demonstrates that, during debate over the new Constitution, Southern states feared the proposed federal government would use its new powers to disarm their state militia, rendering the states defenseless against a slave rebellion. Guarding against such an insurrection was a core function of the militia. As the idea of outlawing slavery gained support in the North, Southerners worried that undermining the militia might be a back-door way to achieve this goal.
....
Madison's concern, Professor Bogus concludes, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyranny—but slave control.
....

http://www.vpc.org/press/9805bog.htm
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

it says a lot about not only this particular discussion, but about what kind of society would arrive at this place.

[yodaottis]

I can handpick my statistics too, maybe we should both go to work for Fox or CNN?

Washington D.C. Violent Crime per 100,000 : 1459
Texas Violent Crime per 100,000 : 529

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

Comparing Texas to Australia is a new one though.

[P_McPoser]

Hey Fuckers!

A source familiar with the investigation said the weapons found at Norris were a Walther .22-caliber semi-automatic and a 9 mm Glock -- both with the serial numbers filed off.

Imagine that, a criminal used ILLEGAL guns to commit a crime. Obviously, a more stringent background check and waiting periods would definately have prevented this tragedy!

[hemas]

Julio Gonzalez threw $1 worth of gasoline into an illegal night club in New York City in April 1990 to get back at his girlfriend, and killed 87 people. These stories received almost no national news coverage at the time--while mass murders that were substantially smaller received vastly more coverage.

Funnily they did make the headlines on this side of the pond...

[tommyvee]

I can handpick my statistics too, maybe we should both go to work for Fox or CNN?

Washington D.C. Violent Crime per 100,000 : 1459
Texas Violent Crime per 100,000 : 529

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

Comparing Texas to Australia is a new one though.

Texas and Australias are both thinly populated arid expanses inhabited largely by sunburnt Caucasians (minus aboriginal/hispanic minorities), but one has tough gun laws and one has very lenient gun laws.

By contrast DC is very urban, populated largely by minorities. In the period you mention, the exploding crack epidemic probably had a much bigger impact on violence than gun laws either way. Judging the effectiveness of very local gun laws on a very mobile population is unlikely to be representative for prediction of impact from laws at state or federal levels.

As far as handpicking data, in the post upthread I listed gun death statistics for over 20 countries. The trend was pretty clear to me, but somehow I think you see the data through a different filter.