Gun laws and control

[Vyn]

the rate per (X) people is something used to compare one nation to another. In this case, Australia's total guns equals the US total, divided by 13, then divided by 4. But the rate per (x) people is what we compare, and Straya's got one-fourth of both rates.

Aye, it's called "per capita". Without that qualifier it looks like an apples to ball-bearings comparison

[Vyn]

Why focus on mass shootings in the first place? Why not talk about murders in general, which happen much more frequently and regularly?

...

Clearly, gun control is not the only factor. I guess social security and/or social equality is very important too, and surely there's much more to take into account.

That's thoughtful, and I agree. Reading about a guy getting shot and killed while trying to score some heroin does not have the same "news impact" as a story about 20 school kids getting shot to death while trying to learn stuff at school.

Why do people want to kill other people? Why do people want to hurt other people?

Find the answer to those questions and solve the root issue, and you could leave loaded machine guns all over the place and no one would pick them up to harm others.

Obviously a fantasy, BUT!! We gotta do SOMETHING, right? So, what should we do?

Ban the ownership and use of personal vehicles.

Legalize drugs.

Stop taxing food.

Implement single-payer health care.

Change colleges from profit centers to education centers.

Other things.

Then look at firearms.

[Zzzptm]

And I do apologize, as I was off on my Aussie numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Looks more like they have one-fifth the number of guns per 100 people as the USA... and less than one-tenth of the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.

Norway has just under a third of the guns/100 people and a sixth of the gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.

Switzerland has a fourth of the guns per 100 and a third of gun-related deaths per 100,000. Their spike is in suicides, where the rate is 13 times that of the homicide rate. In the USA, the suicide rate is roughly double the homicide rate.

Canada: a third of the guns per 100, a fifth of the gun-related deaths.

UK: Only 2.8 guns per 100 people compared to USA's 101.05, so that is one thirty-sixth of the USA rate. Gun-related deaths is 0.23 per 100K to the USA's 10.54 per 100K, which is one fourty-fifth of the US rate. I am seeing a pattern here, and I do not yet see a point where we hit diminishing returns.

Sweden, France, Austria, New Zealand, Iceland, and Finland all have rates of guns per 100 people roughly equal to those of Canada and Norway, about 30 per 100, which is about a third of the USA's 101 per 100.

Their rates of gun-related violence per 100K people vary. Finland is highest at 3.25, overwhelmingly suicides, and Germany is very low at 1.01. Iceland looks like an outlier, possibly erroneous, at only 0.07. I'm not going to consider Iceland in this discussion, given what may be incomplete data about it.

The other states, however, definitely fit a pattern. You can't guarantee  a linear drop in gun-related deaths corresponding with reduction in guns per 100 people, but that's because some nations seem to be more effective than others, making those nations with only directly proportional reductions in gun-related deaths go to the bottom of the curve.

The USA has the highest rate of suicides per 100K people among all nations. It does not have the highest homicide rate among all nations, but is on par with Nicaragua. Going to nations normally considered to be industrialized and Western, the USA has the highest homicide rate: Canada is second place, with a homicide rate one-ninth that of the USA.

So, again, I see the pattern of fewer guns, fewer gun-related deaths, at least proportionally if not better.

They're not arming teachers. They simply have fewer guns. And if that's not the solution, then the only other major difference I see is a comprehensive welfare state package, including support for the poor and universal health care.

[Vyn]

They're not arming teachers. They simply have fewer guns. And if that's not the solution, then the only other major difference I see is a comprehensive welfare state package, including support for the poor and universal health care.

If there weren't any firearms, there would be zero firearm-related violence.

If there weren't any ammunition, there would be zero firearm-related violence.

How close to that goal can we, as human beings, actually get? Because the firearm barn door has been wide open for a very long time. Really, isn't that the goal though? If so, why not ban all firearms everywhere. Not just private ownership, but police and military as well. All of them. Make it illegal to manufacture firearms. Someone caught 3D printing a zip gun? Life in prison - no parole. Make the penalties so harsh that it takes those folks out of the society equation.

And I don't mean just assault-style weapons. I mean every tool that has been created to shoot a projectile. Shotguns, flintlocks, bolt action rifles, .38 specials, M72 anti-tank rockets, howitzers, cannons, pellet guns, etc. And while we're at it, let's include bows and their variants, blow guns, javelins, spears, slingshots, etc. Anything that can do harm from a distance.

Of course, all ammunition needs to go as well.

Who needs any of that shit?

It came to my attention that seventeen years ago a man armed with a kitchen knife killed eight students and teachers at a school in Japan. Injured thirteen others. That's quite a while ago, and doesn't happen a lot, but why take the chance?

How would you like it if it was someone you loved that was a victim of such an attack?

Ban edged tools. All of them. Kitchen knives, cavalry swords, pocket knives, etc.

ANYTHING less is an admission that there is an acceptable level of violence.

...

We, as the society of humanity on this planet, cannot even get rid of nuclear weapons. How in the hell are we going to realistically approach the topic at hand? By slow degrees? By manipulating the populace into accepting small concessions to firearms ownership that will eventually snowball into an avalanche of complete bans?

Personally, as long as there is someone else out there who thinks they need to have a gun, I'll keep mine. And when I'm a half-invalid 85 year old man and three guys break into my home to steal food because they're family is starving, and they're willing to kill me to get that food, I will hopefully still have the option of shooting them with a 3 inch magnum 00 shell out of my 12 gauge. Otherwise I guess I'll just get murdered.

[Zzzptm]

Side note: on threads like this, I'm pretty willing to say my piece and then let everyone else have their turn and then call it a day, maybe going for 3 or 4 rounds of posts, tops. More than that, and I'm risking my ability to hear others because of my desire to shout out and be heard.

[Vyn]

More than that, and I'm risking my ability to hear others because of my desire to shout out and be heard.

Could you type that louder please?

[Zzzptm]

More than that, and I'm risking my ability to hear others because of my desire to shout out and be heard.

Could you type that louder please?

MORE THAN THAT, AND I'M RISKING MY ABILITY TO HEAR OTHERS BECAUSE OF MY DESIRE TO SHOUT OUT AND BE HEARD.

How's that? 

[Sabbabbath]

Personally, as long as there is someone else out there who thinks they need to have a gun, I'll keep mine. And when I'm a half-invalid 85 year old man and three guys break into my home to steal food because they're family is starving, and they're willing to kill me to get that food, I will hopefully still have the option of shooting them with a 3 inch magnum 00 shell out of my 12 gauge. Otherwise I guess I'll just get murdered.

I understand your feelings very well. Though statistically, if I remember correctly what I read years ago, you are rather unlikely to get murdered or even injured in such a situation if you just stay in bed. Most people who steal things are not murderers. If they just need food, they will try to steal your food. If you point a gun at them, and they really need that food, and/or they start panicking because they feel you might shoot even if they back off, then the situation is in great danger of escalation. Last but not least, if guns are more or less banned, then
people who break into your house because their families need food are rather likely to be people who will not have a gun. If guns aren't banned, chances are that they do carry a gun simply to protect themselves (like you), given the pretty dangerous "job" that they pursue (breaking in and stealing), where chances are that house owners carry guns too. There's a pattern I guess. :-)

Again, personally I fully understand the sentiment that owning a gun is helpful for your "defense". In practice, however, it seems that free access to guns rather leads to unnecessary injuries and deaths. This has apparently been noticed in at least those countries that even have their regular uniformed police patrolling without a gun on them:
https://www.thebalance.com/in-what-countries-do-police-not-carry-guns-974879

If there weren't any firearms, there would be zero firearm-related violence.

If there weren't any ammunition, there would be zero firearm-related violence.

How close to that goal can we, as human beings, actually get? Because the firearm barn door has been wide open for a very long time. Really, isn't that the goal though? If so, why not ban all firearms everywhere. Not just private ownership, but police and military as well. All of them. Make it illegal to manufacture firearms. Someone caught 3D printing a zip gun? Life in prison - no parole. Make the penalties so harsh that it takes those folks out of the society equation.

And I don't mean just assault-style weapons. I mean every tool that has been created to shoot a projectile. Shotguns, flintlocks, bolt action rifles, .38 specials, M72 anti-tank rockets, howitzers, cannons, pellet guns, etc. And while we're at it, let's include bows and their variants, blow guns, javelins, spears, slingshots, etc. Anything that can do harm from a distance.

Of course, all ammunition needs to go as well.

Who needs any of that shit?

It came to my attention that seventeen years ago a man armed with a kitchen knife killed eight students and teachers at a school in Japan. Injured thirteen others. That's quite a while ago, and doesn't happen a lot, but why take the chance?

How would you like it if it was someone you loved that was a victim of such an attack?

Ban edged tools. All of them. Kitchen knives, cavalry swords, pocket knives, etc.

ANYTHING less is an admission that there is an acceptable level of violence.

...

We, as the society of humanity on this planet, cannot even get rid of nuclear weapons. How in the hell are we going to realistically approach the topic at hand? By slow degrees? By manipulating the populace into accepting small concessions to firearms ownership that will eventually snowball into an avalanche of complete bans?

I do agree with much what you're saying here. E.g. I do think that we (humanity) should ban all those tools that are mainly made for killing people. At the same time, you seem to insinuate that a ban of firearms should, at least at present, not be introduced, simply because it is very unlikely to stop all killing in the world. If I try to extract the basic point of your argument, it seems to suggest that we should either solve the problem completely, or otherwise not solve it at all. And here I have to disagree. I do agree that a ban of private firearms on its own will surely not completely solve the problem at hand: the fact that people are murdering other people. As several people here have mentioned already, there are surely other factors involved (incl. lack of social security and, importantly, the fact that military and police have, and use, a huge amount of extremely effective weapons). It's pretty clear that a ban of firearms should be accompanied by lots of other, and much deeper, societal changes (and personally I think demilitarisation is necessary). What I don't understand is your assumption that all those other changes would have to happen AT FIRST, before any firearm gets banned. Given the evidence that a ban of firearms does seem to (not completely solve, but) reduce murder rates significantly, there just doesn't seem to be any good reason to postpone it. Quite the contrary: every day of delay means more avoidable killings. Moreover, I think that the immediate availability of guns for killing is only one part of the problem that the mass-availability and presence of guns in society presents. The other part is what we can call the normalisation and normality of violence or, to put it stronger, the militarisation of society: If I don't have easy access to a gun, I am more likely to consider non-violent, or less violent, or at least less fatal, means of conflict management or conflict solution. E.g. I was bullied at school. Luckily I didn't have a gun (I dreamt of it though). I lived in a household where physical violence was mostly banned, so I had to look for other solutions. Their outcomes were far from satisfying, but I am still happy I didn't have a gun back then, and I had to learn other ways of managing conflict and endangerment, and I increasingly came to prefer such measures over violent ones, even in global conflicts. If guns are everywhere, and people are used to thinking: "if I feel threatened, I should use a gun to defend myself", it's much more likely that they will also agree if, for example, their government is telling them: "country X, or terrorist group Y, is threatening us, so we have to be quicker and throw a few bombs at somebody" or: "we as a nation state need to kill and torture people in order to prevent them from doing bad things" etc. . Obviously, again, banning guns would be only one of many steps required to fundamentally shift societies from violent to non-violent forms of conflict management - changing the cultural industry (movies etc.) would be another one, and how about introducing comprehensive (non-violent) anti-bullying, anti-harassment policies (including professional personell like social workers, psychologists etc.)? And the already mentioned social security: if nobody's starving, and if the humiliation of being excluded from access to common goods and care and services for masses of people is stopped, much less people will tend to break into your house or try to beat you up. And there's certainly much more that needs to be done. But again, I fail to see the point of saying "if we cannot solve the problem, or better all problems, at once and for all, then there's no use in trying to diminish them or control their amount either." Perfectionism can be helpful if it makes us do more good things; but it is counterproductive if it stops us from even starting and trying to change anything. We have to start somewhere. And while it is extremely unlikely that changing one thing will automatically change everything, it is pretty likely that changing some things will make it easier to change a few others too.

They're not arming teachers. They simply have fewer guns. And if that's not the solution, then the only other major difference I see is a comprehensive welfare state package, including support for the poor and universal health care.

Yep, that would quite certainly help to a significant extent.

[Billy Underdog]

Personally, as long as there is someone else out there who thinks they need to have a gun, I'll keep mine.

It's this way of thinking that prevents development on the issue.

But, yeah, this isn't an isolated problem, but is tied up with social inequality and structures as a whole, so there's alot that needs to be done. Your list of what also needs to be done is a very good one, but we need to start somewhere.
Good point about we're not even able to get rid of nuclear weapons, but (and i don't think this will come as a surprise to anyone) i think military in itself should be banned too, and ALL armed forces on foreign soil would become criminals. Which would make the U.S. the biggest warcriminals the last century and a half.
Erasing all borders and realize the we're one people in one world would ofcourse help matters ALOT, but yeah, i know we're not quite there yet...
But we need to start somewhere, and a full illegalization of the manufacturing and ownership of guns would be an obvious place to begin. The way i see it...

[Vyn]

I understand your feelings very well. Though statistically, if I remember correctly what I read years ago, you are rather unlikely to get murdered or even injured in such a situation if you just stay in bed. Most people who steal things are not murderers. If they just need food, they will try to steal your food. If you point a gun at them, and they really need that food, and/or they start panicking because they feel you might shoot even if they back off, then the situation is in great danger of escalation. Last but not least, if guns are more or less banned, then
people who break into your house because their families need food are rather likely to be people who will not have a gun. If guns aren't banned, chances are that they do carry a gun simply to protect themselves (like you), given the pretty dangerous "job" that they pursue (breaking in and stealing), where chances are that house owners carry guns too. There's a pattern I guess. :-)

Good points. I will say that statistics goes out the window (defenestration of statistics?) when individual concerns enter the picture. To wit, it is statistically very rare that any given person or persons will be a victim of a home invasion/attack/robbery where violence is on the table. Even more statistically rare is when that violence is picked up off the table and used to kill. Yet the consequences of being one of the statistically few are so great that the thought of it is abhorrent.

 At the same time, you seem to insinuate that a ban of firearms should, at least at present, not be introduced, simply because it is very unlikely to stop all killing in the world. If I try to extract the basic point of your argument, it seems to suggest that we should either solve the problem completely, or otherwise not solve it at all. And here I have to disagree.

Sort of. But that's my fault - I tend to interact online as if I'm having a discussion, and what sounds good in the telling often crumbles under analysis More to the point, I actually think the various measures I mentioned, along with firearms ban/control/whatever can happen in tandem.

The other part is what we can call the normalisation and normality of violence or, to put it stronger, the militarisation of society.

That's an interesting observation. An "Us versus Them" mentality is an excellent tool to help control groups of people. Continued fomenting of that way of thinking is clearly in <insert person/group/government here>'s best interest.

It's this way of thinking that prevents development on the issue.

I don't disagree But that does color my perspective.

Ultimately, I don't have answers or guidance for anyone, just my opinions. I think people in general are better than they give themselves credit for, I think there are some folks out there that are fundamentally bad and can't change, and specific to this topic I think that what is going on in the United States ("ban bump stocks", "ban assault weapons") is more for the people who are getting TV time than for protecting anyone.

[Billy Underdog]

Ultimately, I don't have answers or guidance for anyone, just my opinions.

And this is the place to share them, as well as hearing others...

Che Billy, huh?...    The Punk squatters i met in Barcelona called me Che, but i think that was more to do with my beard than any political views...

[Zzzptm]

Response to Sabbabbath: Side note about firearms and self-defense... it seems that Russians are quite partial to poisoning, they even had a recent movie about the subject. They discussed some very insidious ways to accomplish the tasks of poisoning, down to selecting a certain type of Christmas tree for a poison scheme to work...

Firearms are not proof against such forms of attack. Neither do they prevent drug overdoses, traffic accidents, or heart disease. But even so, if we allow the odd gun for self-defense and allow that collectors should store firing pins and other activating mechanisms away from their collection while on display or in storage, we can reduce - if not eliminate, and it wasn't my intention to eliminate - firearm prevalence in our population.

There's also a question of how much of the USA gun culture is based upon advertising messages designed to undermine normal human logic and reasoning. Think Orwell's 1984, but with Big Brother as a collective description for corporate entities. They are watching us and they are deliberately putting messages in our path to get us to think in ways that they want us to think.

[Sabbabbath]

i think military in itself should be banned too, and ALL armed forces on foreign soil would become criminals.

Why only on foreign soil? Just everywhere!

Which would make the U.S. the biggest warcriminals the last century and a half.

That's at least implicitly relativising the crimes of Nazi Germany. As much as I dislike military in general - World War II, started by Nazi Germany as their attempt to conquer half the world and eliminate all Jews and Roma from it, claimed the lives of about 27 Million citizens of the USSR alone; and it took the united forces of the Allies, most prominantly the US and USSR (and the decisions and determination of their governments and people) to defeat it. I am eternally grateful for that. (That's of course not a withdrawal from my anti-military stance - after all, without militarism in the first place their would hardly have been a Nazi regime.)

Erasing all borders and realize the we're one people in one world would ofcourse help matters ALOT, but yeah, i know we're not quite there yet...
But we need to start somewhere, and a full illegalization of the manufacturing and ownership of guns would be an obvious place to begin. The way i see it...

Fully agreed.

[Billy Underdog]

i think military in itself should be banned too, and ALL armed forces on foreign soil would become criminals.

Why only on foreign soil? Just everywhere!

Well, o.k. then...

I knew WW2 and Germany would pop up as an example when i wrote that about the U.S., but balancing the 5-6 yrs WW2 went on against the fact that the U.S. have more or less been in a continuous war since then, and since WW1 up till now more often than not having interfered in conflicts that's stricktly none of their business, i know which way my scale tip, regardless of death tolls.

[Sabbabbath]

Response to Sabbabbath: Side note about firearms and self-defense... it seems that Russians are quite partial to poisoning, they even had a recent movie about the subject. They discussed some very insidious ways to accomplish the tasks of poisoning, down to selecting a certain type of Christmas tree for a poison scheme to work...

Interesting. At least in Germany, it is pretty clear that a significant portion of murders is never exposed - most deaths never get an autopsy.

There's also a question of how much of the USA gun culture is based upon advertising messages designed to undermine normal human logic and reasoning. Think Orwell's 1984, but with Big Brother as a collective description for corporate entities. They are watching us and they are deliberately putting messages in our path to get us to think in ways that they want us to think.

Good point. More obviously, there's of course lots of people and corporations who make huge profits from weapons AND from the suffering they cause.